Scholars, policymakers and business leaders from Japan and the United States recently gathered at Stanford to analyze energy innovation and build new bilateral endeavors.

“With rapid economic growth in emerging countries, world energy consumption has been and will be increasing, everyone has been wondering if there are enough energy resources for this growth," said Hideichi Okada, a former vice minister for International Affairs at Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

Panelists weigh in on the changing energy picture in the U.S. and Japan.

Okada said Japan and the U.S. share concerns about world geopolitical change in energy supply and demand, and nuclear policy. Okada is at Stanford as the Sasakawa Peace Fellow at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC) this year.

Okada's remarks came during the the New Channels Dialogue, a two-day conference organized by the Japan Program at Shorenstein APARC and the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. It is the first of three annual conferences aimed to stimulate debate on 21st century problems faced by both nations. 

“In the aftermath of the disaster at Fukushima, Japan has reinvigorated its search for cutting-edge technologies and alternative sources of energy,” said Yuji Takagi, president of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. In parallel, the U.S. has increased its production of shale gas as a viable alternative of natural gas.

Confluence of national interest and demand, and shared historical connections between the U.S. and Japan, suggest an ideal environment for further partnerships between the two countries.

“We have entered an especially important period in bilateral relations between the Asia-Pacific [and the U.S.] – it is undergoing such rapid change and technology is transforming. In this context, I believe the U.S.-Japan relationship will only become more important,” Takagi said.

Experts and Stanford scholars discuss electricity systems in California and Japan.

Okada cited the joint U.S.-Japan wind power project in Hawaii as an example of recent cooperation. Last December, Maui became the site of a multi-year renewable energy project between the American and Japanese governments.

Other panelists offered different perspectives on energy opportunities from across sectors, included among them were Julia Nesheiwat, the State Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Bureau of Energy Resources; Hirofumi Takinami, a member of the Japan’s House of Councilors and former visiting fellow at Shorenstein APARC; Thomas Starrs, SunPower vice president; Nobuo Tanaka, former IEA Executive Director; and Frank Wolak, Stanford economics professor and director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development.

Topics discussed included:

• Energy constraints experienced by Japan since the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and challenges facing Japan’s electricity industry liberalization.
• Regional implications of China’s rise as a major energy consumer and producer.
• Geopolitical and trade balance effects on the United States and Japan resulting from the shale gas revolution transforming the U.S. into a major energy producer.
• Broad impacts to the energy industry caused by geopolitics and financial instability.
• Lessons learned from California’s experience with electricity industry liberalization.
• Multilateral partnerships for energy technology and innovation.

The second day of the conference was a closed session in which candid, in-depth discussions were held. Participants also went on a site visit to Bloom Energy led by principal cofounder and chief executive officer K.R. Sridhar.

The New Channels Dialogue highlighted energy imperatives and created a network of exchange anticipated to continue beyond the conference. A report that encompasses major points and policy recommendations will be published in the forthcoming months. 

As the debate over the role and future of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) gathers steam, Andrew Ng, associate professor of computer science at Stanford University and cofounder of Coursera, shared his views on how MOOCs can optimize and personalize education experiences at a seminar co-hosted by the Stanford Chinese Faculty and Family Club and the China 2.0 initiative at Stanford Graduate School of Business. (Watch the seminar video here.)

Ng offered up plenty of food for thought about the potential implications of the “massive data” collected from MOOCs. Coursera, which started by offering two Stanford courses online, is an education company partnering with 76 universities and organizations worldwide to offer 550 free online courses. It is currently the largest MOOC platform, according to Ng, with six million students and 108 partners.

Speaking to more than 120 attendees, Ng claimed that Coursera collected more educational data in 2013 than the entire academic field of education throughout the history of mankind. “The volume of data to unleash is unprecedented,” he noted. Researchers and educators seeking to innovate in education will be able to apply even the most basic data analytic techniques to produce a multitude of research papers and generate innovative ideas to advance education.

