Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education Government Democrats Republicans Politics Science Technology

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Silence Seems To Confirm $4 Billion 'Computer Science For All' K-12 Initiative Is No More

Comments Filter:
  • by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @05:24AM (#53431119)
    All schools will receive a $50 discount for entry to the Ark Encounter.
    • K-12 Student loans with the same rules as college ones!

  • Good start (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @05:33AM (#53431147)

    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)

      by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @07:54AM (#53431653)

      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.

      • we should be engaged in pure research. Sounds like to much time in the ivy tower.

      • by arth1 ( 260657 )

        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

        • 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

    • 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.

      • 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

    • 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.

  • by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @05:35AM (#53431153)

    These sorts of programs should not be Federal.

    • Why? What's so special about states? They're just lines on a map.

    • 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

    • by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @08:02AM (#53431705)

      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.

    • by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @08:06AM (#53431735) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • 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

      • 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

  • by goose-incarnated ( 1145029 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @05:37AM (#53431165) Journal
    Oh Noes!!! All those 'backers' won't have large cheap pool of labour anymore! Whatever shall we do?
  • by Slugster ( 635830 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @05:38AM (#53431169)
    Might as well teach US kids to make tennis shoes while you're at it.

    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.
    • by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @06:40AM (#53431385) Homepage Journal

      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.

      That's a bit of a generalisation.

      It might just be plain wrong.

      (Sorry, Texas, I tried to not look at you)

    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @09:53AM (#53432363) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • by MikeRT ( 947531 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @06:22AM (#53431319)

    All of these initiatives keep reinforcing it. Wake me up when some poor, rural community or ghetto school has seen a major improvement. I'm sick and tired of the nonsense where we give an already decent school more resources, some middle class kid (probably a girl) gets cajoled into taking CS as an elective and it's like "look ma, we're fighting inequality and making America work for everyone!"

    FFS, we half of the kids that leave (one way or another) from inner city schools are functionally illiterate and we worry that some middle class kid who doesn't have enough curiosity to google "how to start programming" is not going to start? Priorities, you don't have them...

    • by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @07:22AM (#53431529)

      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.

      • A school can't correct for a class filled with poor single parent household kids who refuse to be educated

        A school cannot, but society can. All it would take is a degree of ruthlessness on the part of the law-abiding and productive majority in dealing with them.

        1. End no fault divorce.
        2. Provide that unwed, non-custodial fathers are entitled to no welfare or public housing at all.
        3. Provide that unwed mothers can never receive more than 1/3 the welfare of married mothers.
        4. Inflict corporal punishment on me

        • by jeremyp ( 130771 )

          No it wouldn't work. You'd be trapping people in broken down marriages due to financial pressure. That is completely inhumane.

          • 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

        • Um, no. You're just creating an environment for a huge uptick in both domestic violence and jail population.
          • 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.

        • by guruevi ( 827432 ) <evi AT evcircuits DOT com> on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @09:04AM (#53432063) Homepage

          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.

    • 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

      • 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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @06:28AM (#53431349)
    ... and waiting for the first post blaming this on Trump.
  • by stevegee58 ( 1179505 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @06:55AM (#53431443) Journal
    There is a common misconception among non-technical "folks" (i.e. lawyers, politicians etc) that anyone can learn to "code". Of course anyone can be shown how to write a "hello world" application in any language but that doesn't make them a programmer. Unfortunately the perception that "coding" is easy is perpetuated by these democratizing programs that try to turn everyone into a programmer. The fact is that writing the actual code is a small percentage of the intellectual effort required to implement a working software system.
    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.
    • 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.

    • After tutoring math to a recent graduate from our current High School system, I agree we are not doing enough the teach the basics. When I had to always tell them, "Do not guess" or how would you prove that, I repeatedly got a blank stare or a deer in the headlights look.

      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.

    • 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

    • by Minupla ( 62455 )

      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

  • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @07:18AM (#53431519)

    "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)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @07:37AM (#53431585)

    >" 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?

    • >" 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.

      • >" 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

        • >" 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.

          • >" 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.

            • >" 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.

    • 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.

  • by jcr ( 53032 ) <jcr.mac@com> on Tuesday December 06, 2016 @08:31AM (#53431881) Journal

    There is no reason to teach every kid to code, any more than we should teach every kid to pilot a ship or practice law.

    -jcr

  • Because we all know that if the government is teaching our children computers people will get all old, bad, insane information that fucks the industry.
    Local control back to the local systems, vouchers and an end to the Dept of Education.
  • Wasn't this the one that discriminated against boys? The idea being similar to the sexist assumption that feminism means pushing for gender equality because discriminating against men somehow helps make things equal?
  • 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.

  • Now we can out this bull shit behind us. Hey ass-hole computer programming is available in high school to ANYONE who wants to take it. You don't need to fucking shove it down student's throats. If they want to learn it they will. It's not a core course, it never was.

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurence of the improbable. - H. L. Mencken

Working...