White House Silence Seems To Confirm $4 Billion 'Computer Science For All' K-12 Initiative Is No More 280
theodp writes: "2016 as a year of action builds on a decade of national, state, and grassroots activity to revitalize K-12 computer science education," reads the upbeat White House blog post kicking off Computer Science Education Week. But conspicuous by its absence in the accompanying fact sheet for A Year of Action Supporting Computer Science for All is any mention of the status of President Obama's proposed $4 billion Computer Science For All initiative, which enjoyed support from the likes of Microsoft, Facebook, and Google. On Friday, tech-backed Code.org posted An Update on Computer Science Education and Federal Funding, which explained that Congress's passage of a 'continuing resolution' extending the current budget into 2017 spelled curtains for federal funding for the program in 2016 and beyond. "We don't have any direct feedback yet about the next administration's support for K-12 CS," wrote CEO Hadi Partovi and Govt. Affairs VP Cameron Wilson, "other than a promise to expand 'vocational and technical education' as part of Trump's 100-day plan which was published in late October. I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level. However, we should assume that it will not."
Don't worry, there is a new initiative (Score:4, Funny)
K-12 Student loans with the same rules as college (Score:2)
K-12 Student loans with the same rules as college ones!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We could just be honest and associate it with rampant stupidity.
Right, because anybody who doesn't agree with *you* is stupid.
Please do not breed or interact with impressionable youth, m'kay?.
Re: (Score:2)
TBH, a lot of Trump and Hillary Supporters are stupid. The vast majority of people didn't like either one, but felt obligated to pick one of those two. The people who didn't like either, but felt compelled aren't really stupid, they are conditioned and programmed by the elites to feel irrelevant and as such are occasionally unpredictable. The goal here was to get Hillary Elected. All the stars were aligned for that to happen. And now, all those elites are looking pretty damn dumb.
Good start (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, we need a push so that kids the math, writing and science skills they'll need because the schools are failing horribly at those - especially science. What good is them learning to code when they still come out of school thinking Evolution is "just a theory" and not a fact?
Or coming out of school without the basic math skills to succeed in a STEM field.
And this focus on STEM is horribly musguided. Everything builds on one another. Music and art education is just as important and helps with other subjects. Why while everyone in my data structures class were struggling, I learned it instantaneously by making analogies to music.
And also keep in mind that compared to the general population, more Noble winners play instruments. Interesting correlation between musicality and scientific creativity.
But code.org is about creating a pool of low cost labor and not our economic future.
And soon, computers won't need to be programmed, they'll be trained.
Re:Good start (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, we need a push so that kids the math, writing and science skills they'll need because the schools are failing horribly at those - especially science. What good is them learning to code when they still come out of school thinking Evolution is "just a theory" and not a fact?
In very few fields, even science and technology, is an accurate understanding of evolution even remotely helpful. If you wish to believe that a magic sky man crafted you from earth, for the most part, it won't get in your way (provided you keep this view to yourself, your peers will certainly ostracize you for it).
Or coming out of school without the basic math skills to succeed in a STEM field.
Or the majority of fields that one can get a job in these days, or even the ability to comprehend and call bullshit on leadership which wants to lie to you for profit. Math is the gateway to reason and objectivity the same way that reading is the gateway to learning.
And this focus on STEM is horribly musguided. Everything builds on one another. Music and art education is just as important and helps with other subjects. Why while everyone in my data structures class were struggling, I learned it instantaneously by making analogies to music.
Bad anecdote is bad. Many of us comprehend these subjects without struggle or making potentially dangerous analogies. Honestly data structures is the easiest part of computer science, if you're struggling there it's going to get much, much worse.
And also keep in mind that compared to the general population, more Noble winners play instruments. Interesting correlation between musicality and scientific creativity.
Statistics is the liberal arts of math. It contains truths, but you have to be more careful with what truths you glean from it. I imagine there are a lot of correlations with Nobel prize winners beyond just music. This doesn't justify a musical education as a basis for scientific knowledge.