In a crowded field with other firms and organizations such as NovoEd, OpenEdX, Udacity, and Udemy offering MOOCs, Coursera’s students tend to be professionals seeking continuing education, with more than 75% of students already having earned a Bachelor’s degree at a minimum. By analyzing rich data collected from tens of thousands of MOOC students, instructors are receiving almost instantaneous feedback to help them improve their teaching methods and to communicate with students more effectively. Ng gave an example of how Coursera sends more “user-friendly” weekly emails to increase actions from students. “If you are reminded about things you have done well, and [we] ask you to engage in the next class, you are more likely to take action,” Ng said.

With auto-graded quizzes and peer-grading built into courses, students receive feedback much quicker in MOOCs than having to wait for professors or graduate students to return their graded work. And feedback is received at both ends. MOOCs have dramatically increased the pace of feedback for those doing the teaching. Stanford faculty members receive feedback from students annually. “Once a year I get the opportunity to improve my class… This is an incredibly slow rate of learning for me,” Ng commented. However, data is collected from students continuously on MOOC platforms – when a student finishes a lecture, speeds up videos, submits a survey, or engages in social media – instructors receive a wealth of informative resources to “rapidly improve their classes,” argued Ng.

Running A/B tests is another way to improve learning interfaces. Ng shared an ongoing test carried out by his company in determining the importance of featuring an instructor’s face in the lower corner during lectures versus hearing merely a voice over a teaching presentation. Although staff at Coursera was split over what they thought would help students more, it turned out that students without the video of the instructor found it much harder to concentrate.

Ng notes that production resources and the lack of a revenue stream are currently two major bottlenecks for MOOCs, but he is proud to be feeding Coursera’s test and analysis results back into its course development and design to create even more value-optimized courses. Coursera also makes the company’s raw educational data available to partners and other universities. He attributed an optimization mindset to his Google days, where he was the founder of Google’s large-scale deep learning project. “Your ability to get the data to optimize makes something much more valuable, and we hope to do that with education,” said Ng. “We are in very early stages of figuring out what technologies should look like for MOOCs. There is a serious trade-off between cost of content production and how engaging the content is. We continue to see other transformations.”

CISAC and FSI Senior Fellow Siegfried Hecker has been awarded the prestigious Science Diplomacy Award from the American Association for the Advancement of Science for his dedication to building bridges through science.

Hecker, director emeritus of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and CISAC co-director from 2007-2012, was honored at the AAAS’s annual conference in Chicago for his “lifetime commitment to using the tools of science to address the challenges of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism and his dedication to building bridges through science during the period following the end of the Cold War."

In nominating Hecker for the 2013 award, Glenn E. Schweitzer, director of the Office for Central Europe and Eurasia at the National Academies, noted that Hecker has been particularly effective in working with government officials and scientific colleagues in Russia, Kazakhstan and North Korea.

"For over two decades, Dr. Hecker has worked on international nuclear security activities and fostered cooperation with the Russian nuclear laboratories to secure and safeguard the vast stockpile of ex-Soviet fissile materials," said AAAS Chief International Officer Vaughan Turekian.

Schweitzer wrote in his nomination that Hecker's activities can be judged on two outcomes: responsible handling of nuclear materials and prevention of dangerous materials from falling into the wrong hands. "On both counts, he scores very high on anyone's ledger," Schweitzer wrote. "In addition, his openness and respect for the views of others have won important friends for the United States around the world."

More details about the award and Hecker's work can be read here.

Please join CISAC in congratulating Hecker for this honor.

Warning against the “dangers of excessive hubris,” former U.S. Ambassador Stephen W. Bosworth emphasized the intricacies and complexity of creating American foreign policy and called for the government to exercise greater restraint and better understand the countries it engages with.

The veteran diplomat and visiting lecturer at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies called for the United States to exercise greater self-restraint and better understand the history and current circumstances of countries it engages with. 

“The making of U.S. policy is inherently a very, very difficult enterprise,” said Bosworth, positioned at Stanford for winter quarter.

