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

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."

Comments

Don't worry, there is a new initiative

[DrXym]

All schools will receive a $50 discount for entry to the Ark Encounter.

Re:Don't worry, there is a new initiative

[Anonymous Coward]

... Because the initiative was a good one and we're sad it's gone? ... Because computer scientists can't be born again? ... Because Trump is a fundamentalist?

Oh... I get it. You just hate Trump. My I suggest conflating his campaign with white supremacism? I hear that's the current strategy.

Re: Don't worry, there is a new initiative

[Anonymous Coward]

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: Don't worry, there is a new initiative

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re:Don't worry, there is a new initiative

[BarbaraHudson]

No, this is a "think of the children" moment - they cancelled a program that was useless. Here's a thought - why not put the money into real education instead of "good optics initiatives" that are little more than opportunities for businesses to get free advertising to kids paid for by the tax man.

Re: Don't worry, there is a new initiative

[coteriescavenger]

Trump was actually the best candidate we deserved to fix our issues. We had the chance to have Ron Paul in 2012, but we let the media shut him out. The only reason Trump had a chance against the institution was BECAUSE he was so controversial and couldn't be ignored. I'm 70% sure he knew exactly what he was doing too. Trump and his based burns are all you deserve because you let the media herd you around like sheep while you slowly swallow pills like the Patriot Act, TPP, and NSA-spying.

Re: Don't worry, there is a new initiative

[Coren22]

What does this have to do with a trade war with China?

https://www.google.com/search?...

Good start

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[TimothyHollins]

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

[KeithJM]

My only concern with that line of thinking is that it isn't just evolution -- the same group that denies evolution denies anything that implies the earth is more than 10 thousand years old. So you end up writing off not just the foundation of modern biology, but geology, astronomy (stars can't be more than 10,000 light years from us if we can see them!), even history (we have archaeology from societies that existed before the world did). At what point do you stop catering to this and just teach as though we're living in the real world?

Re:Good start

[Austerity Empowers]

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: Good start

[Austerity Empowers]

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:Good start

[Joe_Dragon]

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

Re:Good start

[MachineShedFred]

There has always been a strong correlation between advancements in technology, and advancements in the arts.

Re:Good start

[arth1]

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 detrimental, leave it in. You have two different ways of doing things? Use both if you can, and let time decide which one is best; you may be surprised that it's not always the fastest or most elegant code. You have some spare time? Have individuals compete instead of collaborate. Let the worst projects fail - don't spend a major effort rescuing them.

Similar for any other science. Use your knowledge of evolution. It is a scorekeeper and happens whether you like it or not. So use it to your advantage. Embrace the principles; don't fight them.

Re:Good start

[msauve]

Is it now politically incorrect to say "ivory tower?"

Re:Good start

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but you're pushing it real far. You're talking about things which are tangential to evolution, but are not evolution. When I refactor code it's similar to reorganizing a warehouse. This is not evolution. It's simple management. Reorganizing warehouses happened before any theory of evolution existed. I promise you the theory of evolution does not apply to my decision to refactor.

Evolution was the stepping stone in to genetics, but is not necessary to understand to be able to understand genetics. Evolution is a byproduct of genetics, nothing more. In genetics, mistakes happen in the copy step. These mistakes will either be advantageous or not. If they're are, they'll spread, if they aren't, they'll either lie dormant or die out.

Re:Good start

[Trailer Trash]

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:Good start

[Curunir_wolf]

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:Good start

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, like the invention of the paintbrush. What's your point?

Re:Good start

[luis_a_espinal]

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

[Austerity Empowers]

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 other than divine will.

But, I really question how much these abstract theories are valuable in most jobs that the average joe will get hired in to. A mechanic can fix my car without understanding that he shares a common ancestor with apes. An accountant can give me financial advice without questioning if Idiocracy is the inevitable result of civilized society, etc. A policeman can write me a ticket for speeding, without wondering if he has culled the herd too much and potentially ruined his otherwise sustainable prejudiced tax revenue system for the year. People going in to fairly exclusive and lofty educated professions generally do not have an issue with evolution (or understand it, and can apply it, but keep quiet about their religious doubts), this is purely a madness of the commoner, and one we don't necessarily need to confront him with and worry that he will be left behind.

Re:Good start

[Pinky's Brain]

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

[Archangel Michael]

Yes.

It hurts the feelings of the precious snowflakes when you make fun of their preciousness.

Re:Good start

[Archangel Michael]

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 for limited resources, and tends to allocate the existing resources not based on need, but rather based on equalized outcomes. That's okay if we're willing to accept the opportunity costs associated with such a policy. But then we can't complain about the lost opportunities when they happen.

Re:Good start

[Archangel Michael]

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

[Curunir_wolf]

I could not agree more.

Re:Good start

[OhSoLaMeow]

The correct term is "pigmentally-challenged" tower.

Re:Good start

[arth1]

When I refactor code it's similar to reorganizing a warehouse. This is not evolution. It's simple management.

The evolutionary aspect is what happens after you refactor your code. It tallies the score on whether you made good or bad decisions. Spend too much time on something that doesn't give your code a competitive advantage, and it fails when competing.
Understanding evolution doesn't mean direct evolution. That's a big clue that you don't understand evolution.
Understanding how evolution works is by always keeping in mind that the least fit are culled, and how to reduce the risks of it being you. You don't have to be best; you just have to not be worse than the competition in any aspect that could cause a survival advantage for them over you.

Re:Good start

[KingMotley]

But, I really question how much these abstract theories are valuable in most jobs that the average joe will get hired in to. A mechanic can fix my car without understanding that he shares a common ancestor with apes. An accountant can give me financial advice without questioning if Idiocracy is the inevitable result of civilized society, etc. A policeman can write me a ticket for speeding, without wondering if he has culled the herd too much and potentially ruined his otherwise sustainable prejudiced tax revenue system for the year. People going in to fairly exclusive and lofty educated professions generally do not have an issue with evolution (or understand it, and can apply it, but keep quiet about their religious doubts), this is purely a madness of the commoner, and one we don't necessarily need to confront him with and worry that he will be left behind.

