U.S. Math & Science Students Need Our Help

The U.S. ranks very low in math and science compared to other nations -- 35th in Math and 29th in Science. That's embarrassingly low, a threat to the future of our nation's economy, and most importantly it's a problem we can solve. So why are we so far behind?

While digging through TIMMS results can be thought provoking, you must, must, must watch this video which provides a sobering comparison between US student attitudes towards math and science with those of their counterparts from some of the top ranked countries. So click here if you can spare 3 minutes -- it's worth it! The video was produced as part of the Connect A Million Minds (CAMM) campaign, "Time Warner Cable’s philanthropic commitment to connect youth to ideas, people and opportunities that will inspire them to become the problem solvers of tomorrow."

You can see more CAMM videos here.  For more information, look here, here, here and here.

[Hat tip to DNLee]

Why Not Vote Republican?

While some of those claims need fact checking, there are excellent lines in there! Feel free to quote any favorites in the comments below.

50 Atheist/Agnostic Billboards Go Up In Atlanta, GA

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has really outdone themselves this time: 50 billboards!?

That first one has some local significance...

Atlantans can look out for a variety of small, colorful billboards around town, including one with particular meaning for FFRF and for Atlanta. It features actress Butterfly McQueen, who lived in Atlanta at the end of her life, and showcases her statement to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution made during the 50th anniversary year of the release of the movie, “Gone with the Wind,” in which she played the role of “Prissy.” McQueen, who rebelled her entire life against religion as she rebelled against stereotyped acting roles, said: “As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion.”

McQueen was a Lifetime Member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and made an appearance at FFRF’s 1989 national convention in Atlanta, where she was named FFRF’s premiere Freethought Heroine. She died in a tragic kitchen fire in 1995.

You can find more details (and more billboards) here and here.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Halted... AGAIN

If you haven't heard, there's plenty in the news here, here and here.  I recommend reading judge Royce C. Lamberth's 15 page ruling for yourself, as it clarifies much of what the media are glossing over at the moment.

Below are my thoughts on the ruling.  I take issue with some of the judges arguments, and not because I have zero legal expertise - I think it's because he's gotten some things wrong.  I also think the judge didn't live up to his own standards, which I'll discuss in part two of this post which you can find here.

Part I: Does "Embryonic Stem Cell Research = Killing Embryos"?

The crucial legal language in this case is known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (also, see here). It's notable for (1) limiting how federal dollars are spent on embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, and (2) it includes an attempt at defining "human embryo." The definition seems overly broad in my opinion (e.g. if I culture some of my skin cells, they seem to fit this definition), but take a look and decide for yourself.

The language can be seen in H.R. 3010 (see pg 48 in this PDF) section 509(a)(2) which reads...

Bishop Goes After Gay Marriage on CNN

There's a somewhat bigoted opinion piece up on CNN.com, by Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. entitled Same-sex marriage will hurt families, society.  In it, he tries to justify this claim but - not surprisingly - he fails miserably.  While I have not doubts that the Bishop is operating under good intentions, I can't help but think he might be doing little more here than rationalizing his disapproval of same-sex couples under the false impression that he's looking out for the public good.  Below is my take on his arguments.

Looks like Boyd Haley is pulling OSR#1 following FDA warnings

Antonio Perez, Chicago Tribune

You may recall a post or two about on this blog about an industrial chelator turned dietary supplement called OSR#1.  It has been used by some to treat autism in children, despite a lack of evidence that it would be safe or effective to do so.  Well after the FDA stepped in recently, CTI Science Inc. appears to be pulling the product until further notice.

Here's an update from Orac at Respectful Insolence which includes part of what appears to be an email from CTI Science president Boyd Haley.  According to that email:

...CTI Science has voluntarily agreed to remove OSR#1® from the market effective Thursday, 29 July 2010.

If you were wondering why they're going to wait until July 29, Orac offers up an answer:

My question is this: Why don't Haley and CTI Science simply shut down production and sales now? Why sell OSR#1 for another week? My guess is that the answer is that Haley wants to milk his cash cow for one more week. All the quacks who "prescribe" or recommend OSR#1 to their clients will rush out to buy a boatload of the stuff before Haley cuts off the supply. It's pure profit, because the stuff costs only $0.25 per gram to synthesize. I don't know what Haley sells OSR#1 for wholesale, but Kathleen Seidel points out that certain retailers sell it for $60 to $105 for 30-100 mg capsules of OSR#1. That's right: $20 to $35 a gram--seriously righteous bucks, a markup of up to 14,000%. Given that the Univesity of Kentucky bore the costs of development, and the packaging and filler can't cost all that much...