But code.org is about creating a pool of low cost labor and not our economic future.
Yes. But then we do have a problem with a lot of people unable to get jobs (particularly people who got degrees in the arts), and if they are CAPABLE of doing the job, then why not provide the education to help them get there. If these jobs are high paying only because the information is hard to find or hidden away in caves by nerd-trolls to perpetuate job security, we can and should fix that. If these jobs are high paying because they are hard to do and not many people have the ability to do them, but the demand remains tremendous...then the salaries are justified.
And soon, computers won't need to be programmed, they'll be trained.
My college professor said this, insisted we were wasting our time learning to build or code things, we should be engaged in pure research. This was 20 years ago, he's still wrong. I imagine when I retire in less than 20 years, he will still be wrong. AI is nowhere near that capable now, nor will it magically inherit the complexity and improbability of turning corporate culture and brain damaged marketroids into code automatically.
Re: (Score:2)
we should be engaged in pure research. Sounds like to much time in the ivy tower.
Re:Good start (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
It hurts the feelings of the precious snowflakes when you make fun of their preciousness.
Re: (Score:3)
In very few fields, even science and technology, is an accurate understanding of evolution even remotely helpful.
Au contraire, an understanding of evolution gives a strong advantage in pretty much any field. Whether it's programming or economics, understanding how successful models gain a survival advantage, while the weakest are more subject to predation is more than remotely helpful.
Competition and death is inevitable, and you become more successful by embracing it than fighting or ignoring it.
When deciding what programmers do, evolution plays a part on a daily basis. You want to refactor code? Unless something is
Re: (Score:3)
understanding how successful models gain a survival advantage, while the weakest are more subject to predation is more than remotely helpful
You can learn game theory, you can learn economics (but hopefully you forget it promptly), you can learn about biology, play football or go on a jungle safari, the list is endless. You can learn about the advantages and, (dare I say it while living in the US) tremendous weaknesses of the competitive model without embracing the origin of your species as being something
Re: (Score:2)
And also keep in mind that compared to the general population, more Noble winners play instruments. Interesting correlation between musicality and scientific creativity.
I think it has more to do with the fact that quality higher education typically provides much more well-rounded education, including music.
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest to you, that it isn't just "quality education" but that it is paired with a keen mind. Now, take a half a step back, and realize that there are thousands of "keen minds" that are not meeting up with "quality education" and think about how wasted possibilities are. We literally are spending tons of money on "Special needs" kids who are NEVER going to be productive, and always require special care, at the expense of all the other students.
The problem with Liberalism is that it rarely accounts
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, we need a push so that kids the math, writing and science skills they'll need because the schools are failing horribly at those - especially science. What good is them learning to code when they still come out of school thinking Evolution is "just a theory" and not a fact?
Or coming out of school without the basic math skills to succeed in a STEM field.
And this focus on STEM is horribly musguided. Everything builds on one another. Music and art education is just as important and helps with other subjects. Why while everyone in my data structures class were struggling, I learned it instantaneously by making analogies to music.
And also keep in mind that compared to the general population, more Noble winners play instruments. Interesting correlation between musicality and scientific creativity.
But code.org is about creating a pool of low cost labor and not our economic future.
And soon, computers won't need to be programmed, they'll be trained.
Someone has to build the computers and laid the underlying software to make them trainable. Oh, you think they can build and set themselves up to get trained, recursively, ad infinitum? Say hi to the Halting Problem.
Re:Good start (Score:4, Insightful)
Waaaaat?
Personalized medicine, vaccines, cancer therapy and prevention, agriculture, space exploration and exploitation, all future medical treatments, insurance, life prolongation, climate change survival.
All these are partially or completely dependent on our grasp of evolutionary processes and how to exploit/apply them. To do that we need to know the evolutionary theory and how the genomic pathways developed over time.
You might notice that the list above includes several of the most daunting challenges this generation will face, so I'd say evolution is not a "minor scientific theory".
