Global Strategies

Feds to develop online courses for high schools and community colleges

The federal government is about to give a big push to online education. Inside Higher Ed reports that the Department of Education is considering funding the development of online courses. They report (here):

Community colleges and high schools would receive federal funds to create free, online courses in a program that is in the final stages of being drafted by the Obama administration….

The funds envisioned for open courses -- $50 million a year -- may be small in comparison to the other ideas being discussed. But in proposing that the federal government pay for (and own) courses that would be free for all, as well as setting up a system to assess learning in those courses, and creating a "National Skills College" to coordinate these efforts, the plan could be significant far beyond its dollars.

The draft language suggests that the administration is throwing its weight behind the movement to put more courses online -- and offer them free -- and is also pushing that movement in the direction of community colleges….

According to the draft materials from the administration, the program would support the development of 20-25 "high quality" courses a year, with a mix of high school and community college courses. Initial preference would go to "career oriented" courses. The courses would be owned by the government and would be free for anyone to take. Courses would be selected competitively, through peer review, for support. And the courses would be "modular" or "object based" such that they would be "interoperable" and could be offered with a variety of technology platforms.

Under the plan, the government would also support a "National Skills College" at a community college that would, among other things, work to develop examinations that could be given at the end of the courses so that colleges, employers and students could judge how much learning had taken place. Course developers would be asked to consult with colleges on standards, so that the offerings could be created with the goal of having credit transferred to many institutions. And the National Skills College would work to promote programs that might mix the free courses with tuition courses so students could earn degrees at lower cost.

Thanks, Earl, For Vote Against Defense Budget

Representative Earl Blumenauer voted against passage of the FY 2010 Defense Department budget. Thanks, Earl. This was the right vote. See previous blog here.

The other members of the Oregon delegation voted for it.

There were thirteen recorded votes on amendments, mostly cuts. Rep. Walden voted for 11 of those amendments, Rep. Blumenauer for 6, Reps. DeFazio and Wu each voted for the same 2, and Schrader voted for one (the first, RC 661, proposed by Rep. Murtha).

The following are the short descriptions of the Defense Department budget amendments as show in the Library of Congress’ Thomas system (see here). The numbering is theirs. I’ve added after each amendment how the Oregon House delegation voted with data from the Washington Post’s congressional voting database (here).

391. H.AMDT.392 to H.R.3326 An amendment numbered 1 printed in Part A of House Report 111-233 to (1) provide that funds be made available for the Joint POW/MIA Accounting from within the funds available; (2) increase the amount available for transfer to the Fisher House and Suites; (3) redirect funds otherwise available for advance procurement of additional F-22 aircraft, and provide for spare and repair parts including engines for the F-22 and C-17, aircraft defensive systems, and aircraft weapon systems; (4) include a technical revision in the Defense Health Program and shift $26,000,000 from operation and maintenance funding to research, development, test and evaluation; (5) prohibit further outsourcing of utility functions at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point; (6) make additional funds available for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense; (7) prohibit conversion of government-owned ammunition plants; and (8) allow for funds to be transferred to the Coast Guard for operating expenses.
Sponsor: Rep Murtha, John P.  [PA-12] (introduced 7/30/2009)     Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Murtha amendment (A001) Agreed to by recorded vote: 269 - 165 (Roll no. 661).

---

 

393. H.AMDT.394 to H.R.3326 An amendment numbered 3 printed in Part A of House Report 111-233 to prohibit funding for the `Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense' account by $160,000,000.
Sponsor: Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] (introduced 7/30/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Flake amendment (A003) Failed by recorded vote: 48 - 373 (Roll no. 662).

Oregon Delegation: Yes, none; No, Blumenauer, DeFazio, Schrader, Walden, Wu

---

394. H.AMDT.395  to H.R.3326 An amendment numbered 4 printed in Part A of House Report 111-233 to require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the use of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) within the Department of Defense.
Sponsor: Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] (introduced 7/30/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Sessions amendment (A004) Agreed to by voice vote.

---

395. H.AMDT.396 to H.R.3326 An amendment numbered 5 printed in Part A of House Report 111-233 to strike $80 million for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program.
Sponsor: Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] (introduced 7/30/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Tierney amendment (A005) Failed by recorded vote: 124 - 307 (Roll no. 663).

