(With this post I inaugurate a series of occasional items tagged “quick takes,” in which I’ll link to and offer short reaction to events or documents that touch on my areas of interest, though possibly not directly enough to permit full commentary at an acceptable level of quality.)

There’s more common sense about K12 math instruction in this fascinating dialogue posted at Education Next than in the math sections of the recent report on STEM education by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The PCAST report correctly identifies poor math preparation as a key barrier to retaining college students in Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) disciplines, but then utterly fails to reference or take a position on any of the ongoing debate over math standards. It simply blandly recommends a “national experiment” in effective math instruction. On the other hand, Education Next — apparently some kind of collaboration between Stanford and the Harvard Kennedy School — appears to be a website worth watching, and I will.

In an earlier post, I had promised some additional thoughts about unintended consequences of the 10-year doubling of the federal budget for research and development in the physical sciences, a policy which was embedded in President Obama’s FY 2010 budget outline.

The federal fiscal year 2010 is under way this month, but as should be no surprise, as of today we don’t have anything like a signed set of appropriations bills.

What we do know is that we’re about half a year into the S&T components of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), and judging by the press releases streaming from our major research universities and proud governors, the money is beginning to flow.
No university I know is turning down the chance to apply for ARRA or “stimulus act” funding, but what is not widely understood is that there is some apprehension in the academic community about this.

[continue reading…]