That may be true if the mechanic will always stay a mechanic for the rest of his life. But when he gets too old to turn a wrench, or too successful and wants to start his own business, then understanding things like supply/demand/taxes/accounting would be pretty helpful. Same thing for the policeman who eventually stops writing tickets and is promoted up to detective. Learning about human nature, motives, basic psychology would be pretty helpful as well. Of course if he gets promoted to sergeant and has to manage finances, and the people who work for him...

Re:Good start

[JWW]

Good luck convincing your manager that you should code an algorithm 4 different ways and see which one works the best. I actually believe this is a viable strategy to find the best code and it fits your analogy to a T.

The only problem is, your manager is only willing to pay for 0.75 the cost to create a good quality stable efficient (i.e. evolution winning algorithm).

Or to put it another way, instead of arguing whether Software Engineers believe in biological evolution we've got a ton of work left to do to evolve our own discipline towards methodologies that actually work.

BTW I get you believe in evolution and commend you on that, but do you believe in capitalist free market principles, or on On-high authority making the laws and rules....

Re:Good start

[Oligonicella]

a competitive advantage, and it fails when competing

Please describe this arena that code competes in and the rules of said competition. I don't recall any job I've done where we created more than one chunk of code to perform the same task and set them into competition.

Re:Good start

[Oligonicella]

The connection was pretty obvious to me. How about you explain how it isn't?

Re:Good start

[mujadaddy]

We literally are spending tons of money on "Special needs" kids who are NEVER going to be productive

Is "productivity" the sum of a human existence?

Re:Good start

[BarbaraHudson]

No derivative value? So we don't need to develop drugs to combat fast-evolving bugs? Keep thinking like that - it's the quickest, most ironic way to remove you from the gene pool.

Re: Good start

[BarbaraHudson]

Au contraire, people need to have a basic grasp of evolution to understand why it's dangerous to prescribe antibiotics for every runny nose, and why prescribing antibiotics for viruses is stupid. Bacteria evolving resistance to current antibiotics affects everyone directly or indirectly when you turn kids into petri dishes for evolving the next generation of antibiotic-resistant bugs.

Re:Good start

[BarbaraHudson]

Agreed that 90% of all studies have been found to be either badly set up or outright wrong, but that's the nature of the beast. 90% of everything is crap, and it takes time to separate the wheat from the bullshit. But we do eventually get it right.

It usually takes about half the current practitioners to die out for new ideas to gain currency, and that has pretty much always been the case in many endeavors. Case in point - post-menopausal hormone therapy. Premarin and Prempro were two of the most sold drugs in the US until 2004, when the government closed down the Women's Health Initiative study because of higher risks associated with HRT.

Now we know the study was bullshit, because every single woman in the study was using Premarin or Prempro - forms of estrogen collected from the urine of pregnant mares that are not bio-compatible with humans, and contain enzymes simply not meant to be found in human beings. Cut one open and you can smell the horse piss.

And yet doctors still do everything they can to discourage women from HRT based on that study, even though it's based on horse hormones, and not estradiol (a form of biocompatible estrogen). Even though women have lost so much bone density that some of them break their ribs just by sneezing. When this condition occurs in children, we do everything we can, but because it's old people, somehow the same medical condition is "normal" and not worth the risks of treating. Look at broken hips - 56% of men who break their hips never return home, same as 37% of women. And yet hormone therapy can prevent this in both sexes. Estrogen is also a potent antidepressant, and obviously guys on testosterone therapy are going to feel better about themselves as well. Duh! Better to have many more suicides than a few more strokes because suicide is the patient's fault.

It's like we're not to be trusted in being able to evaluate what the best option is for our individual situations based on full disclosure of all risks and benefits. So much for patient autonomy and informed consent.

All thanks to group think in the medical community.

Re:Good start

[BarbaraHudson]

Try Computer Animation moron....

Unfortunately morons are already animated enough without computers :-)

Re:Good start

[BarbaraHudson]

You need to watch Moneyball to see how math has changed how baseball is played. Until Oakland As GM Billy Beane tried it, nobody used it. Now every team uses it. Who would have thought that calculus was needed to have a winning team?

Re:Good start

[BarbaraHudson]

Don't you believe in evolution? Why would you want to prevent them from protesting on the highway? It might not be as effective as lasers on sharks or nuking them from orbit, but a car still does the job old-skool.

Re:Good start

[arth1]

Please describe this arena that code competes in and the rules of said competition. I don't recall any job I've done where we created more than one chunk of code to perform the same task and set them into competition.

Others create code that your code competes with. Unless you've cornered the market, you are always in a deadly competition, whether you realize it or not.

Provide this at the state level

[Karmashock]

These sorts of programs should not be Federal.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[kevin lyda]

How much profit can you make off a kindergartner?

Re:Provide this at the state level

[kevin lyda]

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

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Provide this at the state level

[Hognoxious]

That doesn't prove that the lines are important. It proves that men with guns believe they're important.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[jellomizer]

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 individual citizen has more political power to control and say that I do or don't want that.

Every State has a different culture and needs. When the federal government Right leaning or Left leaning, push out these initiatives undoubtedly some states are going to be getting the short end of the stick because such policy doesn't match that state's culture and priorities.

Cities to operate need a large infrastructure to operate so government support is needed to keep all the gears rolling. Rural areas need less minute infrastructure but their sparsity requires them to try to solve the last mile problem. Where they find that it may be easier for them to do it themselves.

The problem with today's politics on the federal level is they all talk about the idea that all states are equal and need the same things to operate. But things are different.

Here is a simple example.
To survive in the Northern US you will need heating. If you don't have heating during a harsh winter you could die. In the southern portions of the US Heating is something you can for the most part go without for your home. You may have a few cold days where you can bundle up, but home heating is a luxury item. However in that region AC is far more important, while up North it is a luxury item.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[TimothyHollins]

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:Provide this at the state level

[geekmux]

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:Provide this at the state level

[rholtzjr]

How much profit can you make off of a kindergartner's parents?

FTFY

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Austerity Empowers]

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

[Joe_Dragon]

$5K-$9K annual cost before loan fees.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Austerity Empowers]

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.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[arth1]

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:Provide this at the state level

[CrimsonAvenger]

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:Provide this at the state level

[arth1]

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:Provide this at the state level

[coinreturn]

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:Provide this at the state level

[serviscope_minor]

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:Provide this at the state level

[BlueStrat]

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. Things such as term limits for Congress, among others, must be enacted to prevent eventual collapse into anarchy or some form of authoritarianism, and possibly even civil war that turns into global war as the US' enemies seek to take advantage of a crippled US.