Oregon Delegation: Yes, Blumenauer, DeFazio, Walden, Wu; No, Schrader

---

396. H.AMDT.397 to H.R.3326 An amendment numbered 1 printed in Part B of House Report 111-233 to prohibit funding for Enhanced Navy Shore Readiness Integration.
Sponsor: Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] (introduced 7/30/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Flake amendment (A006) Failed by recorded vote: 77 - 347, 10 Present (Roll no. 664).

Oregon Delegation: Yes, Blumenauer; No, DeFazio, Schrader, Walden, Wu

---

397. H.AMDT.398 to H.R.3326 An amendment numbered 258 printed in Part B of House Report 111-233 to prohibit funding for Reduced Manning Situation Awareness.
Sponsor: Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] (introduced 7/30/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Flake amendment (A007) Failed by recorded vote: 69 - 351, 10 Present (Roll no. 665).

Oregon Delegation: Yes, Blumenauer, Walden; No, DeFazio, Schrader, Wu

---

 

---

398. H.AMDT.399 to H.R.3326 An amendment numbered 315 printed in Part B of House Report 111-233 to prohibit funding for Body Armor Improved Ballistic Protection, Research and Development.
Sponsor: Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] (introduced 7/30/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Flake amendment (A008) Failed by voice vote.

 

---

399. H.AMDT.400 to H.R.3326 An amendment numbered 389 printed in Part B of House Report 111-233 to prohibit funding for a Gulf Range Mobile Instrumentation Capability.
Sponsor: Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] (introduced 7/30/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Flake amendment (A009) Failed by recorded vote: 76 - 350, 10 Present (Roll no. 666).

Oregon Delegation: Yes, Walden; No, Blumenauer, DeFazio, Schrader, Wu

---

400. H.AMDT.401 to H.R.3326 An amendment numbered 432 printed in Part B of House Report 111-233 to prohibit funding for an Ultra Low Profile EARS Gunshot Localization System.
Sponsor: Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] (introduced 7/30/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Flake amendment (A010) Failed by recorded vote: 82 - 341, 11 Present (Roll no. 667).

Oregon Delegation: Yes, Blumenauer, Walden; No, DeFazio, Schrader, Wu

---

401. H.AMDT.402 to H.R.3326 An amendment numbered 439 printed in Part B of House Report 111-233 to prohibit funding for AARGM Counter Air Defense Future Capabilities.
Sponsor: Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] (introduced 7/30/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Flake amendment (A011) Failed by recorded vote: 78 - 348, 10 Present (Roll no. 668).

Oregon Delegation: Yes, Blumenauer, Walden; No, DeFazio, Schrader, Wu

---

402. H.AMDT.403 to H.R.3326 An amendment numbered 449 printed in Part B of House Report 111-233 to prohibit funding for AN/SLQ-25D Integration.
Sponsor: Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] (introduced 7/30/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Flake amendment (A012) Failed by recorded vote: 83 - 338, 11 Present (Roll no. 669).

Oregon Delegation: Yes, Walden; No, Blumenauer, DeFazio, Schrader, Wu

---

403. H.AMDT.404 to H.R.3326 At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. XX. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be available for the following projects:***.
Sponsor: Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] (introduced 7/30/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Flake amendment (A013) Failed by recorded vote: 118 - 304, 11 Present (Roll no. 670).

Oregon Delegation: Yes, Walden; No, Blumenauer, DeFazio, Schrader, Wu

---

404. H.AMDT.405 to H.R.3326 An En Bloc amendment consisting of all the amendments printed in Part B of House Report 111-233.
Sponsor: Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] (introduced 7/30/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Flake amendments (A014) Failed by recorded vote: 82 - 342, 11 Present (Roll no. 671).

Oregon Delegation: Yes, Walden; No, Blumenauer, DeFazio, Schrader, Wu

---

405. H.AMDT.406 to H.R.3326 An amendment numbered 1 printed in Part C of House Report 111-233 to prohibit the $3 million in funding for the MGPTS Type III or Rapid Deployable Shelter project and reduce the overall cost of the bill by $3 million.
Sponsor: Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] (introduced 7/30/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Campbell amendment (A015) Failed by recorded vote: 81 - 353 (Roll no. 672).