“The issues tend to be complex, and they frequently pose moral as well as political choices,” he said. “I found that perfection is usually the enemy of the good in the making of foreign policy and is, for the most part, unattainable.”

Foreign policy can be ambiguous and difficult at times; it is a process that can be compared to gardening because “you have to keep tending to it regularly,” Bosworth said, referencing former Secretary of State George Shultz’s well-known analogy.

Bosworth, who served for five decades in the U.S. government and for 12 years as dean of Tuft’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, delivered these thoughts in the first of three public seminars this quarter. He is the Frank E. and Arthur W. Payne Distinguished Lecturer in residence at FSI’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC).

He cautioned against America’s tendency to revert to military power when crisis occurs. “I believe that when at all possible, we need to choose diplomacy over force,” Bosworth asserted, “although it is sometimes true that diplomacy backed by potential force can be more effective.” 

Citing Afghanistan, Iraq and Southwest Asia, Bosworth noted these among other examples as situations of excessive power projected by the American foreign policy arm. In some cases, pride may have gotten the better of policymakers who sometimes “want to be seen as doers and solvers.”

Bosworth pointed out that the nature of our actions speaks loudly – both at home and abroad – thus sensitivity and sincerity are important in any international exchange.

Since the Vietnam War, American values and the push for democracy are not always well received by other countries. And there’s often good reason for that, he said.

“It is awkward for the U.S. to campaign for more democracy elsewhere when our own model seems to have increasing difficulty in producing reasonable solutions for our own problems,” he said.

Democracy is “not a cure-all” for every nation and this is reflected in the amended model adopted by countries such as Singapore, Indonesia and Burma. However, Bosworth said he remains confident that the American democratic system “will prevail and eventually work better than it seems to be working now.”

Bosworth will explore the challenges of maturing democracies in Japan and South Korea and negotiations and management of relations with North Korea in his two other Payne lectures. The Payne Lectureship brings prominent speakers to campus for their global reputation as visionary leaders, a practical grasp of a given field, and the capacity to articulate important perspectives on today’s global challenges.

Bosworth entered the Foreign Service in 1961, a difficult yet “exciting time to join the government,” he said.

“At the age of 21, I was the youngest person entering my class,” he said, “and of the 38 people, there were only two women…and were zero persons of color and only a handful who were not products of an Ivy League education.” The State Department of then is very different compared to the one that exists today; this signals positive, necessary change in the diplomatic corps.

Bosworth, having served three tours as a U.S. ambassador in South Korea (from 1997 to 2001); the Philippines (from 1984 to 1987); and Tunisia (from 1979 to 1981) and twice received the State Department’s Distinguished Service Award (in 1976 and 1986), has a long established career.

He brings great wisdom on foreign affairs given his extensive engagement as a practitioner and a writer, said former colleague and Shorenstein APARC distinguished fellow Michael H. Armacost.

“To say that Steve has had an extraordinarily distinguished career in the Foreign Service doesn't quite capture the range of his accomplishments, I can’t think of very many Foreign Service officers in this or any other generation that have left a footprint on big issues in three consecutive decades,” Armacost acknowledged. 

During his time at Stanford, Bosworth will hold seminars and mentor students who may be interested in pursuing a career in the Foreign Service, in addition to the two upcoming public talks.

A student seeking this very advice posed a question in the discussion portion following Bosworth’s talk.

Speaking to anyone considering a Foreign Service career, Bosworth said one must “think about it hard, and think again.” He said public service is a privilege, not so much a sacrifice as the typical notion holds. “It can be a great career as long as you have the right perspective on it,” he ended.

Image

Learn more here:
http://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/labor-and-human-rights

REAP co-director Scott Rozelle builds on a ten-part series for Caixin Magazine titled, "Inequality 2030: Glimmering Hope in China in a Future Facing Extreme Despair." In his fifth column, Rozelle explains how China's "National Nutritious School Lunch Program" became a National Free But-Not-Too-Nutritious School Lunch Program.