"May you live in interesting times", indeed.

Strat

Re:Provide this at the state level

[MrKaos]

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:Provide this at the state level

[MachineShedFred]

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:Provide this at the state level

[geekmux]

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:Provide this at the state level

[Curunir_wolf]

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.

In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.

That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Curunir_wolf]

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.

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare. "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. " The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfar

Re:Provide this at the state level

[coinreturn]

Actually, yes, until such time as SCOTUS says otherwise.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[ausekilis]

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" that pushes more standardized testing, and grading of teachers and schools based on how many kids fall below a set score. Face it folks, not all kids are going to be Math majors, and it's crazy to gauge a teachers abilities and a schools funding based on a few kids that aren't savants. Education is becoming more about teaching to a test than teaching kids to learn, think, and solve problems. It's gotten so bad that there's only one correct method to solve types of math problems now, goodbye long division/remainders, hello triangle-form (or whatever the hell they call it). For that we have ol' G.W. to blame.

However, we can fix those problems at the Federal level if we enable more teachers to actually do their jobs. Judge a school based on how many students graduate to the next school, not how little Timmy did on his math test.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Archangel Michael]

Best argument for 2nd Amendment ever.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Archangel Michael]

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 .. again.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Curunir_wolf]

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 justification that was used to establish it.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[mjr167]

Tons. You have any idea how much money is in education? Charter school board members around here have 7 figure salaries. Those people know how to raise money. And, no it's not about *spending* money on educating students, its all about *raising* money. Not for profit doesn't mean the board isn't extremely well paid.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[mjr167]

A federal system relies on the assumption that the federal government is smart enough to know what's best for everyone and that just because it works in California it is a good idea in Ohio.

The advocates for state wide programs don't trust the federal government to make the right decisions. Look at common core and how well that is working out. Allowing states to be unique will allow some states to excel. Yes some will do poorly, but as a whole the states should be looking around and picking the programs that work, trying things out, and moving forward. A centralized, federal approach means we all excel or fail as a group.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[arth1]

A federal system relies on the assumption that the federal government is smart enough to know what's best for everyone

No, it only relies on the assumption that the federal government is smarter than the dumbest state government in order to raise the floor.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[arth1]

Since the ability to pursue happiness isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's irrelevant to federal issues.

It is part of the Declaration of Independence, without which the Constitution has no base and is null and void.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[strikethree]

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.

This is actually a fascinating idea; however, I disagree with your reasons for keeping school stuff at the federal level. The GP/OP is correct: None of this belongs at the federal level. The only thing the federal government should be concerned about in relation to individuals is the Constitution itself (not violating the Bill of Rights). The federal government should be managing the individual sovereign states and their relationship to the outside world, not managing individuals. That is reserved for the states.

Managing everything from the top to the bottom is known as a dictatorship, even if you bother to try and dress it up as a republic or a democracy. Just. Stop. Let the chips fall where they may. To paraphrase someone's signature (forgot who): Chaos, everywhere, everywhen.

Our efforts to control all of reality are doomed.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[FunkSoulBrother]

No one cares what a bunch of racist landowners in the 1700's wanted, they are dead now. Those that are living will decide what is and isn't valid.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[mjr167]

But that brings down the states that would otherwise be at the top of the curve. You are purposefully holding back the high performers. That's why everyone hated No Child Left Behind. Instead of bringing the lower end up, those programs have historically brought the upper end down. Yes, it reduces the gap and makes things more "equal", but I don't want to be that kind of equal.

Federal programs are large, bulky, and come up with one size fits all solutions that do not allow for deviation. They tell teachers what to teach and how to teach based on metrics and we all know how awesome metrics have been working out. No Child Left Behind got teachers and schools teaching to pass tests, not educate students. Common core barbarized math and gutted art and literature. Can we please just skip the next bad federal education idea and let the local communities and states sort it out?

Not only do state's rights advocates not trust the federal government to make the right decisions, they also happen to have the constitution on their side. The US is NOT a unified, single state. It is a federation of states and it is full of people who do not like to be dictated to by the federal government.

Please see the Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[colinrichardday]

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

Tell that to someone in East St. Louis, IL. That thing between it and St. Louis, MO isn't just a line on a map.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[KingMotley]

Anything that directly affects an individuals ability to pursue happiness is very much a federal issue.

Uh no. You may want it to be, but are free to move to a country in which that is the rule. Stop trying to change my country into your lobotomized version.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[coinreturn]

Like most "originalists" you think your interpretation of the constitution is the only one. I didn't say "general welfare" was THE justification for DoED, but it is adequate in my opinion. And of course you think the Federalist Papers have any weight at all.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[colinrichardday]

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 justification that was used to establish it.

How are judges bound by The Federalist Papers?

Re:Provide this at the state level

[coinreturn]

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.

This does not equate to a power to spend tax money on (or regulate) anything "for the 'common defense' or 'general welfare'". If Congress's enumerated powers included getting involved in education, this clause would grant them the power to raise money toward that end. It does not grant that power by itself. If it did, the remainder of the section (and the entire concept of enumerated powers) would be rendered meaningless, which was obviously not the authors' or signers' intent.

Don't worry, this is a very common mistake. Your reading comprehension will improve with practice. In the meantime, perhaps you would care to read what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had to say on the subject.

First, "obvious" in the eye of the beholder. This is especially true when it comes to the constitution - people get degrees in that shit. Second, snarky "your reading comprehension" lines don't help your point. Third, if DoEd is unconstitutional, why hasn't someone sued to get the Feds out of Education. Short answer: the Supreme Court would laugh at your interpretation.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Curunir_wolf]

"General Welfare" does NOT provide ANY powers to the Federal government above and beyond the enumerated powers. Because the Federal government is limited. If you just point to the "General Welfare" clause and claim it provides powers, you're saying that the Federal government power is unlimited. Full stop.

Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[coinreturn]

Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.

The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[BlueStrat]

No one cares what a bunch of racist landowners in the 1700's wanted, they are dead now. Those that are living will decide what is and isn't valid.

A couple of historical notes FYI.