Oregon Delegation: Yes, Walden; No, Blumenauer, DeFazio, Schrader, Wu

---

406. H.AMDT.407 to H.R.3326 An amendment numbered 8 printed in Part C of House Report 111-233 to strike $1,500,000 for the Model for Green Laboratories and Clean Rooms project and reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount.
Sponsor: Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] (introduced 7/30/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Campbell amendment (A016) Failed by recorded vote: 99 - 338 (Roll no. 673).

Oregon Delegation: Yes, Walden; No, Blumenauer, DeFazio, Schrader, Wu

Shame on the House Democrats: $6.9 billion in Military Pork

(Update 7/31/09: Tom Barnett commented on the same NY Times article, saying (here):

Obama should veto the defense bill. It is a horrible example of Dem. leadership in Congress: they simply aren't herding the cats well.

Pork barreling at its best: robbing the taxpayer AND the warfighter (who will see resources gobbled up by huge platforms he does not need).

Plenty of shame to go around... )

I thought we voted for change. Now the House Democrats give us more military pork. Shame on them. Especially those on the Appropriations Committee. Let’s see how the Oregon House delegation votes.

The Defense Department budget is coming up for a floor vote as the Washington Post story “House Seems To Be Set on Pork-Padded Defense Bill” by R. Jeffery Smith (here) reports:

The Democratic-controlled House is poised to give the Pentagon dozens of new ships, planes, helicopters and armored vehicles that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says the military does not need to fund next year, acting in many cases in response to defense industry pressures and campaign contributions under an approach he has decried as "business as usual" and vowed to help end.

The unwanted equipment in a military spending bill expected to come to a vote on the House floor Thursday or Friday has a price tag of at least $6.9 billion….

….House appropriators want to buy, for example, extra C-17 transport planes and F-18 jets, as well as four extra military jets used by lawmakers and Pentagon VIPs. And they want to keep alive a troubled missile-defense interceptor program and continue the troubled VH-71 presidential helicopter program…..

…..Roughly $2.75 billion of the extra funds -- all of which were unanimously approved in an 18-minute markup Monday by the House Appropriations Committee -- would finance "earmarks," or projects demanded by individual lawmakers that the Pentagon did not request. About half of that amount reflects spending requested by private firms, including 95 companies or related political action committees that donated a total of $789,190 in the past 2 1/2 years to members of the appropriations subcommittee on defense, according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit watchdog group.

Just reallocating the noted $2.75 billion in defense earmarks to high school and college study abroad programs could fund 275,000 high school and college students studying abroad for one year at $10,000 each. We need our next generations skilled in foreign languages and knowledgeable of foreign customs and markets more than those wasted earmarks. It would boost our national security and economic development.

Using Our Lives to Change History

I have just finished reading Joshua Cooper Ramo’s book “The Age of the Unthinkable: Why the New World Disorder Constantly Surprises Us and What We Can do About It.” I think my Mandarin development and Go Global High School Study Abroad Program proposals are the type of innovative, even “revolutionary,” responses to today’s world that he is looking for. Both proposals are breaks with the past, but they also create a whole new generation with fresh eyes on what’s happening in the world.

The author, Joshua Cooper Ramo, is a managing director of Kissinger Associates, “one of the world’s leading geostrategic advisory firms.” He has a website here with a very short video intro to the book. The video ends with a statement about using our individual lives to change history.

Two quotes from his book and then a youtube video to give the flavor of his thinking.

On page 8:

 We are now at the start of what may become the most dramatic change in the international order in several centuries, the biggest shift since European nations were first shuffled into a sovereign order by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. This change is irresistible. It is infectious. It will spread to every corner of our lives, to our businesses, our bank accounts, our hopes, and our health. What we face isn’t one single shift or revolution, like the end of World War II or the collapse of the Soviet Union or a financial crisis, so much as an avalanche of ceaseless change. It is change that will render institutions that look unshakable weak and unstable; it will elevate movements that look weak into position of great power. As much as we might wish it, our world is bit becoming more stable or easier to comprehend. We are entering, in short, a revolutionary age. And we are doing so with ideas, leaders, and institutions that are better suited for a world now several centuries behind us. On the one hand         , this revolution is creating unprecedented disruption and dislocation. But it is also creating new fortunes, new power, fresh hope, and a new global order. Revolutions, after all, don’t produce only losers. They also - and this is the heart of the story I want to tell here - produce a whole new cast of historical champions…..