Re:Good start (Score:4, Insightful)
I know at least 10s of nurses and two doctors (one of whom is a high-paid specialist, the other of whom is an *extremely* high-paid specialist and researcher) who are outright creationists. It doesn't affect their work quality in any way. If anything, their strong Christian beliefs probably make their work better.
I'm an evolutionist, so I think they're wrong. I *know* they're wrong. But the fact is that it doesn't matter for the work that they do.
I agree with you that many researchers need to understand evolution, but that's very very few people. And I'm not saying it shouldn't be taught. I'm just saying that for the vast majority of people - including health-care professionals - it doesn't matter.
The same goes for advanced math, most of science, literature, etc. Most people don't use most of their education in their day-to-day jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
I would dare say, that someone has to go outside of the "group think", especially in sciences. Even if they are wrong. We should encourage people to be their best regardless of how right (or wrong) they are. I would postulate that we are more wrong than we think we are, and until we challenge ourselves with alternate theories, no mater how bizarre they are, we'll continue to be limited.
Re:Good start (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not teaching natural history isn't the same as teaching creationism or "teaching the controversy", it's simply leaving it up to the parents and the kids themselves. Most of the kids would encounter ancient earth evidence sooner or later on their own.
It's even possible less kids would have a denialism framework rammed into them from a young age without the antagonism caused by forcing this into school curricula in regions where it's harshly opposed.
Re: Good start (Score:4, Interesting)
We have bred and continue to breed horses, domestic pets and a variety of food crops for thousands of years, both before the theory of evolution was condensed into science and afterwards, even by those who reject it.
There are a few fields where the theory of evolution is going to be a requirement, or at least a really good rationalization consistent with evolution but acceptable to your particular bogeyman. The majority can get away without it, and the more you try to force these people into your view, the more obstinate they will become. They are wrong, we all know it, we don't have to point it out all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
There has always been a strong correlation between advancements in technology, and advancements in the arts.
Provide this at the state level (Score:4, Insightful)
These sorts of programs should not be Federal.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What's so special about states? They're just lines on a map.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can test your hypothesis by working in one state without state income taxes and living in another with state income taxes. See if the state that collects income taxes agrees that you don't have to pay them. Then report back on whether that was an imaginary line or not.
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't prove that the lines are important. It proves that men with guns believe they're important.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not go to a place where those "unimportant" lines aren't respected, then report back to us just how wonderful that place is? I hear Angola and Sudan are all about free-thinking and libertarianism these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Best argument for 2nd Amendment ever.
Re: (Score:3)
So, tab out, read the Tenth Amendment, then go through the body of the Constitution and find the text discussing education as a Federal Power. Then get back to me...
Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....
Re: (Score:2)
Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....
Anything that directly affects an individuals ability to pursue happiness is very much a federal issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....
Anything that directly affects an individuals ability to pursue happiness is very much a federal issue.
Wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
So, tab out, read the Tenth Amendment, then go through the body of the Constitution and find the text discussing education as a Federal Power. Then get back to me...
Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....
Here's my homework, teacher: Article 1, section 8: Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
So, tab out, read the Tenth Amendment, then go through the body of the Constitution and find the text discussing education as a Federal Power. Then get back to me...
Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....
Here's my homework, teacher: Article 1, section 8: Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States.
Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, yes, until such time as SCOTUS says otherwise.
As if there is anyone that could sue to eliminate the Dept. of Ed. and be considered to have standing...
In any case, as stated in the Federalist Papers #41 quoted above, the "general welfare" provides no specific powers at all beyond the enumerated ones, and, according to Madison, it's a ludicrous argument to claim that it does. The Department was actually justified based on the Commerce Clause (like so many of the laws instituting Federal overreach), so you're not even correct about the Constitutional jus
Re: (Score:2)
So, tab out, read the Tenth Amendment, then go through the body of the Constitution and find the text discussing education as a Federal Power. Then get back to me...
Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....
Constitution!? Pfft!
The US government has been wiping its' collective ass with that thing since the 1800s and these days it's a tired joke.
Is it only coincidence that the further the US government has strayed beyond the limits set forth in the Constitution, the worse things have gotten?