The person responsible for making slavery a legal institution in the Colonies and who also was the very first slave-owner was a land-owning black man named Anthony Johnson. He petitioned the courts and after a lengthy legal battle became the legal owner of John Casor (a white man) in 1654 in Virginia. Johnson went on to acquire other white slaves.

Thomas Jefferson neither bought nor sold a single slave. He inherited slaves from his family and his wife's family. It was highly illegal to free a slave at that time in the Colonies, so he would have likely been hung if he'd tried to set them free. Things like the "underground railroad" were still about a century in the future.

It's OK to be angry at injustice, but one must be very careful one has the correct target(s) first or you become part of the problem.

Strat

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Curunir_wolf]

Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.

The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.

Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[coinreturn]

Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.

The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.

Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.

I disagree on your "real fact." Without public education the great majority of people in this country would be MUCH worse off. Do you really want countless millions of illiterate people around you?

Re:Provide this at the state level

[BlueStrat]

He petitioned the courts and after a lengthy legal battle became the legal owner of John Casor (a white man) in 1654 in Virginia.

A side note; Thomas Jefferson was not born until 1743, so he and the other founders were not even born until nearly a century after Anthony Johnson became the first US slave-owner. The Founders did not institute slavery in the US, it was a legal institution when they were born. Most of the Founders who wrote about slavery found it detestable, but the southern Colonies had become dependent on slaves and would not join with the other Colonies if they made it illegal, and without the southern Colonies joining in, they would stand little chance against the British.

Strat

Re: Provide this at the state level

[Oligonicella]

"It's just an accident of history." You sir or madam, do not know history. It is in no way an accident.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Curunir_wolf]

Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.

The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.

Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.

I disagree on your "real fact." Without public education the great majority of people in this country would be MUCH worse off. Do you really want countless millions of illiterate people around you?

That has nothing to do with the Federal Department of Education. At all. NOTHING. We had public education before 1979, and we will have it after that useless waste of money is disbanded and nothing but a bad memory, and it will likely thrive without the boots of Common Core and No Child Left Behind and other disasters stamping on the face of responsible educators trying to help the children succeed.

That is, your idiotic straw man is just that: an idiotic straw man.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Oligonicella]

You understand the leftist view that others are a "basket of deplorables" that need their betters deciding for them is simply the reverse of that caricature, right?

Re:Provide this at the state level

[BarbaraHudson]

How much profit can you make off a kindergartner?

In a system of Capitalism, anything is possible. Especially when the kindergartner has parents.

Let's see ... one heart, two lungs, two kidneys, two corneas, one liver, skin, tendons, the membrane around the brain, stem cells, esophagus, stomach, duodenum, intestines, teeth, bones for grafts, marrow, small bones in the ear ... some of those kindergarten kids are worth more than they'll ever earn in their lifetimes. The days when your body is worth $1.98 for the chemicals in it are long gone.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Karmashock]

IF your state wants it, then do it. If your state doesn't, then don't. I'm merely saying it shouldn't be federal and if it should be done... then don't drag the states that don't want it into it just because you do. That's it.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Magius_AR]

Like most "originalists" you think your interpretation of the constitution is the only one.

The Constitution isn't meant to be interpreted. Where the Constitution is unclear, judges look to precedent (historical rulings). Never were they meant to insert their own "modern spin", feelings, or interpretations. The biggest issue with the modern judicial age is literally a case of Slippery Slope fallacy, whereby one judge takes liberties with what the government is allowed to do and then 10 years later the next person grabs a little more freedom away based on the last precedent and then 10 years later there's another loss, ad infinitum until the federal govt has so much case law on the books that they literally have unlimited power.

An "originalist" is nothing more than someone who believes in law rather than gut feeling and sentiment.

The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something.

Sadly, that's very debatable. Obama was a freakin constitutional law professor and he routinely exceeds his allotted powers, the most egregious example being this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Additionally, there are Supreme Court justices that base some of their decisions on nothing related to the Constitution whatsoever. For instance, take the statement by Roberts here regarding a recent ACA case: The statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange, and likely create the very death spirals that Congress designed the act to avoid, Roberts wrote.

He's literally stating, "This badly written law will fall apart if we revoke this unconstitutional part of it, therefore I will rule in its favor"

Here's another one (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/supreme-court-abortion-texas/): "When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety," she wrote.

That has nothing to do with whether or not something is legal/constitutional, so why is it even coming out of the mouth of a judge?

Want another one? Try Roe v Wade, where the Court literally invented a new fundamental right by quoting a right to privacy...that's right...your right of privacy is what gives you a Constitutional right to an abortion. That Court also pretty much choose to define life on their own, which is why we have the "third trimester" caveat.

In reality, what happens with court justices now is that prevailing public sentiment drives their actions moreso than the law. That's why Brown v. Buhman failed, yet Obergefell v. Hodges succeeded. Unless you can explain to me how we have a fundamental right to marry, but that right ends at exactly one person. Or say laws that prevent parent-child and brother-sister marriages -- again, if marriage is a fundamental right that shall not be infringed, why does the 14th Amendment only protect some cases (interracial, same-gender) whereas prohibiting others? It's clearly being determined via cultural fiat (namely, the "eww factor") rather than by law.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[coinreturn]

Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.

The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.

Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.

I disagree on your "real fact." Without public education the great majority of people in this country would be MUCH worse off. Do you really want countless millions of illiterate people around you?

That has nothing to do with the Federal Department of Education. At all. NOTHING. We had public education before 1979, and we will have it after that useless waste of money is disbanded and nothing but a bad memory, and it will likely thrive without the boots of Common Core and No Child Left Behind and other disasters stamping on the face of responsible educators trying to help the children succeed.

That is, your idiotic straw man is just that: an idiotic straw man.

FYI: The Department of Education was established in 1867, and was later sucked into Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1939, then again became it's own department in 1979, so it's been around a lot longer than you think. I was not putting up a straw man, I was under the impression you were saying that public education was a huge waste of money, not just federal funding. If you are consistent, I'm sure you'll be against Trump's proposal to spend $20B pushing federal money to the states to support vouchers.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[coinreturn]

Yes, the constitution is meant to be interpreted - that is the fucking job of SCOTUS per Article III of the Constitution. There is a whole area of law called "Constitutional Law" in case you are unaware of it. And just because SCOTUS decides something against how YOU interpret the constitution, doesn't mean they're making shit up. They get to say what's constitutional, not random internet guy.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Karmashock]

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/i...