Three pages later on page 11:

The main argument of the book is not particularly complicated: it is that in a revolutionary era of surprise and innovation, you need to think and act like a revolutionary. (People at revolutions who don’t act that way have a particular name: victims.)

"Entrepreneurship in in Zhejiang Province"

Professsor Jun Jin of  Zhejiang University spoke on 7/24/09 at PSU’s School of Business on “Entrepreneurship in in Zhejiang Province.” (see here for info on province)

Note, before 1980, private or individual businesses were illegal in China. Everything was state run. So, Professor Jin spoke on the development of private enterprises in Zhejiang Province since 1980. Zhejiang Province is located just south of Shanghai on the coast. She presented two models: (1) the Wenzhou model of private enterprises in a free market, and (2) the Yimu model with a larger role for government. Both are cities in Zhejiang. Wenzhou is on the coast. Yumi is inland in the mountains.

Throughout Zhejiang there are transportation and language dialect problems. Much of the province is mountainous. While the Wenzhou dialect, for example, is very difficult, like a foreign language, for Mandarin speakers.

According to Professor Jin, people from Zhejiang are natural business people, found in businesses all over China and the world. They like being “bosses,” have entrepreneurship “in their blood,” and find it easy to learn.

Chinese in Afghanistan: “They build and we guard.”

Part of US strategy in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, examples of failed states we’re trying to turn around, is to provide security so businesses and investments develop. So it is good, and not surprising, that China’s businesses and investors are attracted. We need China to help develop these countries.

But there is a larger, unanswered set of strategic issues here. Are we in some global competition with China such that the US should be concerned about China’s growing business influences in strategic regions? (perhaps) Is it in our national interest to continue a system where China loans us the money for our military efforts in places like Iraq and Afghanistan (so that we pay the costs in dollars and blood), while they invest and do business? (yes and no) Or should the US encourage China to also pay the costs, both in blood (troops) and Chinese currency, of the military efforts to stabilize and nation-build failed states? (yes) But, then, would we need to worry about their troops being in places like Iraq and Afghanistan?(perhaps, but we need the troops and the funding)

Chinese businesses are coming to Afghanistan and Iraq. A Wall Street Journal article “U.S. and China Work Together to Rebuild Afghanistan” by Michael M. Phillips and Shai Oster reports (here):

The U.S. and China have formed an uneasy alliance in the effort to build stability in Afghanistan.

In a valley long known as a Taliban haven, American troops live alongside Chinese road workers. The troops put their lives on the line protecting the workers. The workers put their lives on the line building a road the U.S. military desperately wants completed.

"Asphalt is ammunition," says Lt. Col. Kimo Gallahue, commander of the 2nd Battalion of the 87th Infantry Regiment, quoting a phrase popular in the military. "Roads are one of the biggest needs in this province."

The Chinese are in Afghanistan mostly to make deals. "This is business -- we can work in Afghanistan or any other country," says Wang Shangkuei, an engineer for China Railway Shisiju Group Corp., a state-owned company with a $50 million contract funded by Italian aid money to grade and pave 33 miles of two-lane road past Momaki village in Wardak province. But, he says, "if there's fighting, we can't do the work."

What's happening in Afghanistan is an extreme example of the way the U.S. and China must work with each other around the globe. China needs the U.S. to protect global trade routes vital to Beijing's export-oriented economy. The U.S. needs China's investment to boost unsteady, but strategically important, economies. Chinese companies were among some of the earliest to re-enter Iraq….

International strategist Tom Barnett commented (here):

Interesting stuff, being the second article I've seen on such cooperation (the other involving a copper mine), but the basic M.O. is the same: they build and we guard.

So in a Taliban-infested valley, we have Chinese road workers living alongside U.S. troops. This is described as an "uneasy alliance." Why, I don't know, since both sides put their lives on the line, as the piece notes ("Asphalt is ammunition," says one U.S. officer; the phrase has become a bit of a mantra in Afghanistan)…..

Getting the Afghan Poppy Policy Right

I’ve had my doubts about US policies in Afghanistan, and still do. But one aspect of the fight there is improving. The US is redirecting its anti-heroin/poppies efforts. I had earlier commented (here):

We cannot both “win” in Afghanistan and eradicate the poppy/opium trade there. That would be expecting too much. Too much of the economy is dependent upon the opium trade. Any political process to create a stronger, better central government will have to face that fact.