Sam Harris on Morality, Science and Religion

Update: I've appended to this post some commentary from philosopher and (ex?)scientist Massimo Pigliucci on Harris' assertions about science and morality. Follow the link below for more from Pigliucci and a link to a response from Harris. 

It's uncommon to see overt criticisms of religion (at least Christianity) in the mainstream media, so I did a bit of a double-take when I saw this CNN video piece entitled "Philosopher: Why we should ditch religion."

That philosopher is Sam Harris and if you have a few minutes to spare, you should check out the CNN video and his recent TED talk on science and morality (both embedded below).

Here's the video of his recent TED talk, entitled "Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions."

Update:

American Evangelical Christians Fomenting Hatred Abroad?

Some stunningly bad arguments used to rationalize legislation (further) criminalizing homosexuality in Uganda.

All that bad logic aside, I find pastor Scott Lively's actions repulsive and negligent. Should he be blamed for fueling the fires of hate in Uganda?  I think so, and here's why.

Suppose I entered a crowded theater with one small exit, first yelling "Fire! The building is burning! We're all going to die!" but then saying calmly "But, please, remain seated and stay calm" once the crowd began to panic.  If someone was then trampled to death - should I be held accountable for having helped rouse the mob? I think so.

Scott Lively's relatively benign suggestions about what to do with homosexuals in no way absolves him of fueling the hatred of homosexuals in Uganda.

Obama's critics on the speech to students

With commentary on Obama's speech starting to pop up in various news sources, so to are the wacky statements made by some of the critics. For example, from this CNN piece:

"The president's speeches tend to be [about] what's wrong with the country and what can we do to fix it," said Bill Hogsett, a parent from Dallas, Texas.


"I believe this is the greatest country on Earth, and I try to teach that to my children. ... I don't want them hearing that there's a fundamental flaw with the country and the kids need to go forward to fix it."

Yes, that's right - apparently acknowledging problems and trying to fix them is very bad.  Even worse if you expect the next generation to deal with those problems! Oh, the horror!

So are these acknowledgments somehow unpatriotic? Would recognizing a "fundamental flaw" invalidate a belief that this "is the greatest country on Earth"?  Heck no. Our founding fathers recognized that no country - even this one - is not immune from having flaws.  That's why we have the ability to amend our constitution - so that those flaws can be corrected.

In any case, I hope you read Obama's speech - it's arguably the best speech made by a president specifically to students and will hopefully have some impact on the students that were fortunate enough to have heard it.

Where can you watch Obama's Speech to Students?

Right here! The live presentation should be shown below on Tuesday September 8th, 12:00pm (EDT). [Edit: a copy of the speech has replaced the White House live feed.]

More information at the White House media resources page and blog.

---

Update: Is Obama going to politicize the speech?

Will he try and "indoctrinate" the youth of America? Will the speech be full of political advertising? Is this address really unprecedented? We have to just wait and see on the first two questions - but to help us judge his speech and answer them, we have some historical precedent to consider.

To establish this benchmark for Obama's speech tomorrow, lets take a look at Reagan's 1988 speech to students, and Bush senior's speech in 1991 and see how they did on keeping politics, policy and personal beliefs out of their speeches:


Reagan was relatively strong in pushing religion on the students, and was pretty sloppy with his history:

[Transcribed from above]... For America to gain greatest benefit from all the exciting new technologies that lie ahead, we will also need to reaffirm our traditional moral values, because these values are the foundation on which everything we do is built. So yes, I would encourage you to study the math and science that are the basis of the new techologies, but in a world of change you also need to pay attention to the moral and spiritual values that will stay with you unchanged throughout a long lifetime.


And again, I would say that the most important thing you can do is to ground yourself in the ideas and values of the American Revolution, and that is a vision that goes beyond economics and politics. It's also a moral vision, grounded in the reverence and faith of those who believed that with God's help, they could create a free and democratic nation. They designed a system of limited government that - in John Adam's words - was suited only to a religious people, such as ours. Our founding fathers were the descendants of the pilgrims. Men and women who came to America seeking freedom of worship, who prospered here and offered a prayer of thanksgiving - something we've continued to do each year...