Personally, I'm for a Convention of States as set forth in Article V of the Constitution. The size, expense, power, and scope of the Federal government has exceeded all reason and any semblance of a "limited" government. Thin
Re: (Score:2)
some form of authoritarianism
We've been there for a long time. The semi-humorous side effect is all the liberals freaking out at all the power Trump is going to have, being the same liberals who were cheerfully encouraging Obama's "Pen and Phone" tyranny. They never bothered to think at some point someone with whom they disagree with might also have said "pen and phone". And now they are all for limiting the power of the President ... that is until they get their guy/gal into office, and then let the hypocrisy show itself again .. agai
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not. However there is a problem that wealth in states isn't equally distributed per individual and per area. So while some States may have sufficient funding from its own tax income for such programs, other states do not. I would much rather see a lot of our federal taxes go to money to the states without strings attached. So yes the New York City citizen may be funding services for Arkansas for a service they may not agree with. It puts what is done and not done back to the states, where the
Re:Provide this at the state level (Score:4, Insightful)
These sorts of programs should not be Federal.
Because computer science is different for citizens of Kansas than it is for Citizens of California? Because children in Wyoming won't ever need to code, but children in New York might? Even my grandfather had to leave Nebraska because the farm was going to his older brother(s) and he needed skills that would help him on his own in places where he could get a job.
I can understand pushing some things down to states if anyone who isn't corrupt is genuinely interested in the welfare of individual states, but education seems universal.
Re:Provide this at the state level (Score:5, Interesting)
These sorts of programs should not be Federal.
Now I'd like to hear some logic behind that claim.
I can only see detriments. When states pick, the result will differ between them. That leads to unequal opportunities depending on where you were born, and as many gaps between haves and have-nots that divide further as gaps that close. Or more, because there seems to be a strong correlation between the overall poverty of a state and how reluctant it is to support science.
Now if there were evolution for states, I'd be all for it. Every year, force a random poor state to dissolve and be amalgamated with its neighbors, and a random rich state to split in two. Then, doing the right thing would be rewarded by survival over time.
But alas, the competition isn't between the states, which survive no matter what, but between humans, who too often lose because of their state not giving them as good opportunities as other states.
Re: (Score:2)
logic? Sure, that's easy. Any logical deduction stems from the systems axioms. So pick "big daddy gubbermint is teh ebul111!!!1" as the first (or only) axiom and it follows logically. Taa-daa
Re: (Score:3)
These sorts of programs should not be Federal.
Now I'd like to hear some logic behind that claim.
I can only see detriments. When states pick, the result will differ between them. That leads to unequal opportunities depending on where you were born, and as many gaps between haves and have-nots that divide further as gaps that close. Or more, because there seems to be a strong correlation between the overall poverty of a state and how reluctant it is to support science.
This. Then you get into some of the nonsense within the states, such as Kentucky legislators passing laws about teaching Creationism and Evolution as "alternate theories" to one another. I agree wholeheartedly that states have shown they aren't truly capable of making great decisions, just look at the lawsuits blocking competition to state-sponsored monopolies (Google Fiber vs TWC/Comcast/AT&T).
The only thinking behind a non-Federal initiative for education is the "No Child [Idiot] Left Behind" tha
Re:Provide this at the state level (Score:4, Insightful)
How much profit can you make off a kindergartner?
Re:Provide this at the state level (Score:4, Insightful)
How much profit can you make off a kindergartner?
Perhaps you should ask a parent who has paid several thousand dollars for the years leading up to kindergarten (pre-school), as well as those parents who feel public school is utter shit, and pay several thousand dollars per year to send their children to private school instead.
I'd say by the time a kid reaches kindergarten, the profit margin can be well-established.
Re: (Score:2)
Several thousand for private schools?.. Where is this? this is cheap.. I pay 26+ thousand a year for my kids private education.
Sadly, I was more referring to pre-school rates, as you are correct that the cost seems to increase damn near exponentially...
Re: (Score:3)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
$5K-$9K annual cost before loan fees.
