According to a recent report from NAFSA: Association of International Educators, U.S. institutions of higher ed are losing out to other countries as foreign students turn elsewhere to study. After Sept. 11, 2001, the number of international students here increased by just 0.6 percent, breaking the consistent 5 percent to 6 percent annual increase of previous years. Numbers decreased by 2.4 percent in 2003-04 and 1.3 percent in 2004-05. Data for 2005-06 show flat enrollments, still below pre-9/11.

NAFSA blames lack of coordination among regulatory agencies running the visa process, an absence of marketing strategy, and persistent barriers for those who wish to study and research in this country. The departments of State, Education and Commerce now must interact with the Department of Homeland Security, what NAFSA calls “the 800-pound gorilla.”

In addition, countries like Great Britain market themselves, something the United States has neglected. Other competitors include the Bologna Process, a coalition of European countries coordinating a seamless higher ed system with transferable credits; and educators in China and India who are developing their own university systems and keeping their students on home turf. A more streamlined visa system would help as well. Although NAFSA recognizes improvements on the part of the State Department, there is more to be done to avoid the “burdensome, unnecessary and repetitive interviews and security-clearance procedures” required of scientists and other scholars entering the United States.

Why is all this important? Welcoming foreign students makes good foreign policy, exporting good will overseas. International scholarship develops the knowledge economy. International scholars enrich the education of American students. Finally, foreign tuition money boosts the U.S. economy. NAFSA also submits that educational exchange “is integral to our security. It is an investment we make to create a world in which we can be secure.”

For the entire report, see http://nafsa.org/public_policy.sec/public_policy_document/international_student_5/
restoring_u.s._competitiveness.

Now it seems the two camps, so much at loggerheads in recent years they have become known as combatants in the “math wars,” may find some consensus.

The Common Ground initiative has come up with a short list of principles for K-12 math education, among them automatic recall of basic facts, judicious use of calculators, fluent use and understanding of basic algorithms (those magic formulas), fractions as a foundation for algebra, and careful choice of real-world problems. While this list may seem logical, it is remarkable because it signifies a sort of truce between the reform movement advocates and critics, who worked together to formulate them. For more on their approach, see www.maa.org/common-ground.

In addition to Common Ground’s progress, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has helped frame math ed with “curriculum focal points.” These skills, grouped by grade, are defined as essential for elementary and middle school students and designed to provide relief to teachers overwhelmed by some 100 objectives each year. Instead, just three skills per grade will have priority.

Finally, a presidential panel will be hammering out a review of mathematics education in coming months. Its work may be easier now, as mathematicians on both sides of the education equation begin to come together for the good of the discipline. 

For Cliff Adelman, the adage couldn’t be more accurate. A senior research analyst at the U.S. Department of Education, Adelman blasted policy wonks, education researchers and the media at the spring meeting of the American Educational Research Association for passing around shoddy research and presenting it as fact.

Adelman and others have pointed out before that statistics on dismal graduation rates are deceiving. Students often transfer from institution to institution before finishing their degrees, making it look as though they dropped out. In fact, Adelman reported in 2004 that one in five graduate from a college different from the one in which they began. But transferring—for change of major, job opportunity, family obligation or many other reasons—is not the same as failure.

Adelman has raised the issue again because of recent buzz about a “leaky pipeline,” a term used to describe students moving from high school through college graduation. He points a finger at a National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education 2004 policy alert that wrung hands over statistics showing only 18 of every 100 ninth-graders graduating from college (after three years of matriculation for an associate’s degree or six for a bachelor’s).

The study is so faulty, claims Adelman in a Chronicle of Higher Education article, “It does not pass the laugh test.” Among its flaws: apples-to-oranges comparisons and disregard for the study’s original intent to examine state-level variation rather than national trends.

Adelman also says reports of grade inflation are exaggerated, and the commonly held belief that community college students average around age 29 is wrong. The National Center for Education Statistics at the Department of Education shows these students trending younger; 42 percent of two-year college students were younger than 22 in 2001.

Another adage to note: Don’t believe everything you read.