Bush Sr. seems to have been a little bit less questionable in his speech, though it still was thick with his policy.

Seeing these two speeches, there is something to be said for keeping the president in check when he speaks in the classroom. How will Obama do? I myself hope to see Obama leave out culture, faith, and national policy (unlike Reagan and Bush) - and instead I hope he talks to (not at) the students about the personal and social importance of working hard to get a good education, providing them with some solid advice and encouragement to do their best to obtain that education.

---

Final Update

The text of the speech is available here.

Ever used a homeopathic remedy?

Surprisingly, you may have - and not even known it.

Some over the counter pills and sprays are homeopathic preparations (that is, some focal ingredient that has been diluted down to only a few molecules - or likely none at all), combined with other filler materials and usually some "vitamins or minerals". While labeled as homeopathic, as required by law, some folks simply overlook these details or fail to grasp what "homeopathic" really means.

I myself used one once - a free sample of Zicam I received as part of a complementary box of toiletries or some sort of product sampler I picked up somewhere (it was a while ago). So why did I try it despite my strong suspicion that it would have no impact on my symptoms? Simple - it's homeopathic! There's nothing in it but some pill-fill and vitamins! What's the harm!?

Well, as it turns out that question sometimes has some unexpected answers. There's actually a site called "What's the Harm?" that is chock full of the dangers of complementary and alternative medicines like homeopathic remedies, though it should be mentioned that anecdotal evidence is not nearly as compelling as the kind of evidence we can get from large well controlled studies or decent statistics based on reliable public health data.

Today, the FDA added more to the list: Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel, Gel Swabs, and Kids Size Swabs. According to reports, Zicam users may suffer anosmia - the inability to percieve smells. A quick google seach of "Zicam FDA" turns up plenty of news briefs on the matter.

So aren't these things regulated by the FDA?? Well, actually, they're hardly regulated like real drugs other remedies.

[T]he FDA treats homeopathic remedies very differently from conventional medicines. Homeopathic products do not need FDA approval before sale; they do have to be proven safe per the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, and they do not have to prove efficacy. Homeopathic remedies do not have to be labeled with an expiration date, and they do not have to undergo finished product testing to verify contents and strength.

Hmmm...

To be fair, the FDA doesn't have any smoking guns - just lots of suggestive anecdotal evidence. Right? Well, there's more to it than that. You see, unlike the shaky foundation of homeopathy, we do have some good science-based understanding of what may be going on here: Too much zinc exposure can reportedly damage nerve function in the nose.

For other details, the FDA press release can be found here, with more details here. For the another perspective, here's what the company website has to say about the matter:

Message to Consumers
June 16, 2009

Matrixx Initiatives confirms that it has received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about three of its 19 Zicam products, specifically Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel, Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs and Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs, Kids Size, based on allegations that their use could cause a temporary or permanent loss of smell, known as anosmia. Zicam Cold Remedy oral products were not included in the letter.

Matrixx Initiatives' primary concern is consumer saftey. Based on the FDA's action, the company has suspended shipments of these products and will reimburse any customer desiring a refund.

However, the company believes the cumulative body of independent scientific and medical evidence supports both the safety and efficacy of Zicam intranasal cold remedy products. Matrixx Initiatives stands behind the science of its products and its belief that there is no causal link between its intranasal gel products and anosmia. For this reason, Matrixx Initiatives believes that the FDA action is unwarranted and will seek a meeting with the FDA to review the company's product safety data.

Chris Matthew's Fails at Science vs. Intelligent Design Creationism

Following up on his nice performance putting Mike Pence (R-IN) on the spot regarding science and evolution, Chris Matthews did a horrible job by letting Tom Tancredo talk way too long about intelligent design as though it were a legitimate science - without even calling him on it! To add to his failure, he then went on to fumble providing his viewers with the distinction between intelligent design creationism and real science.

First, for a nice look at why Tancredo is so demonstrably off his rocker (including some references if you would like to dig a little deeper) check out the blog post "Chris Matthews Lets Creationst Tom Tancredo Off The Hook".

I should stop there, but I have to comment on one of the later bits of the interview. At one point, Chris asks what should be an easy question to answer:

Matthews: "What's the difference between saying you believe in evolution but you believe God's behind it? What's the difference between that and intelligent design?"

Not surprisingly, the science-illiterate politician doesn't know (or at least doesn't give) anything close to a reasonable answer...

Tancredo: "I don't think there is really much at all..."

Huh!?