Re: (Score:3)
How much profit can you make off a kindergartner?
All of it. Capture young, capture forever. Also - capture parents as well.
This is why Apple and Microsoft jockey to market to this segment.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the sentiment, but private K-12 does exist.
It, however, should not be the only option. Regressing to the "education system" of the 1800s is a very bad idea.
Re: (Score:3)
In a system of Capitalism, anything is possible. Especially when the kindergartner has parents who themselves are rich enough to buy them a good private education or well educated enough to provide their children with one themselves.
FTFY.
All those "backers".... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry, they've stil got it (Score:2)
Tempests and Teapots (Score:5, Insightful)
US kids don't need more computer science, US companies are already (still) offshoring tech jobs as fast as they can.
The colleges want to keep selling the courses and the big tech guys want to say that they're "doing something" about "the problem" (meanwhile they need more H1Bs, please) but nobody else would benefit.
If US public education gets behind *any* concept, you can bet that it's at least 5 years out of date already, and may be 10+ years out of date.
Re:Tempests and Teapots (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a bit of a generalisation.
It might just be plain wrong.
(Sorry, Texas, I tried to not look at you)
Re: (Score:2)
You're covered - you said "might".
Re:Tempests and Teapots (Score:5, Insightful)
US kids don't need more computer science, US companies are already (still) offshoring tech jobs as fast as they can.
Well, it's not so simple as that. Let me illustrate.
The average salary of a software engineer in San Jose is $110,000. The average salary for a software engineer in Omaha NE is $77,629/year. So why aren't software companies setting up shop in Omaha? Possibly, they should. But the size of the talent pool around San Jose is immensely larger, making it more likely you can find exactly what you need if you're an employer. The market says that's worth paying a 42% salary premium.
Software is almost unique in its ability for workers to create the need for even more workers. If you are producing washing machines, the demand curve for washing machines doesn't shift because you make more of them. But the demand for software as a whole can. Software isn't like washing machines, because it isn't just one thing that addresses a single need. It's many things, some of which create new needs. The 130,000 people working for Oracle create many times that number of tech jobs -- for good and bad reasons. Who knows how many jobs the 700 people working for Canonical create, both users, app developers, and even developers of derivative distros.
I happen to agree that US kids don't need computer science, but for different reasons. You can't really learn much computer science until you've had at least high school math, so what they're really talking about is vocational training for programmers. That's an utter waste of time. Employers want at least *some* college, if not a degree, and if you're talking about middle school kids the training you give them is likely to be obsolete by the time they enter the workforce.
Which doesn't mean I think teaching kids to program in Python or (depending on their age) Logo isn't a good idea. A little programming is a useful skill across many professions. But there are only so many class hours in a child's education, and you have to look very sharply for anything resembling diminishing returns. In my state Kindergartners are being assigned homework, believe it or not, because of the curriculum pressure in higher grades. Kindergarten is covering material that used to be covered in first grade, and day care providers (even small operations run out of the provider's home) are expected to take early childhood education classes and do what used to be done in kindergarten.
There's just no room to put more stuff in unless it's extremely useful.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Know that "privilege" you like to talk about? (Score:4, Insightful)
A school can't correct for a class filled with poor single parent household kids who refuse to be educated. A class environment requires a basic level of deference to the institution school to operate. Good teachers can help create that, but most of it has to come from home.
Inner city black schools which are successful are selective and enforce discipline, they are almost all charter schools which can expel the dregs to the public school system. All comer schools which don't have any real measure to enforce discipline are the drain of the schooling system, in a region with lots of kids who simply refuse to be educated there is almost no escaping the suction of losers pulling you down with them.
PS. there's also unfortunate focus on college in the US high school system, a lot of kids would be better off starting apprenticeship early and finding joy in disposable income.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No it wouldn't work. You'd be trapping people in broken down marriages due to financial pressure. That is completely inhumane.
Re: (Score:2)
Trapping people in broken down marriages is better for the kids than being a kid of a single parent, statistically. Kids of single parents are more likely to become single parents, especially if they are girls. It is really bad for being a girl being raised by a single mother, as you are way more likely to become a single mother in poverty than just about anything else.
