Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the budget-cuts dept.

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."

40 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. Don't worry, there is a new initiative by DrXym · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re: Don't worry, there is a new initiative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We could just be honest and associate it with rampant stupidity.

      Right, because anybody who doesn't agree with *you* is stupid.

      Please do not breed or interact with impressionable youth, m'kay?.

  2. Good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now, we need a push so that kids the math, writing and science skills they'll need because the schools are failing horribly at those - especially science. What good is them learning to code when they still come out of school thinking Evolution is "just a theory" and not a fact?

    Or coming out of school without the basic math skills to succeed in a STEM field.

    And this focus on STEM is horribly musguided. Everything builds on one another. Music and art education is just as important and helps with other subjects. Why while everyone in my data structures class were struggling, I learned it instantaneously by making analogies to music.

    And also keep in mind that compared to the general population, more Noble winners play instruments. Interesting correlation between musicality and scientific creativity.

    But code.org is about creating a pool of low cost labor and not our economic future.

    And soon, computers won't need to be programmed, they'll be trained.

    1. Re:Good start by TimothyHollins · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Waaaaat?

      Personalized medicine, vaccines, cancer therapy and prevention, agriculture, space exploration and exploitation, all future medical treatments, insurance, life prolongation, climate change survival.

      All these are partially or completely dependent on our grasp of evolutionary processes and how to exploit/apply them. To do that we need to know the evolutionary theory and how the genomic pathways developed over time.

      You might notice that the list above includes several of the most daunting challenges this generation will face, so I'd say evolution is not a "minor scientific theory".

    2. Re:Good start by KeithJM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:Good start by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now, we need a push so that kids the math, writing and science skills they'll need because the schools are failing horribly at those - especially science. What good is them learning to code when they still come out of school thinking Evolution is "just a theory" and not a fact?

      In very few fields, even science and technology, is an accurate understanding of evolution even remotely helpful. If you wish to believe that a magic sky man crafted you from earth, for the most part, it won't get in your way (provided you keep this view to yourself, your peers will certainly ostracize you for it).

      Or coming out of school without the basic math skills to succeed in a STEM field.

      Or the majority of fields that one can get a job in these days, or even the ability to comprehend and call bullshit on leadership which wants to lie to you for profit. Math is the gateway to reason and objectivity the same way that reading is the gateway to learning.

      And this focus on STEM is horribly musguided. Everything builds on one another. Music and art education is just as important and helps with other subjects. Why while everyone in my data structures class were struggling, I learned it instantaneously by making analogies to music.

      Bad anecdote is bad. Many of us comprehend these subjects without struggle or making potentially dangerous analogies. Honestly data structures is the easiest part of computer science, if you're struggling there it's going to get much, much worse.

      And also keep in mind that compared to the general population, more Noble winners play instruments. Interesting correlation between musicality and scientific creativity.

      Statistics is the liberal arts of math. It contains truths, but you have to be more careful with what truths you glean from it. I imagine there are a lot of correlations with Nobel prize winners beyond just music. This doesn't justify a musical education as a basis for scientific knowledge.

      But code.org is about creating a pool of low cost labor and not our economic future.

      Yes. But then we do have a problem with a lot of people unable to get jobs (particularly people who got degrees in the arts), and if they are CAPABLE of doing the job, then why not provide the education to help them get there. If these jobs are high paying only because the information is hard to find or hidden away in caves by nerd-trolls to perpetuate job security, we can and should fix that. If these jobs are high paying because they are hard to do and not many people have the ability to do them, but the demand remains tremendous...then the salaries are justified.

      And soon, computers won't need to be programmed, they'll be trained.

      My college professor said this, insisted we were wasting our time learning to build or code things, we should be engaged in pure research. This was 20 years ago, he's still wrong. I imagine when I retire in less than 20 years, he will still be wrong. AI is nowhere near that capable now, nor will it magically inherit the complexity and improbability of turning corporate culture and brain damaged marketroids into code automatically.

    4. Re: Good start by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We have bred and continue to breed horses, domestic pets and a variety of food crops for thousands of years, both before the theory of evolution was condensed into science and afterwards, even by those who reject it.

      There are a few fields where the theory of evolution is going to be a requirement, or at least a really good rationalization consistent with evolution but acceptable to your particular bogeyman. The majority can get away without it, and the more you try to force these people into your view, the more obstinate they will become. They are wrong, we all know it, we don't have to point it out all the time.