Why have states at all if you want to argue to centralization of everything? Why have state governors, state legislators, mayors, locally elected police chiefs?

You ask for logic but you've not demonstrated that you understand the pros and cons of a federated system with limited autonomy. Given your obvious ignorance of a basic concept of US civics and your obvious arrogance... I am hesitant to waste my time with someone that is likely to not listen. Typically people that have retained that kind of arrogance and ignorance in the same skull are not especially reasonable. Just my experience.

Do you want to try again or did I figure you out off the bat?

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Karmashock]

Because justice should be different in New York than in Alaska? And yet both manage their police locally. Why have governors, state legislators, mayors, etc if you have no respect or regard for anything besides hyper centralized authority?

Education like many things has different challenges and objectives in different parts of the country because we have different economic realities etc. To presume you can manage all this from Washington DC is simply ignorance on your part.

Many things are managed locally. Education is one of them. Keep in mind that Washington DC, the city containing the geniuses you presume to put in charge of everyone's education has some of the worst schools in the country. Explain please where this organization gets the credibility to be taken seriously to manage the nation's education given that they demonstrably have failed to manage the education of the city under their nose?

Do not rise above your competence. If you can't even manage ONE city's education system, I have little patience listening to your opinions on how an entire country's education should be run.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Karmashock]

Many of the wealth distinctions are the result of purchasing power parity adjustments that many people don't appear to understand.

People in various places get paid more but they often must pay more for everything almost in perfect proportion to how much more they are paid. Gasoline for example can cost 4 to 5 dollars in Los Angeles whilst costing 2 dollars or less in many other parts of the country. You'll find similar issues with home prices and various other things.

The net result is that the adjusted standard of living once you've factored for purchasing power is that there is frequently less of a distinction then you'd think.

What is more, discrepancies in funding is only relevant to the extent that funding is insufficient to meet local needs. In most cases... having factored for most variables... I'd love to see an argument for negating state powers, centralizing all state functions at the federal level, and justifying all of that on the basis of what can only be described as a collectivist redistributionist moral paradigm.

Look, I appreciate you mean well. But you're also presuming to rule people and tell them what they want. I'd respect your position a great deal more if you ASKED people what they want and accepted no for an answer. If you don't ask but rather TELL and don't listen to refusals... Then your position is ultimately tyranny disguised in patronizing paternalism.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[Karmashock]

All political boundaries are just lines on maps. What gives them meaning is that when you cross them there are consequences.

A line with no consequences is merely just a line as you say. But just as your neighbor would have a response if you decided to build on his property without permission... there are consequences for arbitrarily negating laws, precedent, and generally running roughshod over people.

Do it. You seem like a guy without a healthy respect for consequences.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[colinrichardday]

My point is that some state boundaries are more than lines on maps.

Re:Provide this at the state level

[colinrichardday]

Would state boundaries be different from international boundaries?

All those "backers"....

[goose-incarnated]

Oh Noes!!! All those 'backers' won't have large cheap pool of labour anymore! Whatever shall we do?

Tempests and Teapots

[Slugster]

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.

Re:Tempests and Teapots

[Hognoxious]

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)

Re:Tempests and Teapots

[MachineShedFred]

You're covered - you said "might".

Re:Tempests and Teapots

[hey!]

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.

Know that "privilege" you like to talk about?

[MikeRT]

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...

Re:Know that "privilege" you like to talk about?

[Pinky's Brain]

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:Know that "privilege" you like to talk about?

[Trailer Trash]

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'd often find her sitting alone at parties watching neurosurgery videos on youtube)

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.

Re:Know that "privilege" you like to talk about?

[TimothyHollins]

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. Wasting money on those god-awful returns is not something I consider a worthwhile pursuit with tax-payer dollars. MS and Google and whatnot are free to spend their own money on that, but any politician that wants to throw my money in that burning barrel deserves a 'stupidcone'.

Re:Know that "privilege" you like to talk about?

[chispito]

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...

Like music, art, and even sports, computer science can give those kids a reason to take their studies seriously. Nobody thinks it will solve everyone's problems, or that it's easy.

Re:Know that "privilege" you like to talk about?

[g01d4]

poor single parent household kids who refuse to be educated

I think this is a bit over simplified. At the earliest ages I don't believe the kids "refuse". It's likely they get less resources (esp. teacher quality) and hence fall behind early on. Then as they become socially promoted through the grades there's a mutual understanding with the school bureaucracy that there's little hope of catching up. Poor single parent households are not likely to helicopter over their kids to ensure the school bureaucracy provides decent resources the way other households might. In part it's due to their own limited resources (e.g. time, perhaps language) as well as to what I'd call culture.

Re:Know that "privilege" you like to talk about?

[AHuxley]

People have to want to learn math, science. Adding more computers, expensive robot kits, complex layers of GUI software won't make very average students test better with math.
Spending billions on people who will end up doing art, languages, music, sport, work in a trade or the service sector won't help the USA.
Find the students who show some skills, test them and give them a full scholarship or offer advance classes in topics they enjoy.
Spend the billions on the very best. Spreading billions over huge areas of the USA will just see a few robot kits, some new software and a few new computers adding to amazing educational equipment sent in the 1980's, 1990's.
Did any of that do much for every subject? Typing skills? A GUI playing back multimedia?
The very best in the USA need to support to advance in math, science not be slowed down to move words around a proprietary GUI so a very expensive robot arm moves 30 mins later.

Getting my popcorn out...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and waiting for the first post blaming this on Trump.

Re:hail Trump

[johanw]

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.

Support from the likes. Ah-hah.

[Anonymous Coward]

> which enjoyed support from the likes of Microsoft, Facebook, and Google [...]

Hello, the-likes. How about, you know, for a change, paying *taxes* (Yikes! He spoke the T-word. Uuuuuh!). I mean real honest taxes, not playing games like Dutch sandwich, double Irish or however the trick du jour is called (dead crow? rotting oppossum?).

This way, schools would be better funded and all people, you know, better educated.

Oh, I forgot: you want consumers as stupid sheep and just a couple of smart gals & guys to hire & fire.

But how the hell are those stupid sheep supposed to earn their money they're expected to throw in your general direction?