So is there a difference? In short, YES! What is that difference? Well, to answer that as well as Chris's question, we have to roll up our sleeves a bit. He's unfortunately asked a poorly phrased question and as such, "the devil is in the details."

First, how one interprets the phrase "God's behind it" is a crucial matter here. Most people take this one of two ways (and we could reasonably assume that Chris Mathew's only had one of these interpretations in mind when he uttered the question): (1) God "got the ball rolling" early on in the history of our universe then let it run according to natural processes (like evolution by natural selection) without divine intervention; or (2) that God DOES intervene (and continues to today), having largely directed the progression of events so that they have resulted in outcomes today that are substantially different than what natural processes alone would have produced.
For example, some of our Diest founding fathers held beliefs in line with (1) while many religious fundamentalists tend to believe (2).

Cleraly, there could be a third and fourth interpretation, but I think these two cover the bulk of it, so lets press on.

The difference between either of these two options and intelligent design creationism can now be made more clear: for example, believing (1) means that you go to the doctor for scientifically based medical treatment instead of praying really hard that God will violate the natural progression of your ailment and cure you. By and large, (1) means that any sort of divine intervention in the natural world would be quite rare (or completely absent), with nothing supernatural ever occurring enough to be widely noticed.

On the other hand (2) is part of the foundation of intelligent design, which would make Matthew's question pretty much pointless, so presumably he was thinking of (1) when he asked the question (or again, some other third alternative).

My point? The answer is clear, and Chris botched providing it to his viewers. Science is about understanding the way natural processes shape the world we live in and impact our day-to-day lives. Intelligent design is a pseudo-science established to justify religious beliefs that run contrary to scientific knowledge and is founded on the belief that supernatural forces have shaped our world in a manner inconsistent what what natural processes could have produced on their own.

Why does any of this matter? These two interpretations of his question are hugely different and have big implications for the the claims of intelligent design creationists as well as the public understanding of what science is and is not.

In fact, those implications for intelligent design actually work against creationists, and make religious followers look incompetent - which is clearly not true. If you've ever seen someone get bit by the evidence, it can be a little painful to watch!

So how does glossing over this difference come back to bite creationists? Remember, intelligent design is an attempt to rationalize a preexisting belief that some supernatural creator (always God, or whatever deity the intelligent design proponent happens to worship).

When Tancredo and others start to ignore evidence (e.g. by claiming there aren't many transitional fossils) and make bad arguments in an attempt to rationalize their beliefs, they often set themselves up to be shown for what they are - someone rationalizing their unfounded beliefs and not someone "following the evidence." The moment you see who is really following the evidence (and who isn't) is when they're presented with new evidence, especially if its the very evidence they themselves said undermine their assertions and support the alternatives.

In this moment of truth, the staunch adherents end up in a position where, in order to maintain their beliefs in light of this contradictory evidence, they have to do some major backsliding and hand waving to get out of the hole they've dug themselves into.

In the end, Tancredo sums up his lack of understanding quite well. Despite the clear and much discussed differences between intelligent design creationism and real science, he wraps up with this mind numbingly oblivious remark,

I don't think there's a heck of a lot of argument [disagreement?] here...

Nice to see you're so well informed on the matter, Mr. Congressman.

PS: By the way, I'm of course aware that an alternative to his simply being uninformed about what he's saying is that he could very well be knowingly lying for any number of reasons. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt until I have reason to think otherwise!

GOP's Mike Pence (IN) on Evolution, Science and Politics

This one speaks for itself.




I'll try and post links to commentary in the comments below this post.

More from the Texas Board of Education

The State Board of Education Chair, Don McLeroy (who believes in intelligent design / creationism and takes issue with evolutionary theory) provides us a nice glimpse into what scientists and educators are up against in Texas: passionate adherence to amazingly incorrect ideas about evolution. The Texas Freedom Network has nice coverage and commentary from the board meetings, including this clip of McLeroy showing his lack of scientific understanding:



If you don't already recognize the numerous errors in his arguments in the clip, I'd encourage you to look into some of his claims. Corrections to his flawed arguments can probably be found on the web with minimal effort (e.g. using google or Wikipedia).

Links:

More from the Texas Freedom Network.

More on McLeroy's actions as part of the state board of education.

"McLeroy, Confused Again" Texas Citizens for Science, March 14 2009.

"McLeroy Shows His Ignorance of Evolution" ScienceBlogs, Ed Brayton.