    5. Re:Good start by arth1 · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. Re:Good start by msauve · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:Good start by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know at least 10s of nurses and two doctors (one of whom is a high-paid specialist, the other of whom is an *extremely* high-paid specialist and researcher) who are outright creationists. It doesn't affect their work quality in any way. If anything, their strong Christian beliefs probably make their work better.

      I'm an evolutionist, so I think they're wrong. I *know* they're wrong. But the fact is that it doesn't matter for the work that they do.

      I agree with you that many researchers need to understand evolution, but that's very very few people. And I'm not saying it shouldn't be taught. I'm just saying that for the vast majority of people - including health-care professionals - it doesn't matter.

      The same goes for advanced math, most of science, literature, etc. Most people don't use most of their education in their day-to-day jobs.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    8. Re:Good start by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:Good start by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  3. Provide this at the state level by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These sorts of programs should not be Federal.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Provide this at the state level by kevin+lyda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How much profit can you make off a kindergartner?

      --
      US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
    2. Re:Provide this at the state level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can test your hypothesis by working in one state without state income taxes and living in another with state income taxes. See if the state that collects income taxes agrees that you don't have to pay them. Then report back on whether that was an imaginary line or not.

    3. Re:Provide this at the state level by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Provide this at the state level by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How much profit can you make off a kindergartner?

      Perhaps you should ask a parent who has paid several thousand dollars for the years leading up to kindergarten (pre-school), as well as those parents who feel public school is utter shit, and pay several thousand dollars per year to send their children to private school instead.

      I'd say by the time a kid reaches kindergarten, the profit margin can be well-established.

    5. Re:Provide this at the state level by rholtzjr · · Score: 2
      How much profit can you make off of a kindergartner's parents?

      FTFY

    6. Re:Provide this at the state level by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These sorts of programs should not be Federal.

      Because computer science is different for citizens of Kansas than it is for Citizens of California? Because children in Wyoming won't ever need to code, but children in New York might? Even my grandfather had to leave Nebraska because the farm was going to his older brother(s) and he needed skills that would help him on his own in places where he could get a job.

      I can understand pushing some things down to states if anyone who isn't corrupt is genuinely interested in the welfare of individual states, but education seems universal.

    7. Re:Provide this at the state level by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      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.

    8. Re:Provide this at the state level by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      These sorts of programs should not be Federal.

      Now I'd like to hear some logic behind that claim.

      I can only see detriments. When states pick, the result will differ between them. That leads to unequal opportunities depending on where you were born, and as many gaps between haves and have-nots that divide further as gaps that close. Or more, because there seems to be a strong correlation between the overall poverty of a state and how reluctant it is to support science.

      Now if there were evolution for states, I'd be all for it. Every year, force a random poor state to dissolve and be amalgamated with its neighbors, and a random rich state to split in two. Then, doing the right thing would be rewarded by survival over time.
      But alas, the competition isn't between the states, which survive no matter what, but between humans, who too often lose because of their state not giving them as good opportunities as other states.

    9. Re:Provide this at the state level by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      So, tab out, read the Tenth Amendment, then go through the body of the Constitution and find the text discussing education as a Federal Power. Then get back to me...

      Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:Provide this at the state level by MrKaos · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    11. Re:Provide this at the state level by ausekilis · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. All those "backers".... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  5. Tempests and Teapots by Slugster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Tempests and Teapots by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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)

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Tempests and Teapots by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      US kids don't need more computer science, US companies are already (still) offshoring tech jobs as fast as they can.

      Well, it's not so simple as that. Let me illustrate.

      The average salary of a software engineer in San Jose is $110,000. The average salary for a software engineer in Omaha NE is $77,629/year. So why aren't software companies setting up shop in Omaha? Possibly, they should. But the size of the talent pool around San Jose is immensely larger, making it more likely you can find exactly what you need if you're an employer. The market says that's worth paying a 42% salary premium.

      Software is almost unique in its ability for workers to create the need for even more workers. If you are producing washing machines, the demand curve for washing machines doesn't shift because you make more of them. But the demand for software as a whole can. Software isn't like washing machines, because it isn't just one thing that addresses a single need. It's many things, some of which create new needs. The 130,000 people working for Oracle create many times that number of tech jobs -- for good and bad reasons. Who knows how many jobs the 700 people working for Canonical create, both users, app developers, and even developers of derivative distros.

      I happen to agree that US kids don't need computer science, but for different reasons. You can't really learn much computer science until you've had at least high school math, so what they're really talking about is vocational training for programmers. That's an utter waste of time. Employers want at least *some* college, if not a degree, and if you're talking about middle school kids the training you give them is likely to be obsolete by the time they enter the workforce.