Farmer's dead already (except a few). Taxi & truck driver... a couple of years (not more than 10, perhaps even 5: and *you* killed that). Software "architects" hmmm... max 15 years (remember: this thing is going exponentially).

What to do? what to do?

When the shit hits the fan, my best moment will be to see some of you wringing your hands.

Lucky I'm pretty old. I've already had a quite nice life.

Re:Let's Face It

[Hognoxious]

II tootakly agree qith evert ying yo sau.

You Americans need FREE schools

[Anonymous Coward]

like we have here in Europe. Free elementary, middle AND universities.

Re:You Americans need FREE schools

[Archangel Michael]

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 were educated in "college prep" High school courses, that left them lacking basic skills needed to function in society.

These are the students who take College courses in all sorts of liberal arts degree programs that have NO functional job outlooks once they do graduate. They graduate college, can't get the 100K year job with their "Womyns Studies" degree, unless they are hired by the next college to teach that course work. Meanwhile we have to import workers to do jobs that Americans believe are "beneath" them, like construction, auto repair .... you know the 2/3 of jobs that do not require college coursework.

It was a joke to begin with

[stevegee58]

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.

Re: It was a joke to begin with

[Type44Q]

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:It was a joke to begin with

[rholtzjr]

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.

Re:It was a joke to begin with

[dslauson]

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 math and analytical skills and other foundational stuff. If they're not exposed to coding before then, it's much less likely they'll consider that path.

That's how it worked for me, anyway. I was not a computer hobbyist as a kid, but I had a programming class as a sophomore in high school that was pretty much just fiddling around with QBasic. I enjoyed it, and it came naturally to me. I ended up getting a computer science degree and I'm a working software engineer, a career I'm very happy in. Without that superficial high school coding experience, I don't think it would have crossed my mind to pursue a CS career. I am thankful for it.

Re:It was a joke to begin with

[Minupla]

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 usually implied although not always said)" attitude is.

I for one, look forward to a generation of people who when faced with a basic issue can plug in their own monitor, and maybe have a useful discussion about technological issues as opposed to running away and passing laws against the 'scary magic box that's going to take my job away".

Now CS class may not be the best solution, I'll grant you, but it's better then the nothing everyone is proposing to replace it with.

Min
 

Re:It was a joke to begin with

[Archangel Michael]

100% correct. However, when emphasis is place on social engineering for politically correct populace, you don't have room for basics. Which explains a lot about the current snowflake crowd.

Re:It was a joke to begin with

[JesseMcDonald]

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 math and analytical skills and other foundational stuff.

Math and analytical skills are foundational skills for far more than just computer programming, and ought to be taught long before the student enters college. It is undeniably true that not every student needs to be trained as a large-system software developer, but everyone should learn at least the most basic fundamentals of computer design, both practical and theoretical, and more importantly the problem-solving skills such as abstract thinking, divide-and-conquer, proofs, etc. which are necessary to understand how complex systems function, including—but not limited to—software. Introductory computer coding is one context in which these skills can be taught, so long as it is recognized as a means to an end and not the end itself.

Re:It was a joke to begin with

[Archangel Michael]

Being in "Technology" in a K-12 environment, I can assure you that very few K-12 teachers have the skill set, desire or otherwise any ability to teach students at any level "coding". I can assure you that for all the people who say they "want" to teach coding (admin, teachers, staff, IT), they don't have a clue how to even start.

Further, I would suggest to you, that far too many teachers come from the Liberal Arts side of colleges, and do not have the math/sciences background to begin to teach programming, even at a rudimentary level.

(side note) I recently saw a post on a social media outlet where all the Christian Right Wingers were outraged over 3rd graders being taught the scientifically correct terms for body parts, I mean, I get that makes them uncomfortable and all that. But what horrified me was that 3/7 was considered a "B" grade on the assessment. Participation Trophy grading isn't helping anyone.

Re:It was a joke to begin with

[rholtzjr]

Man, how did we let it get this far? Not paying attention or was it apathy?

Re:It was a joke to begin with

[Stormcrow309]

I was teaching some students as part of a public / private partnership. Saw one of the results of this system, a big rolling cabinet full of computer equipment. It sat in a corner not being used since it really wasn't tied to the curriculum and the students were not that far along to appreciate it. Lot of money being spent not teaching 2nd graders.

Re:It was a joke to begin with

[colinrichardday]

You'd think that lawyers would understand the difference between coding and programming, as it's the same as the difference between writing "Fix my fence and I'll pay you $30." and drafting an actual contract.

Well we had it tough

[Hognoxious]

Just cause I need someone to make a custom program? I want to pay the cheapest amount that someone is willing to do it for.

Do it thissen, it'll cost tha nowt.

How do you define "support"?

[geekmux]

"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.

Re:Let's Face It

[Hognoxious]

bnut youre usdinh your fingwrs.

Not Fed

[markdavis]

>" 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:Not Fed

[coinreturn]

>" 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:Not Fed

[Trailer Trash]

>" 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.

Re:Not Fed

[Bite The Pillow]

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.

Re:Not Fed

[coinreturn]

>" 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:Not Fed

[Trailer Trash]

>" 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:Not Fed

[JesseMcDonald]

Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.

You skipped some critical words and punctuation:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; ...

Notice the comma after "Excises"—these are two separate lists, not a single broad power. The power described here is simply "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises". That's it: to collect money, not to spend it. The purpose of that power is described by the next phrase, "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". That is merely clarifying language, tacked on to explain why the money is being collected and not intended to grant any additional powers. In other words, the nature of this power is merely to fund the enumerated powers given by the remainder of the section. If this sentence alone were intended to authorize absolutely anything which might be argued to "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare" then the remainder of the section would be superfluous. That (false) interpretation does away with the entire concept of enumerated powers. The authors and signers obviously did not intend for the enumeration of powers granted to Congress to be superfluous, or Section 8 would have ended immediately after the words "general Welfare".

Don't just take my word for it, though. Consider instead the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on the subject.

Re:Not Fed

[coinreturn]

>" 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:Not Fed

[coinreturn]

So you're arguing that can tax but not spend? Phht!

Re:Not Fed

[markdavis]

It is a complete guess based on total laws and powers I have seen. Want more examples of things the Fed has gotten into which are clearly reserved for the States?