Attack on evolution continues in Texas

Today, all eyes were on Texas where anti-evolution proponents nearly succeeded in their efforts to attack the teaching of scientific theories (namely, evolution) in public classrooms. Fortunately, the outcome went in favor of the pro-science and pro-education camp (though it was a very narrow win).

I highly recommend reading through some of the actual panel discussions, for example some highlights can be found on the blog Thoughts from Kansas, by Joshua Rosenau at Scienceblogs.com.

In a vote to restore subtle yet damaging anti-evolution language to the state's science curriculum rules (language that was recently pulled out of the rules by the board) the board voted in a 7-7 tie (7 Republican for the language, 3 Republican and 4 Democrats against), casting out the language (for now). For more details, see this piece by The Dallas Morning News.


The Peppered Moth (Biston betularia) - A classic example of observable microevolution, though often misused by young earth creationists in their claims that evolution doesn't lead to different "kinds" of organisms. The overwhelming body of evidence supporting the theory of evolution (it seems) will never satisfy young earth creationists. They only seek to support their beliefs and not to use science to understand natural processes like macroevolution.



Thankfully, many state and national scientists, science educators, and related organizations have been sharing their concerns and expertise with the board - pointing out where anti-evolution proponents are trying to pull a fast one and emphasizing the importance of a solid science curriculum free of political and religious tampering. Even some of the state's religious leaders are speaking out in defense of evolution.

Letters from various organizations can be found here.

The final vote on the curriculum will take place tomorrow (March 27, 2009).

More at these related links:

Baptist Press
National Center for Science Education
ScienceBlogs - Josh Rosenau
More from Josh Rosenau's coverage of the board meeting
Texas Observer (blog)
The Clergy Letter Project.
Science, Evolution and Creationism - a fantastic (and free!) electronic book by the National Academy of Sciences.

Killing the competition: Cormorants

Today I came across a nice overview of the current problems surrounding Cormorants and the push to kill off large numbers to maintain or increase fishing yields. The article appeared as this months Natural History Magazine's featured article "To Kill a Cormorant" by Richard J. King.


If you haven't heard of this little conflict before, check out this New York Times article from 1998: The Slaughter of Cormorants in Angler Country. For a closer look at a Cormorant, click here, here, and especially here.

Why the conflict? The main causes are aesthetics and good ol' interspecific competition for resources - one of the big claims is that Double-crested Cormorants deplete populations of game fish. The validity of this claim is somewhat of a mixed bag: Cormorants indeed cause declines in commercial fish farms where fish are accessible and at high densities. In wild settings however, evidence is weak and their impact on fish populations seems to depend on the location and the fish species in question.

Competition for fish aside, Cormorants can also trash the small islands they decide to turn into breeding sites via a build-up of guano, which like most bird droppings is high in uric acid (the white stuff). This kills off vegetation, giving the combined result that these islands are as unpleasant to look at as it is to be downwind of them. As Richard King points out, historically those islands may have actually hosted Cormorants and their guano more so than the vegetation that took their place when Cormorant numbers dipped during the last couple of centuries. They can also compete for nest sites with various species of Herons and Egrets. This all adds up to a big public image problem - people don't like things that ruin scenic landscapes and push out more valued species.

So do Cormorants need to be controlled? Practically speaking, probably yes - but only in a few places, and hopefully with smarter controls than poorly regulated mass culling.

Are we going to avoid continuing on a "witch hunt" blaming these birds for our fisheries problems, or instead use good science to get at the root of this conflict? With the usual amount of patience and compromise, it seems a workable science based solution is quite possible.

In their Notice of Intent to Prepare a National Management Plan for Double-Crested Cormorants the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) mentions a court challenge against the USFWS for issuing permits to oil eggs in up to 10,500 Cormorant nests at two locations in the north east. Referring to that legal action, they go on to say that:

... the action highlights the need for scientific inquiry into the nature of the problems caused by double-crested Cormorants and an assessment of the utility of management actions most likely to resolve resulting conflicts.

By studying fish populations and the role Cormorants play in regulating them, along with the other problems caused by Cormorants, regulatory agencies can make effective and efficient management plans where necessary. Just as importantly, if not more so, the results of these studies will hopefully help the public to distinguish fact from fiction when it comes to Cormorants - good for the birds, and good for the people.

