This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Education High‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Members of the Commission[edit]

Should the page include a list of the members of the Commission and their affiliations, available through the Department of Education web site? If so, should it also include any information beyond that - e.g., names of those who were reluctant to sign on to the report, conflict of interest issues that came up with private sector members, etc.? Theviper 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this information is relevant, especially since many academics felt that the commission did not fully represent the views of university faculty. That's just my personal sense of things, but it seems like a widely held critique. In any event the Chronicle of Higher Ed gives a pretty good run down of the names as well as their affiliations and major concerns [1]. I'll give this topic a day or two for folks to talk about and then add the info. (Hats fullofhollow 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Internal dissensus[edit]

Should we bring up the flare-up over "open source" that, in the wake of the draft report's release, revealed some of the tensions within the Commission? Theviper 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Report's Recommendations - improve[edit]

This section needs work - it doesn't really address the question of how the higher education community or others responded to the report's publication, as for example in Ted Kennedy's response or others included in the Inside Higher Ed collection of news articles. It would be useful to find and include accounts of how different communities - students, faculty, university administrators, business leaders, etc. - responded in official or unofficial ways to the report's recommendations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.73.90.213 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not for profit[edit]

In her latest book Not for Profit. Why Democracy Needs the Humanities, 2010, Martha Nussbaum writes about the report: "The humanities, the arts, and critical thinking were basically absent. By omitting them, the report strongly suggested that it would be perfectly allright if these abilities were allowed to wither away in favor of more useful disciplines." (p. 3) Perhaps anyone is interested in this. --13Peewit (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble quote[edit]

The Formation and motivation opening paragraph contains a direct quote from the Spellings report, however the report does not appear to contain this quote as it is written in this wiki article. This quote needs to be removed or rewritten to reflect the wording in the actual Spellings report. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libroman2 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/pre-pub-report.pdf

[1] ttps://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/pre-pub-report.pdf

[1]