EEOC
HUD
Gun controls
Internal spying
Speed limits
Marriage
Medicare
Social Security
Parks
Retirement
DEA
Farming supports
Education
Student loans
Food stamps

The list is just endless of direct and indirect control. Through just the IRS, alone, the Fed creates what is effectively legislation about hundreds of things that it shouldn't- from child-rearing, to buying houses, to gambling, to what type of windows you installed in your house.

You might think the Fed SHOULD be doing all those things, and even the SCOTUS might think it should, but that is NOT what the Constitution says. It is not what the founders wanted. It is not how the system was supposed to work. We are free to amend the Constitution to take those powers away from the States, but we haven't.

Re:Let's Face It

[some old guy]

Yuse teh forks, Louke.

True, but you won't like the solution

[MikeRT]

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 men who abandon their children.
5. Make having two or more children out of wedlock (including outside of common law marriage) that you cannot fully support without welfare, for men or women, would be treated as a sex offense under the logic that it is sexual social parasitism.

You may not like that, but it would work. All society has to do to such people is give them a harsh ultimatum. That is, you can socialize the cost of your lifestyle, but the cost will be your freedom and autonomy since you aren't an invalid and this is by your own doing.

Re:True, but you won't like the solution

[jeremyp]

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

Re:True, but you won't like the solution

[coinreturn]

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

Re: True, but you won't like the solution

[guruevi]

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:True, but you won't like the solution

[Archangel Michael]

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 breed (pun intended) generational welfare enslavement (pun intended) . The most racist, misogynistic hateful outlook is one that isn't looking out for whats best for the kids, because it leads those kids into poverty ... and single parenthood.

Re:True, but you won't like the solution

[Archangel Michael]

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

[FunkSoulBrother]

Have any hot takes on how to deal with/avoid the critical thinking crisis that's largely afflicted the White 40+ community?

Re:True, but you won't like the solution

[coinreturn]

Not sure if you replied to who you wanted to. But I was saying that Ending no-fault divorce would create an uptick in domestic violence and that the other provisions listed by MikeRT would create an uptick in jail population. Your response has nothing to do with that.

Re:True, but you won't like the solution

[Archangel Michael]

Sure it does. You're excluding the downtick caused by kids not getting in trouble as much, and going down the path of crime.

At worst, it is gonna be a wash. At best, it will dramatically lower incarceration rates (see, #1 indicator list above), even if you're correct that SOME men will end up in jail on wife beater charges. But then again, you're probably too damn afraid to try it ... because change is hard.

Re:True, but you won't like the solution

[coinreturn]

Sure it does. You're excluding the downtick caused by kids not getting in trouble as much, and going down the path of crime.

At worst, it is gonna be a wash. At best, it will dramatically lower incarceration rates (see, #1 indicator list above), even if you're correct that SOME men will end up in jail on wife beater charges. But then again, you're probably too damn afraid to try it ... because change is hard.

Actually, the huge uptick in prison population I was referring to was not caused just by the wifebeaters (OP's point #1), but also by OP's points 3 and 4.

Re: True, but you won't like the solution

[sysrammer]

Wear sunscreen.

If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience. I will dispense this advice now.

Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth. Oh, never mind. You will not understand the power and beauty of your youth until they've faded. But trust me, in 20 years, you'll look back at photos of yourself and recall in a way you can't grasp now how much possibility lay before you and how fabulous you really looked. You are not as fat as you imagine.

Don't worry about the future. Or worry, but know that worrying is as effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubble gum. The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind, the kind that blindside you at 4 pm on some idle Tuesday.

Do one thing every day that scares you.

Sing.

Don't be reckless with other people's hearts. Don't put up with people who are reckless with yours.

Floss.

Don't waste your time on jealousy. Sometimes you're ahead, sometimes you're behind. The race is long and, in the end, it's only with yourself.

Remember compliments you receive. Forget the insults. If you succeed in doing this, tell me how.

Keep your old love letters. Throw away your old bank statements.

Stretch.

Don't feel guilty if you don't know what you want to do with your life. The most interesting people I know didn't know at 22 what they wanted to do with their lives. Some of the most interesting 40-year-olds I know still don't.

Get plenty of calcium. Be kind to your knees. You'll miss them when they're gone.

Maybe you'll marry, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll have children, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll divorce at 40, maybe you'll dance the funky chicken on your 75th wedding anniversary. Whatever you do, don't congratulate yourself too much, or berate yourself either. Your choices are half chance. So are everybody else's.

Enjoy your body. Use it every way you can. Don't be afraid of it or of what other people think of it. It's the greatest instrument you'll ever own.

Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your living room.

Read the directions, even if you don't follow them.

Do not read beauty magazines. They will only make you feel ugly.

Get to know your parents. You never know when they'll be gone for good. Be nice to your siblings. They're your best link to your past and the people most likely to stick with you in the future.

Understand that friends come and go, but with a precious few you should hold on. Work hard to bridge the gaps in geography and lifestyle, because the older you get, the more you need the people who knew you when you were young.

Live in New York City once, but leave before it makes you hard. Live in Northern California once, but leave before it makes you soft. Travel.

Accept certain inalienable truths: Prices will rise. Politicians will philander. You, too, will get old. And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young, prices were reasonable, politicians were noble, and children respected their elders.

Respect your elders.

Don't expect anyone else to support you. Maybe you have a trust fund. Maybe you'll have a wealthy spouse. But you never know when either one might run out.

Don't mess too much with your hair or by the time you're 40 it will look 85.

Be careful whose advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia. Dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it's worth.

But trust me on the sunscreen.

Apocryphally yours, Vonnegutt

$15 /hr is shit in the bay area.

[Joe_Dragon]

$15 /hr is shit in the bay area.

Re:hail Trump

[rholtzjr]

Shill, see we can name call also, but we know it won't solve the issues that we are currently facing.

Denying they do not exist also does not solve the issue.

Seemed like a good idea, but disasterous

[phamNewan]

I have personally been involved in helping the teachers get training to make this happen. What they did was send a bunch of elementary school teachers into normal CS classes. I'll let you guess how it turned out, but it isn't pretty. Almost none of the teachers have the background to be successful in a rigorous CS class, so the result is they hate CS more than they did before. It absolutely reinforces the idea that CS is too hard to understand. Only the government would believe that the way to help kids learn CS is to throw elementary education teachers into a regular CS classes. For most of these teachers the CS class was the most challenging course they have ever taken and most of them have been out of school for years.