REAP co-director Scott Rozelle builds on a ten-part series for Caixin Magazine titled, "Inequality 2030: Glimmering Hope in China in a Future Facing Extreme Despair." In his fifth column, Rozelle explains how China's "National Nutritious School Lunch Program" became a National Free But-Not-Too-Nutritious School Lunch Program.

To read the column in Chinese, click here.

> To read Column 1: Why We Need to Worry About Inequality, click here. 

> To read Column 2: China's Inequality Starts During the First 1,000 Days, click here. 

> To read Column 3: Behind Before They Start - The Preschool Years (Part 1), click here. 

> To read Column 4: Behind Before They Start - The Preschool Years (Part 2), click here.  

> To read Column 6: A Tale of Two Travesties, click here. 

Image

Inequality 2030:

Glimmering Hope in China in a Future Facing Extreme Despair

Caixin Column 5: How to Cure China’s Largest Epidemic

What do we know about China’s largest epidemic? 

• We know that 10 million school-aged children in rural China are suffering from iron-deficiency anemia and generally poor nutrition.
• We know that poor nutrition is undermining their education.
• We know that poor nutrition is the first barrier contributing to the performance gap between rural and urban students—one that does not disappear.
• We know how to solve poor nutrition: with one multivitamin a day, costing only 0.2 yuan. Or with an 8 yuan per day nutritious school lunch.
• We know that one vitamin per day – or a nutritious school lunch – will raise the students’ educational performance, turning a student who is failing into one who earns passing, satisfactory test scores.

We know all of this already. It is clear and proven. Our group, the Rural Education Action Project, or REAP, has run no fewer than five studies on the link between nutrition and education. These have been large, well-designed, carefully implemented studies with some of China’s best academic institutions and medical schools involved. The results have been consistent and clear.

Nutrition-related diseases are epidemic. We found nearly 40 percent of grade 4 and 5 students in Shaanxi to be suffering from anemia. Another study in Qinghai found nearly 50 percent of students to be nutritionally deprived and sick. The same is true in Gansu, Ningxia, Sichuan and Guizhou. In any random rural community in China, it is a near guarantee that you will find thousands of undernourished children. Convert these percentages into absolute numbers and the numbers are staggering.

We also know that the diets of children in China’s rural communities are the source of the malnutrition problem. Parents and grandparents (when Mom and Dad are away from home working) and boarding school managers (when kids live at school) are feeding students insufficient diets. Despite rapidly rising family incomes, the typical meal for rural students—both at home and at school—resembles meals that rural children were eating decades ago: grain, grain, more grain, and a tiny bit of pickled vegetables. There is almost no meat, there is almost no fruit, and often there are almost no fresh vegetables. 

It is a well-established fact that when children eat meals like this, they become nutritionally deprived. They are iron deficient. They do not have sufficient vitamins and other minerals. And, despite having no clear outward symptoms, they are sick. Anemia is a disease. It is a well-known and well-understood disease that leads to stunting and wasting, poor general health, and even reduces children’s cognitive abilities. It should therefore come as no surprise that in our studies, we find that children with anemia are shorter, lighter, miss more school due to illnesses, and have overall worse school performance than their non-anemic classmates. This is most likely one of the reasons that China’s tremendous investment into new rural school facilities and teachers has failed to produce any reduction in the rural-urban education gap. When children are sick, they can’t learn, no matter how good the school is. Enroll a malnourished 10-year-old in the best school in China—say Remin University’s Attached Elementary School—and despite the best teachers and best facilities, that child will not learn. That child can’t. Because that child is sick.

We know, however, that if we improve nutrition, the negative effects of poor nutrition can be reversed and children can learn and perform better at school.

In 2007, Lu Mai and his group at China Development Research Foundation, or CDRF, demonstrated the power of nutrition in a set of pilot schools in rural China. It was a simple and elegant demonstration. When children were given good nutrition, within months they were performing at a much higher level in school. This was the key breakthrough that inspired our group’s main research agenda between 2008 and 2012. 