In yet another post, I quoted John Robb on the futility of then US drug policies in Afghanistan (here):

…the advocated approach appears to be heavy handed and will focus on crop eradication and firefights with the Taliban….  The likely outcome is a much hotter insurgency in Afghanistan, as the number of fighters swell due to newly impoverished farmers, and a spread of the violence to previously pacified areas as groups move to find new areas to grow….

Now a more workable approach is emerging. As Thom Shanker and Elisabeth Bumiller report in their NY Times article “U.S. Shifts Afghan Narcotics Strategy” (here):

The American-led mission in Afghanistan is all but abandoning efforts to destroy the poppy crops that provide the largest source of income to the insurgency, and instead will take significant steps to wean local farmers off the drug trade — including one proposal to pay them to grow nothing.

The strategy will shift from wiping out opium poppy crops, which senior officials acknowledged had served only to turn poor farmers into enemies of the central government in Kabul. New operations are already being mounted to attack not the crops, but the drug runners and the drug lords aligned with the insurgency.

Ultimately, farmers must be persuaded to plant other crops, including wheat for domestic consumption and pomegranates and flowers for export, officials said.

Michael G. Vickers, the Pentagon’s top civilian official for counter-insurgency strategy, said Thursday that the specifics of the new antidrug effort still needed to be worked out, but that a decision had been reached on the new focus.

“We are reorienting our counternarcotics strategy rather significantly for Afghanistan to put much less emphasis on eradication and to shift the weight of our effort to interdiction,” Mr. Vickers said.

The new strategy will “particularly focus on going after those targets where there is a strong nexus between the insurgency and the narcotics trade, to deny resources to the Taliban,” he told a group of reporters.

Mr. Vickers, who was the principal C.I.A. strategist for arming anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the mid-1980s, also predicated that there would be “more focus on other agricultural initiatives” in the coming year.

One short-term solution being urged by senior Defense Department and military officials would be to pay Afghan farmers not to plant poppies in the next growing season.

“To the degree we don’t do that, we are at risk for a continuing of both poppy growth as well as sustaining the insurgency, since profits go to the Taliban,” a senior military official told a small group of reporters earlier this week…..

This new policy may have the finesse to work. At least it should not be making us more enemies.

Losing Afghanistan for lack of Pashto fluent US soldiers and officials - Part II

I wrote back in April (here):

The United States is at war in Afghanistan. It is not a war we can win without nation building. We cannot nation build without soldiers and civilians fluent in Pashto. In the US, we just are not producing Pashto fluent soldiers or civilians.

Now, AP reporter Jason Straziuso writes (here)

U.S. troops say companies that recruit military translators are sending linguists to southern Afghanistan who are unprepared to serve in combat, even as hundreds more are needed to support the growing number of troops.

Some translators are in their 60s and 70s and in poor physical condition -- and some don't even speak the right language.

"I've met guys off the planes and have immediately sent them back because they weren't in the proper physical shape," said Gunnery Sgt. James Spangler, who is in charge of linguists at Camp Leatherneck, the largest U.S. base in Helmand province.

"They were too old. They couldn't breathe. They complained about heart problems," he said. "We almost made a joke of it. We're almost receiving people on oxygen tanks and colostomy bags; it's almost getting to that point."

And that's not the worst of it.

Troops say low-skilled and disgruntled translators are putting U.S. forces at risk.

"Intelligence can save Marines' lives and give us the advantage on the battlefield," said Cpl. William Woodall, 26, of Dallas, who works closely with translators. "Instead of looking for quality, the companies are just pushing bodies out here, and once they're out the door, it's not their problem anymore."

Spangler, 36, of Lecanto, Fla., emphasized that translators need to be physically fit.

"When we have convoys that are out days or weeks at a time and you have someone that's 60 or 70 years old, I have to put the directive in: I need someone younger, can get out of a vehicle quickly, can run for short periods if needed, anything that's required for combat operations with Marines," Spangler said.

The company that recruits most U.S. citizen translators, Columbus, Ohio-based Mission Essential Personnel, says it's difficult to meet the increased demand for linguists to aid the 15,000 U.S. forces being sent to southern, Pashto-speaking provinces this year as part of President Barack Obama's increased focus on Afghanistan. Only 7,700 Pashto speakers live in the U.S., according to the 2000 census.