      Which doesn't mean I think teaching kids to program in Python or (depending on their age) Logo isn't a good idea. A little programming is a useful skill across many professions. But there are only so many class hours in a child's education, and you have to look very sharply for anything resembling diminishing returns. In my state Kindergartners are being assigned homework, believe it or not, because of the curriculum pressure in higher grades. Kindergarten is covering material that used to be covered in first grade, and day care providers (even small operations run out of the provider's home) are expected to take early childhood education classes and do what used to be done in kindergarten.

      There's just no room to put more stuff in unless it's extremely useful.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Know that "privilege" you like to talk about? by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Know that "privilege" you like to talk about? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A school can't correct for a class filled with poor single parent household kids who refuse to be educated. A class environment requires a basic level of deference to the institution school to operate. Good teachers can help create that, but most of it has to come from home.

      Inner city black schools which are successful are selective and enforce discipline, they are almost all charter schools which can expel the dregs to the public school system. All comer schools which don't have any real measure to enforce discipline are the drain of the schooling system, in a region with lots of kids who simply refuse to be educated there is almost no escaping the suction of losers pulling you down with them.

      PS. there's also unfortunate focus on college in the US high school system, a lot of kids would be better off starting apprenticeship early and finding joy in disposable income.

  7. Getting my popcorn out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  8. It was a joke to begin with by stevegee58 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. How do you define "support"? by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level. However, we should assume that it will not."

    In the meantime this program "enjoyed support from the likes of Microsoft, Facebook, and Google"

    By "support" do you mean companies with hundreds of billions of dollars in cash reserves sit idly by and hope that clapping on the sidelines will bring this program to fruition?

    Gotta love that fucking show of support. I agree with others, this program should not be Federally funded. Perhaps it should be instead supported by the very tech companies that were allowed to abuse tax programs in order to stockpile their billions.

  10. Re:Let's Face It by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    bnut youre usdinh your fingwrs.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  11. Not Fed by markdavis · · Score: 2, Informative

    >" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."

    The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?

    1. Re:Not Fed by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      >" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."

      The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?

      Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.

      It's so sad reading bullshit like this. The "general welfare" there was never interpreted to give them the power to do *anything*, which is what confused people like you believe. It also doesn't give the federal government the ability to get into healthcare, and not even the left-wingers on the current SCOTUS believe that.

      The federal government literally has no legal authority to do anything with education. The Department of Education was created during the Carter presidency int he late 1970s - 180 years after the Constitution was put into place. Every other actual legal function of the US government was put into place immediately after the Constitution was ratified.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    2. Re:Not Fed by coinreturn · · Score: 2

      >" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."

      The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?

      Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.

      It's so sad reading bullshit like this. The "general welfare" there was never interpreted to give them the power to do *anything*, which is what confused people like you believe. It also doesn't give the federal government the ability to get into healthcare, and not even the left-wingers on the current SCOTUS believe that.

      The federal government literally has no legal authority to do anything with education. The Department of Education was created during the Carter presidency int he late 1970s - 180 years after the Constitution was put into place. Every other actual legal function of the US government was put into place immediately after the Constitution was ratified.

      Though you may think your opinion is final, it's SCOTUS that decides such matters - so far no challenges. You may think that the DoED was created in the Carter Admin, but it dates WAY back before that. You are aware that Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, which dates back to 1939? That was created from the Dept of Education which Congress created in 1867. And land was set aside for public schools by the Congress of the Confederation in 1785. Oh, now your 180 years claim vaporized.

      No it didn't. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. Public schools are a function of the states. I don't know how it was handled here in TN, but where I'm from in Indiana the counties are made up of townships, each being 36 square miles. Of those, 1 was set aside for schools with part of the land sold to raise money.

      It's not a federal issue, and never was.

      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.

  12. Re:True, but you won't like the solution by jeremyp · · Score: 2

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

    --
    All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  13. Barking up the wrong tree. by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  14. Re: True, but you won't like the solution by guruevi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Those are not the issues inner city kids face. The problem they have is an environment that rejects education as a virtue and emphasises getting resources for their own community, primarily through criminal activity and overt racism.

    Ever given books to those kids? A significant percentage go home and have their books destroyed by adults because education is by and for white people.
    Ever hears about a kid expressing interest in higher education? Neil deGrasse Tyson has talked about it aso have many other scientists. It is actively discouraged as a white man's errand which could be much better spent helping their community.

    I live and work in the inner city and my kids go to a school. The schools aren't bad, they are extremely well funded compared to European city schools and plenty of kids succeed, the results are bad because even at kindergarten level, I'd say about 25% of parents actively prevent their kids from succeeding, school is just a day care for them.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com