REAP’s first school nutrition project launched in 2008, in Shaanxi Province. We gave children in 30 schools one vitamin per day for one academic year, and saw their standardized test scores rise much more than children in 30 similar schools that did not receive a daily vitamin. The impact of the vitamin intervention was even higher when children were also given a daily egg on top of the vitamin. In 2009, we showed that the test scores of children who received both a daily vitamin and a daily egg rose much higher than children who just received a daily egg. In fact, in 2010 we showed that a daily egg by itself is not enough to have any impact on children’s health or academic performance: When we gave children in 25 schools an egg a day for one academic year, there was no reduction in anemia rates and test scores did not improve.

But eggs are a nutritious food, aren’t they? Why aren’t they helping China’s school children? The answer is simple: The problem in rural China is micronutrient deficiencies, especially iron deficiency, which leads to anemia. Eggs are definitely not bad for children, but they do not have iron. Vitamins do. Our research has convinced us that vitamins are the fastest and most cost-efficient way of getting iron (and other key nutrients) to China’s rural school children.

Finally, in 2010 and 2011, we showed that when principals are incentivized and provided with the resources to give students healthy, nutritious meals (two dishes with meat and fresh vegetables per day), nutrition also improves, along with educational performance. A truly nutritious school lunch is more expensive than a vitamin (8 yuan versus 0.2 yuan per day), but nutritious lunches have been shown to be successful in improving health, nutrition and ultimately test scores.

The Good News: Policy Makers Respond

As the link between nutrition and education began to become clear, policy makers responded. Top leaders began to take notice.

REAP’s work initially generated a response from leaders in Shaanxi Province, where we had conducted many of our nutrition projects. In 2009, several counties in Southern Shaanxi joined together to pilot a regional experiment that improved nutrition in schools. The entire province followed suit the very next school year. The goal of the program was to improve the nutrition of every child in every rural school—from grade 1 to grade 9. National leaders became aware of REAP’s findings and of the positive impact of nutrition on educational performance.

The media provided the final nudge. Throughout 2011, news outlets and child-welfare groups published articles and reports about the abysmal state of nutrition in rural China’s schools. The coverage garnered the interest and attention of millions of netizens.

In October, 2011, the national government made a bold move. They announced a new annual commitment of 20 billion yuan per year to fund a new National Nutritious School Lunch Program. The new program would provide over 25 million school-aged children in 692 poor counties with a nutritious school lunch per day. The stated goal was to improve nutrition, health and ultimately increase the educational performance of rural students.

This was the ultimate victory for an effort that began with scholars, was picked up by the media, and finally acted upon by the central government. There is a problem; it is affecting progress towards China’s developmental goals. There are solutions; allocate the resources and put the programs into place.

This is exactly how academics, the media and the government are supposed to work together. Right?

The Bad News: Policy Failure and China’s Remaining Nutrition Challenge

So has the problem been solved? Unfortunately, the answer is no. According to REAP survey data from 2012 and 2013, malnutrition is still widespread and children are still not receiving healthy meals either at home or at school. 

What happened? The national government’s “National Nutritious School Lunch Program” failed because there were simply not enough resources. Not enough school kitchens. Not enough financial resources. Not enough buy in from local governments. 

The original plan was this: The national government would allocate 3 yuan per day per student to help finance a nutritious school lunch. In Beijing, nutritious school lunches provide about half of each student’s recommended daily allowance (RDA) of key vitamins and minerals, including more than half of each student’s daily iron needs. This is just about perfect: dieticians in school systems around the world agree that school lunches should provide at least 40% of a child’s RDA.

Three yuan, however, did not get the job done. Three yuan in today’s market was only enough to give children a large bowl of rice (or large bowl of noodles) and some pickled vegetables. In other words, it was just enough to replace exactly what children were bringing from home to eat—before the launching of the National Nutritious School Lunch Program. Children could now get their school lunch for free. But they were not getting anything better or more nutritious than what they would have brought from home anyway. In effect, the National Nutritious School Lunch Program became a National Free But-Not-Too-Nutritious School Lunch Program.