Mission Essential's senior vice president, Marc Peltier, told The Associated Press that the linguists the company deploys to Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries meet government standards. The military sets no age or weight requirements, he said.

I have not seen any changes since my April post. Maybe the US military is ramping up its language schools. Maybe not. I’ve not seen a national program to give high school students opportunities to learn Pashto. The Oregon legislature did nothing in their 2009 session. What the AP article describes is desperation. More needs to be done!

"Classroom of the Future?"

I’ve taken an interest in the impact of the digital revolution on education and in online education. I blogged the topic recently after reading the book “Liberating Learning” (here) and before that in reaction to the US Department of Education reports that online instruction is more effective that face to face instruction (here). There are also several more earlier blog posts.

One of the educational leaders pushing various forms of online learning is NY Chancellor Joel Klein. The NY Times reporter Jennifer Medina reports on one of his efforts in her article “Laptop? Check. Student Playlist? Check. Classroom of the Future? Check.” (here)

This could be the school of the future, according to the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, who visited Middle School 131 in Chinatown on Tuesday to promote a pilot program, the School of One.

The program, conducted in a converted library, consists mainly of students working individually or in small groups on laptop computers to complete math lessons in the form of quizzes, games and worksheets. Each student must take a quiz at the end of each day; the results are fed into a computer program to determine whether they will move on to a new topic the next day.

Mr. Klein said the program would allow learning in a way that no traditional classroom can, because it tailors each lesson to a student’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as the child’s interests.

“The model we are using throughout the United States in kindergarten-to-12th-grade education is fundamentally the same as it was 100 years ago,” Mr. Klein said.

Now, he added, “we’re looking in a way that I don’t think anyone has looked at — at the way children learn, pacing them at their own pace, all of it tied to the mastery of content and skill and achievement.”

Once the students arrive at school, they receive their individual playlists identifying the lessons they have to complete for the day, which could involve virtual tutoring online, computer worksheets or small-group lessons with a classroom teacher. Their schedules are also displayed on large television screens, akin to flight schedule displays in airports.

In a room a few steps away, several administrators spend their day looking over more than a dozen computer screens displaying the students’ playlists, how quickly those students are progressing through their tasks and what the students are looking at on their own screens.

The program cost roughly $1 million to develop for the summer, with two-thirds of the money coming from private donations. In a grant proposal aimed at donors, administrators predict that the cost will grow to $9.1 million in 2010 and $13.3 million in 2012, when the program is expected to be used in 20 schools.

Joel Rose, who oversees human resources for the Department of Education said the cost of running schools using this model would be about the same as that of operating traditional schools….

 

Ya! Wyden, Merkley voted to cut F-22 program

Thank you, Senators Wyden and Merkley for voting to eliminate $1.75 billion in financing for seven more F-22 jet fighters from the military authorization bill. It’s a small, but very important, step in reprioritizing the defense budget and the balance between defense and other components of the budget. More defense cuts are needed.

As the NY Times reported (here):

The 58-to-40 vote clearly gives the Obama administration more leeway to overhaul military spending.

The F-22, the world’s most advanced fighter, has been a flashpoint in a battle over the administration’s push to shift more of the Pentagon’s resources away from conventional warfare projects, like the F-22, to provide more money for fighting insurgencies.

The Oregonian reported Wyden’s comments (here):

Wyden said the money could be used for better and more important purposes.

"This to me is the ultimate example of government waste. You've got Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who was appointed by George Bush ... saying he doesn't need these planes,'' he said in an interview after the vote.

"When I meet with the Guard and our folks, they don't talk about this. They talk about body armor, they talk about medical care. They don't talk about more F-22s. We already have 187 of them,'' he said.

Unfortunately, the military industrial complex is still alive and well. A large number of Democratic senators (15) voted against cutting F-22 funding. Presumably, many of them were more motivated by the jobs in their states related to the program, than by the strategic importance of the F-22. But the F-22 should not be a jobs program.

Both Washington senators (Murray, Cantwell) and both California senators (Feinstein, Boxer) voted against cutting F-22 funding. Other Democratic senator voting no were Akaka (Hawaii), Baucus (Montana), Begich (Alaska), Bingaman (New Mexico), Byrd (West Virginia), Dodd (Connecticut), Inouye (Hawaii), Lieberman (Connecticut), Shaheen (New Hampshire), Tester (Montana), and Udall (New Mexico). Shame on them!