Related links:

• The USFWS Double-crested Cormorant page. Includes their final Environmental Impact Statement, which is worth skimming.
• EPA website search results.
• Derby and Lovvorn, Canadian Journal of Acquatic Science, 1997. Some might take this as evidence against Cormorants - but based only on the abstract it appears to conclude little more than They ate a lot of the fish we put in the river. This, is what you'd expect: Cormorants eat fish. This may be a good study to look at stocking efficiency, but for our purposes the important question is what is the impact on the fish population?
• That question is addressed, for example, in Engström, Ecography, 2009. The result? Despite large rates of consumption by Cormorants, there was no significant effect on the fish population.
• To contrast, here is some commentary on a study showing Cormorants can impact some fish populations (Perch, in parts of Lake Huron).
• Google scholar results for "cormorant fish".

Obama to Ease Limitations on Stem Cell Research

Tomorrow, President Obama plans to remove some of the limitations on stem cell research that were put in place by former president Bush. No doubt there will be a lot of news about it this week - but why all the fuss?!?

Let me begin by pointing out that there are many ethical (and unethical) ways to obtain and do medical research using human stem cells. Fortunately, we have people trained to wrestle with these issues (i.e. people in the fields of medical ethics and bioethics), lots of government and public oversight of this area of research, and a plethora of "watch dog" groups making sure no lines are crossed.

Unfortunately, for those who look only to their faith when it comes to questions of morality, we don't have a few thousand years of people asking the question "Is it good or bad to kill a recently fertilized oocyte?" So we look instead to the answer to the next best question: "Is it good or bad to kill human life?" This has a more clear answer, although this where the trouble starts - people have a lot of different of ideas about what "human life" means in this context.

I'll post more on this subject this week as events unfold, so for now I'll stick to my original question: why all the fuss?!

First, the general public seems to have a poor understanding of the exact nature of these limitations. I can only hope that the media, cultural and religious leaders, the scientific community, the bioethics community and the White House will do a good job of clarifying some of these details for the public.

Second, some individuals and other entities (e.g. certain extremist religious and political figures) use such controversies to try and sway the public in favor of their agendas. This has the unfortunate effect of making it to their benefit to misinform and mislead the public to those ends. Look for it this week - I'm sure there will be plenty of examples!

For more information, see the links at the bottom of this new story and my posts later this week.

Obama calls upon the nation to hit the books!

Tonight in President Obama's address to Congress, he asked fellow citizens to further their education - and he backed up his request with a promise of support. Why? To summarize using his own words, the reason education is a big economic issue is that "the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow."

The following is an excerpt from his address (full transcripts at CBS news). Video of the address is also likely to be readily available. For more details, visit www.whitehouse.gov and see the president's agenda on education.

The President:

In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity - it is a pre-requisite.

Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma. And yet, just over half of our citizens have that level of education. We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation. And half of the students who begin college never finish.

This is a prescription for economic decline, because we know the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow. That is why it will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education - from the day they are born to the day they begin a career.

Already, we have made an historic investment in education through the economic recovery plan. We have dramatically expanded early childhood education and will continue to improve its quality, because we know that the most formative learning comes in those first years of life. We have made college affordable for nearly seven million more students. And we have provided the resources necessary to prevent painful cuts and teacher layoffs that would set back our children's progress.

But we know that our schools don’t just need more resources. They need more reform. That is why this budget creates new incentives for teacher performance; pathways for advancement, and rewards for success. We’ll invest in innovative programs that are already helping schools meet high standards and close achievement gaps. And we will expand our commitment to charter schools.

It is our responsibility as lawmakers and educators to make this system work. But it is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in it. And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on your country - and this country needs and values the talents of every American. That is why we will provide the support necessary for you to complete college and meet a new goal: by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

While I could nitpick at some of the issues he brought up (the notion of reform as a guaranteed means of improvement, is the first that comes to mind) I'll keep this post short and leave it at that, for now.

Other links of possible interest:

• Revisiting Lifelong Learning for the 21st Century from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization's Institute for Lifelong Learning.
• Some commentary and insights on education and the economy from Alan Greenspan.
• Some countries in Europe, as well as the U.S., have also recognized the need for adult education. For a few examples of how others have put "post-compulsory" education into practice, check out the Wikipedia page on lifelong learning.
• U.S. Department of Education Home Page which includes information on US Department of Education Funding Opportunities.
• National Center for Education Statistics and some of their annual reports on particular topics.
• University Continuing Education Association.
• The National Center On Education And The Economy.