Indeed, our research shows that the policy has failed to provide the nutrition that children need to do well in school. REAP followed schools both before and after the launch of the national program. The nutritional content of the lunches provided by the schools was almost unchanged. It is therefore unsurprising that there was no impact on reducing anemia, improving health or improving educational performance. 

Several problems led to this policy failure. First, and foremost, even though the national government asks local governments to contribute matching funds to improve school lunches, they rarely do. Poor counties are chronically short of fiscal resources. This is a mandate that they were simply unable to achieve. Even if they did, however, six yuan is still not enough for a nutritious school lunch. It would be better—of course. However, our team’s calculations indicate that it would take eight to nine yuan per student per day to be able to offer a high quality, nutritious meal. The national government was bold to take on the challenge of providing nutrition for school children in rural China. It is clear, however, that they need to be even bolder. The program as currently designed is simply acting as an income transfer to parents; the national funding is offsetting what parents used to provide. Children, however, are getting the same food and are still malnourished. 

Second, the program, as designed, leaves the responsibility for providing lunches to the local government. Most local governments further pass this responsibility on to individual school principals. Are principals qualified to take charge of this sort of policy implementation? Rural school principals are not trained in nutrition; in fact, we find that principals understand little more about nutrition than the parents of their students. Moreover, principals face other incentives that dampen their willingness to spend time and resources on nutrition. In other countries, and in China’s urban school districts, there are nutritionists, dieticians and catering firms that take on responsibilities for serving quality, safe and nutritious meals. In such settings principals are able to focus on doing what they are trained to do: manage teaching, meet with parents, ensure a safe school environment, and take care of other general school management needs.

What’s next?

We know the problem. We know the solution. Leaders have shown that they are willing to try to solve the problem. Solutions have already been tried. They are not working. But they can form the basis of what to do next.

We need to make the National Nutritious School Lunch Program nutritious. There are three different possible ways to do so. One option is for the national government to immediately increase allocations for the National Nutritious School Lunch Program to eight yuan per student per day. This is admittedly not a small sum. But, it is needed, and needed now. Proper school infrastructure for clean kitchens and a trained staff are also needed. This will not only improve meal quality, it will reduce stress on principals and allow them to focus more on their main job of running the school.

There is a lower cost solution. It is one that is used in many countries, and has also been repeatedly proven to work in China. The solution is this: use part of the National Nutritious School Lunch Program funding to provide each student with one vitamin per day. A high quality multivitamin with iron can be purchased and distributed for 0.1 to 0.2 yuan per day. It is easily monitored. No additional facilities are needed. It is true (and we are not arguing otherwise) that children cannot survive on a daily vitamin alone. But, it is a safe and effective way to deliver iron and other minerals, a lack of which we already know leads to worse educational performance. Moreover, spending 0.2 yuan per student per day on a multivitamin still leaves 2.8 yuan of national funds leftover. China’s officials need to be convinced that vitamins are not medicine. They are safe. They are inexpensive. They are effective.

Of course, the third option is that both of these solutions be implemented, to create an ultra-nutritious national lunch program. If we choose to go this route, China’s nutrition problems would soon be a relic of the past. Then we could finally begin to take advantage of the new facilities and better teachers. And we could take the first step towards closing the rural-urban gap in education.

REAP co-director Scott Rozelle builds on a ten-part series for Caixin Magazine titled, "Inequality 2030: Glimmering Hope in China in a Future Facing Extreme Despair." In his fourth column, Rozelle explains what can be done to help increase rural kids' educational readiness. 

REAP co-director Scott Rozelle builds on a ten-part series for Caixin Magazine titled, "Inequality 2030: Glimmering Hope in China in a Future Facing Extreme Despair." In his fourth column, Rozelle explains what can be done to help increase rural kids' educational readiness.

To read the column in Chinese, click here.

> To read Column 1: Why We Need to Worry About Inequality, click here.

> To read Column 2: China's Inequality Starts During the First 1,000 Days, click here.  