The whole point is, we're screwing successive generations because we don't want to be hard on the current generation. And this is how you br
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the numbers do not back that shit up.
#1 Indicator of crime is poverty
#1 Indicator of poverty is single parent homes
#1 Indicator of single parent homes is not graduating high school.
You want to prevent crime / poverty ... there are three easy steps.
1) Graduate High School
2) Get a Job
3) Don't have kids until you are married (and over 21)
That's it. Period.
Re: True, but you won't like the solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Those are not the issues inner city kids face. The problem they have is an environment that rejects education as a virtue and emphasises getting resources for their own community, primarily through criminal activity and overt racism.
Ever given books to those kids? A significant percentage go home and have their books destroyed by adults because education is by and for white people.
Ever hears about a kid expressing interest in higher education? Neil deGrasse Tyson has talked about it aso have many other scientists. It is actively discouraged as a white man's errand which could be much better spent helping their community.
I live and work in the inner city and my kids go to a school. The schools aren't bad, they are extremely well funded compared to European city schools and plenty of kids succeed, the results are bad because even at kindergarten level, I'd say about 25% of parents actively prevent their kids from succeeding, school is just a day care for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Preach it, brother!
I have high school kids tell me all the time they want to be programmers. My response is bluntly "no you don't". That usually surprises them, but I explain that everything they need to be a programmer is available to them, so if they actually wanted to do it they would simply do it. It's not like getting into medicine where you have to go to medical school and take the boards. (Bad example, by the way - I know a young lady who wants to be a neurosurgeon - when she was in high school I
Re: (Score:2)
I know very few professional programmers who learned it in college without doing it beforehand. I actually can't even think of one off the top of my head - everybody I know who's a successful, high-level programmer started on their own.
The bottom line is that the typical middle and upper-middle class teenager has everything necessary to program computers at home simply by virtue of having a computer and an internet connection. A bigger difference could be made in inner city areas where kids don't have that at home. I know a guy who builds community centers in inner city areas. Connecting with folks like him would really make the $s go a long way.
But my guess is that this is also a present for teachers' unions, so actually trying to figure out how to maximize returns for the money isn't relevant.
This, a thousand times this.
I haven't met a single talented programmer that didn't come to uni/college without previous experience in programming. They all know either programming, scripting, or a whole bunch of semi-scripting stuff.
Not surprisingly, these are also the students that get the best grades while the others complain they aren't spoonfed the answers (even when the answer is as simple as 'google it').
You can teach programming, but you can't teach enthusiasm, and you can't teach analytical mindsets
Getting my popcorn out... (Score:3, Funny)
It was a joke to begin with (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need a generation of code monkeys typing away at keyboards; we need people with mathematics and analytical skills. Our current education system is simply not producing enough people with math/analytical skills. Meddlesome, short-sighted Federal programs such as "computer science for all" are simply not addressing this basic lack of skills. The fact is that teaching the hard, basic skills required to produce technical professionals is very difficult but no one seems to have the stomach for hard work any more.
Re: It was a joke to begin with (Score:2)
but no one seems to have the stomach for hard work any more
Too true... except for Asians and thirdworlders; the rest of us've grown soft.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to revise the current curriculum to emphasize the basics first, then after that how/when to apply them as well as why they are being applied. You know, encourage independent thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course anyone can be shown how to write a "hello world" application in any language but that doesn't make them a programmer.
We're talking about K-12 education here. The computer science training you give these kids is bound to be somewhat superficial, but it's still valuable. Part of what our education system is trying to offer at that level is a broad range of experiences so that students will be exposed to many things. When the time comes to start specializing in something (i.e. choosing a major in college), they will have a good idea of what subjects they enjoy and have an aptitude for. That's where they'll pick up the ma
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. We also don't need a generation of people who can muddle through poetry analysis, so they can go work as middling college professors.