It has been an unmitigated disaster.

Well intended but poorly conceived

[JoePete]

A programming language can be learned in less than a semester. The creativity and attention to detail that make someone able to turn the lexicon and grammar of a programming language into something useful and secure take years of decent basic education. Packing a coding curriculum into the school day will only distract from the basics kids need. The other aspect of this is this notion among the uninitiated that because someone can write a Java app they must the IT equivalent of a brain surgeon when they are more in fact like an IT plumber. To be employable as a programmer requires a fairly low threshold, but to be great at it, requires several years of professional adult apprenticeship and supervision.

Barking up the wrong tree.

[jcr]

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

Re:Barking up the wrong tree.

[strikethree]

I love your .sig btw, but I thought of a counterpoint to your argument:

Teaching everyone to pilot a ship might be useful in a preindustrial society that survives by living on the water (they do exist!). Teaching everyone to practice law is a bit overboard, but we live in a world where the lawyers are everywhere. Perhaps it is not such a bad idea to teach law to children? I mean yeah, most of them will not become lawyers, but they might be able to survive a bit better in the current litigious climate.

I do get your point. Just trying to make the argument a bit more nuanced: Familiarity with no expectation to practice is reasonable whereas familiarity with the expectation of practicing professionally is blatantly absurd. I mean, they taught me how to play basketball in school. Even encouraged me to play on teams in real competition. Did anyone ever really expect me to become a player in the NBA? Utterly ridiculous (oh wait, new speeling: rediculous).

Re:Barking up the wrong tree.

[jcr]

-sexist

What's your rationale for that, snowflake?

-jcr

Re:hail Trump

[coinreturn]

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:Let's Face It

[arth1]

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.

K-12 Student loans with the same rules as college

[Joe_Dragon]

K-12 Student loans with the same rules as college ones!

Re:With the Republicans in charge? Of course not.

[MachineShedFred]

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 Republican Party. They both bow before the corporate overlord. We're just a bit more efficient now, because one of the corporate overlords took the middle man out and got elected President himself.

Good.

[Dishevel]

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.

Isn't that the horrible sexist policy?

[shaitand]

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?

Facts don't matter!!

[tekrat]

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.

Re:of course it's dead.

[tsqr]

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.

Don't worry, they've stil got it

[rsilvergun]

it'll just continue to come from overseas like it always has. Kids don't learn in school, we live one world rule..

Thank God

[oh_my_080980980]

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.

Re:With the Republicans in charge? Of course not.

[wasted]

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.

I'm all for this but....

[PontifexMaximus]

The current administration is the most corrupt in American history and has shown to be utterly clueless when it comes to doing anything more than rewarding its cronies. This initiative was an abortion from the beginning, like all things Obama. (Solyndra anyone?)

Honestly, the best way to fix some of the problems in education is very simple. Stop with the standardised testing, stop with the multiple assessments every week (disclaimer: My wife is a 4th grade teacher), break classes up based on ability (I know, your little snowflake is perfect, but he can't read so can't be in AG classes) and for the love of God, stop letting illegals be taught. in NC alone, the number of illegals being taught in some schools is greater than the legitimate students. You're wasting BILLIONS on this, yet complain about the class sizes. My wife has 32 kids in her class. You know how hard it is to teach that many 9 years olds without an assistant?

(I know I went off topic, but the point is still relevant.) The federal government, as currently constituted is singularly unable to deal with education the way it needs to be dealt with.

Re:hail Trump

[johanw]

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:Shortage

[johanw]

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.

Re:Gotta love the hipocrisy

[Archangel Michael]

Being offended isn't the same as demanding people lose their job/business because someone won't bake you a cake. As for the the QB taking a knee over being "oppressed" by "white society" is laughable, considering what he is doing, his parents and upbringing. If he is being "oppressed" it is because he is an idiot for not knowing how good he actually has it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:hail Trump

[coinreturn]

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.

So you AREN'T paying attention. It's the republican Congress that refuses to fund it.

Re:Let's Face It

[colinrichardday]

What percentage of a programmer's time is spent typing?

Critical Mass

[DarthVain]

I think it has less to do with salary or size of talent pool, and more to do with job opportunity pool. Which is why you see communities trying to become the next "silicon valley".

The difficulty is unless you already live someplace you have to move there. If you have things like family, most of your wealth in a house, etc... that's a pretty big deal and commitment. So in the case of Omaha, if everything works out great! If not, you're screwed. You work in a field that is somewhat limited, you have a house you need to sell, and you need to displace your family again. In a place like San Jose, if everything doesn't work out, you can find another employment opportunity in your field. Technically the "market" should be the opposite of the 42% salary, in that you could demand more in Omaha because you're more in demand due to scarcity. However what drives salary is changing positions. In Omaha you don't have a lot of leverage to say well I'll just leave to go to one of your competitors, whereas in San Jose perhaps you do, so they pay more to retain you.

Anyway at some point a community has to hit that critical mass for a particular industry to be successful otherwise it just isn't worthwhile and has negative impact. This is why some community's long view trying to attract particular companies with tax incentives etc... Problem is there is a lot of competition there as well, you need more than a few, and some factors, are out of your control (say state tax or something else)...

Re:construction construction construction!

[colinrichardday]

Trump has his stereotype running DHS (female)

No. http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Good.

[waspleg]

Let these fuck face tech CEOs pay for their own employee training.

Re:Let's Face It

[Hognoxious]

He's missing the point anyway. Spelling is knowing what letters go in a word; typing is hitting the right buttons to make them appear.

Re:K-12 Student loans with the same rules as colle

[BarbaraHudson]

Cripes, don't give them any more ideas!!! You know that the banks and lenders will get behind it at the slightest whisper. Get them so deep into debt before they finish high school and they're worse off than indentured slaves because they can never get out of hock.

computer training?

[iggymanz]

I don't want our young people to have funded "computer training" in school. I want them to learn reading, writing, speaking, history and critical thinking, I would support funds for that. I don't want them all to be I.T. droids in a cube farm.

Re:Let's Face It

[arth1]

What percentage of a programmer's time is spent typing?

My guess is around 10%, and only half of that in an editor.
But what's even more scary is that I think even less time is spent on research, like reading.