> To read Column 3: Behind Before They Start - The Preschool Years (Part 1), click here. 

> To read Column 5: How to Cure China's Largest Epidemic, click here.

> To read Column 6: A Tale of Two Travesties, click here. 

Image

Inequality 2030:

Glimmering Hope in China in a Future Facing Extreme Despair

Caixin Column 4: Behind Before They Start - The Preschool Years

(Part 2)

Following the recent policy changes aimed at expanding preschool offerings in rural China, REAP ran an experiment to see just what was becoming of the government’s effort. The experiment was simple. We chose 150 children to be part of our study. They were living in about 100 villages in a poor rural Henan county. Before any intervention, all children were given Dr. Ou’s educational readiness test as a way to gauge the starting point for the children’s baseline level of development. After this, half of the children were randomly selected to receive full scholarships, allowing their parents to send them to the preschool of their choice. The scholarship made preschool absolutely free. The other half of the parents received no financial support—their children only went to preschool if the family decided to pay the tuition and other fees themselves. The parents in the control group were not told that other parents in their county were given scholarships and the random assignment to scholarship or control group was done in a way that the average starting educational readiness scores were identical.

So what was the result? First, the good news. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the scholarships encouraged a lot more participation in preschool. By the time their children were five years old, 35 percent more parents in the scholarship group were sending their kids to preschool. This experiment thus makes clear that high preschool tuition does indeed present a considerable barrier to preschool enrollment. This is good news in the sense that this is an easily resolvable problem—if the government commits to making preschool tuition-free (like elementary and junior high school) we can expect many more parents to send their kids to preschool and reap the benefits. This is a tangible step that the government can (and should) take as soon as possible.

But of course, there was also bad news. Do you remember what the international literature said? Going to preschool is one of the keys to early childhood development. However, in our experiment we found that attending preschool in rural areas had no effect on kids’ educational readiness. More specifically, we found that despite the increased levels of preschool attendance, the average level of educational readiness did not rise at all. As noted above, the students were randomly assigned to the scholarship and control groups so that their scores on Dr. Ou’s educational readiness tests before our intervention were identical. Unfortunately, the test scores of the children in the scholarship and control groups were still identical a few years later when the children were getting ready to start elementary school—even though 35 percent more of the children in the scholarship group had spent that time in preschool. In other words, going to preschool did not improve the kids’ educational readiness in any measurable way. 

So what happened? Why didn’t attending preschool help these kids? Of course, the answer is relatively simple, though hugely disheartening. Quite simply, the quality of the preschool programs in rural areas remained low. The quality of these programs was so low, in fact, that attending preschool had no effect whatsoever on educational readiness. 

Visits to rural China’s preschools make it clear what the problems are. They are mostly the same as we saw before: high teacher-to-student ratios, poorly trained teachers, and non-existent curriculum. In fact, in addition to the schools in which students were left to sit alone in dark rooms, in the most active and prestigious preschools we visited we found that during the preschool hours—a time when children should be learning to explore and play and find their interests—the main activity was memorizing characters and being drilled in arithmetic. It seems that the huge recent investment in preschools was in many areas just an ill-founded attempt to move the first grade’s rote memorization curriculum ahead to the preschool years, rather than a sincere effort to build the sort of engaging preschool curriculum that has been found to be so powerful in recent international research.

This suggests that the direction for policy change is not as simple as we might have hoped. Even if more children gain access to preschool, as long as the quality of the programs remains so low, attending preschool will have no impact on educational outcomes. In fact, this sort of increased spending on preschool might be thought to be a waste of resources: why spend all the time and money building up a system and encouraging children to go to preschool when the children develop equally well (or equally poorly) when they are just allowed to hang out in the village and play with their friends and families?

So we ask again: what needs to be done?