There's value in knowledge for knowledge's sake. There's value in everyone having enough programming knowledge to know they're not "magic boxes", in the same way as there's value in people understanding how electricity works at a basic level.
Therefore I'm somewhat confused as to what "We don't need all these kids employed in our field, ('driving down my wages' is usual
How do you define "support"? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level. However, we should assume that it will not."
In the meantime this program "enjoyed support from the likes of Microsoft, Facebook, and Google"
By "support" do you mean companies with hundreds of billions of dollars in cash reserves sit idly by and hope that clapping on the sidelines will bring this program to fruition?
Gotta love that fucking show of support. I agree with others, this program should not be Federally funded. Perhaps it should be instead supported by the very tech companies that were allowed to abuse tax programs in order to stockpile their billions.
Not Fed (Score:3, Informative)
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Re: (Score:2)
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
Re: (Score:3)
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
It's so sad reading bullshit like this. The "general welfare" there was never interpreted to give them the power to do *anything*, which is what confused people like you believe. It also doesn't give the federal government the ability to get into healthcare, and not even the left-wingers on the current SCOTUS believe that.
The federal government literally has no legal authority to do anything with education. The Department of Education was created during the Carter presidency int he late 1970s - 180 years
Re: (Score:2)
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
It's so sad reading bullshit like this. The "general welfare" there was never interpreted to give them the power to do *anything*, which is what confused people like you believe. It also doesn't give the federal government the ability to get into healthcare, and not even the left-wingers on the current SCOTUS believe that.
The federal government literally has no legal authority to do anything with education. The Department of Education was created during the Carter presidency int he late 1970s - 180 years after the Constitution was put into place. Every other actual legal function of the US government was put into place immediately after the Constitution was ratified.
Though you may think your opinion is final, it's SCOTUS that decides such matters - so far no challenges. You may think that the DoED was created in the Carter Admin, but it dates WAY back before that. You are aware that Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, which dates back to 1939? That was created from the Dept of Education which Congress created in 1867. And land was set aside for public schools by the Congress of the Confederation in 1785. Oh, now your 180 years claim vaporized.
Re: (Score:2)
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
It's so sad reading bullshit like this. The "general welfare" there was never interpreted to give them the power to do *anything*, which is what confused people like you believe. It also doesn't give the federal government the ability to get into healthcare, and not even the left-wingers on the current SCOTUS believe that.
The federal government literally has no legal authority to do anything with education. The Department of Education was created during the Carter presidency int he late 1970s - 180 years after the Constitution was put into place. Every other actual legal function of the US government was put into place immediately after the Constitution was ratified.
Though you may think your opinion is final, it's SCOTUS that decides such matters - so far no challenges. You may think that the DoED was created in the Carter Admin, but it dates WAY back before that. You are aware that Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, which dates back to 1939? That was created from the Dept of Education which Congress created in 1867. And land was set aside for public schools by the Congress of the Confederation in 1785. Oh, now your 180 years claim vaporized.
No it didn't. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. Public schools are a function of the states. I don't know how it was handled here in TN, but where I'm from in Indiana the counties are made up of townships, each being 36 square miles. Of those, 1 was set aside for schools with part of the land sold to raise money.
It's not a federal issue, and never was.
Re: (Score:3)
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
It's so sad reading bullshit like this. The "general welfare" there was never interpreted to give them the power to do *anything*, which is what confused people like you believe. It also doesn't give the federal government the ability to get into healthcare, and not even the left-wingers on the current SCOTUS believe that.
The federal government literally has no legal authority to do anything with education. The Department of Education was created during the Carter presidency int he late 1970s - 180 years after the Constitution was put into place. Every other actual legal function of the US government was put into place immediately after the Constitution was ratified.
Though you may think your opinion is final, it's SCOTUS that decides such matters - so far no challenges. You may think that the DoED was created in the Carter Admin, but it dates WAY back before that. You are aware that Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, which dates back to 1939? That was created from the Dept of Education which Congress created in 1867. And land was set aside for public schools by the Congress of the Confederation in 1785. Oh, now your 180 years claim vaporized.