China does need to continue to invest in preschools. The recent extension of preschool offerings was a critical first step, but these efforts must be followed by a true commitment to extending the opportunity to all rural children. And that can only happen if preschool is free: as long as high tuition is a barrier to attending preschool, inequality will continue to increase and the poorest rural children, the ones that most need a leg up on their education, will be unable to get it. We actually believe that preschool should be mandatory—at least in poor areas. In the same way that all children are going to elementary school these days, all kids in the 21^st century should be going to preschool.

But even more important is that the quality of preschools needs to improve. This effort must start with improving facilities and equipment, but we believe it is even more important to train young, dynamic teachers that are schooled in new and exciting, flexible and age-appropriate curricula. Preschool is not the time to begin math and science and Chinese literature. It is the time to learn to play and socialize, to be curious and learn to learn.

We wish we could say we had a magical, one-size-fits all curriculum in mind. In fact, in no country is there such a thing. As I learned in raising my own very different sons, different children need different learning environments. They need teachers that can help identify their strengths and weaknesses. They need teachers that can coach them through creative and exciting programs. And they need preschool programs that will truly prepare them to engage when it comes time to start the real work in elementary school.

There are some innovative programs being tested today, mostly being promoted by foundations, NGOs, and private entrepreneurs-cum-educators. These efforts, however, represent only a very small sliver of what is going on today in preschool programming. Most new preschool programing is being taken on by local governments. Unfortunately, we have seen little evidence that local governments are interested in these sorts of innovative solutions. This must stop. The time has come for the extension of creative, original and constructive preschool programming to all of China’s toddlers. Only then can we can make sure that rural students are made ready to hit the starting gate at the same pace as their urban peers.

The coastal seas of East Asia, particularly from the East China Sea down to the South China Sea, have become an arena for growing tension and even the threat of military conflict, sparked by contention over maritime freedom, territorial disputes, and great power rivalry.

The East China Sea has developed into a major theater for these tensions, driven by the larger strategic rivalry between China and Japan. The two countries continue to clash over competing claims to uninhabited islets currently administered by Japan, the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. That dispute gained added steam recently when China declared an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) that overlapped those islands.

As both countries assert their presence, American policymakers worry about the maintenance of peace and security in the region, as well as ensuring freedom on the seas and of the air, including for U.S. military forces.

Two important seminar series at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center this winter quarter—one examining the future of China under the new leadership of Xi Jinping, and a second looking at the Sino-Japanese rivalry—explore these issues in depth and examine the dynamics of China-Japan-U.S. relations in the region, delving into the territorial and security tensions between China and Japan, the U.S. role and the implications of this for long-term stability. 

Andrew Erickson, an associate in research at Harvard University’s John King Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, offered a detailed account of China’s maritime and military development and how it fits into long-term Chinese strategy. Erickson, who recently deployed with the USS Nimitz in the Asia-Pacific, painted China’s development as rapid yet uneven.

Erickson argued that China is much more intensely focused on advancing its interests in the “Near Seas,” an area that groups the Yellow Sea, East China Sea and South China Sea, than in the more distant “Far Seas.”

Erickson said, “Washington must redouble its efforts to communicate effectively with Beijing and cooperate in areas of mutual interest, particularly in the 'Far Seas,' he recommended, “while maintaining the capability, credibility, and determination to ensure the bottom-line requirement for Asia-Pacific peace and stability: that no one can use force, or even the threat of force, to change the status quo.”

In a separate lecture focused on Sino-Japanese rivalry in the East China Sea, Richard C. Bush III, director of the Center for East Asia Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, said our concern should be focused on how Japan and China seek to assert their conflicting island and maritime claims. Even though the likelihood of war between the two countries is low, Bush argued that the climate still deserves careful attention because history shows territorial issues can be a casual factor for conflict.

Further to this point, Bush said the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands and ADIZ disputes are “exposed lightning rods for domestic politics” that could encourage each nation’s leadership toward hasty and perhaps regrettable decisions. He asserted that risk reduction measures in the region should be improved including reestablishing communication channels and creating “rules of the road” for the ADIZ and island territories.

The Sino-Japanese Rivalry and China under Xi Jinping seminar series will continue through spring quarter. Please consult the events section for further detail.