No it didn't. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. Public schools are a function of the states. I don't know how it was handled here in TN, but where I'm from in Indiana the counties are made up of townships, each being 36 square miles. Of those, 1 was set aside for schools with part of the land sold to raise money.
It's not a federal issue, and never was.
Yes it is, hence there is a Dept of Education. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Go sue the feds if you don't like it. Maybe the Supreme Court will see it your way, but I bet they won't.
Re: (Score:2)
To evaluate your statement, I need to know where you got the 3/4 number. Because it sounds like you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, but I'm giving you a chance to explain first before calling you a shit dribbling ass gasket.
Not saying if I expected it higher or lower, but the number is way off.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Good. (Score:2)
Local control back to the local systems, vouchers and an end to the Dept of Education.
Isn't that the horrible sexist policy? (Score:2)
Facts don't matter!! (Score:2)
2+2 = rabbit
God created hevaen and Eith.
Jesus rode dinosaurs.
Noah could fit 2 of every animal in a 20,000 square foot space.
Child sex slave ring runs out of a pizza store.
I get an A+ on this test. This country is ruined.
Thank God (Score:2)
Re:hail Trump (Score:2, Interesting)
The democrats want to make sure there are no American programmers left so he can't cut those H1B visas their bribers want so much.
Re: (Score:2)
The democrats want to make sure there are no American programmers left so he can't cut those H1B visas their bribers want so much.
WTF? Are you even paying attention to the topic? It's a democratic initiative to get MORE American programmers that the republicans are killing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and it was a decocrat presidency that shot it off when the environment seems to change: more American programmers now may mean more Americans with a decent job, not more price erosion of programmer's wages.
Re: (Score:2)
Denying they do not exist also does not solve the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
II tootakly agree qith evert ying yo sau.
Re: (Score:3)
bnut youre usdinh your fingwrs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yuse teh forks, Louke.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, I'm using a touch keyboard now, and I can still spell correctly.
Not at any appreciable speed, I am fairly certain. Touch typing is fast, while swiping is slow. So slow that auto-completion becomes an important and integral part of swiping.
Some companies tried that with word processing for touch typists too (long before swiping was invented), and almost all typists turned it off. With touch typing, you could finish a word much quicker than it took to look at the suggestion and accept it.
Well we had it tough (Score:2)
Do it thissen, it'll cost tha nowt.
Re: (Score:2)
Until we can find CEO's working for less than $10 / hour (including bonusses, sign-on rewards and stock options) there certainly are more than enough managers. Same can be said about doctors, lawyers and presidents.
$15 /hr is shit in the bay area. (Score:2)
$15 /hr is shit in the bay area.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because the last 8 years of a Democrat president have done so much to help the little guy. You know, with the completely stagnant wage growth while the Dow is at an all-time high, and these nice unemployment numbers that look to be low, but the actual number of people in the labor force also being rather low.
It's great creating millions of new jobs, except for when people need two or three of them in order to get by.
Please understand that today's Democratic Party isn't all that different from the Rep
Re: (Score:2)
Also please remember that during Obama's first two years he had a Democrat House and Senate, and used that to pass the Affordable Care Act. They could have passed any other legislation during those two years regardless of Republican objection. Apparently the Democrats didn't have a solution during that time, either.
Re: (Score:2)
you don't get rich working hard. you get rich being born into it or bullshitting your way to it.
Depends on what you mean by "rich". If you mean being in the top 0.1%, you're mostly right. However, you can certainly set yourself up for a very comfortable life by choosing the right vocation, working hard, and paying attention to where your money is going. Not so much by slacking through school, turning in a half-ass performance at a job you hate, wallowing in victimhood, and spending all your money distracting yourself from your problems.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need "free" schools. We functionally have very inexpensive education, even at university level, getting to "Free" isn't going to be all that helpful. Especially when you consider something like 2/3 of all jobs do not require college education at all. What we need are people who can function in jobs that do not require college, but far too many people are functioning at less than even High School level education, even accounting for their diploma. We have people who cannot do trade jobs because they