Schools To Get Their Own DARPA

Julie188 writes "A decade ago, Lawrence Grossman, former president of both NBC News and PBS, and Newton Minow, former chairman of the FCC, proposed that the government set up a multi-billion dollar trust that would act as a 'venture capital fund' to research educational technologies for schools, libraries and museums. Congress has finally approved the idea, and grants could start rolling by this fall. Dubbed the National Center for Research in Advanced Information and Digital Technologies, it should be to education what the National Science Foundation is for science, and DARPA is for national defense."

Finally?

[spydabyte]

About time someone in government considers education as important as military "defense" and scientific breakthroughs.

Total waste of money

[Alexpkeaton1010]

No amount of money is going to get parents in failing schools to care about their kid's education.

I'm a bit dubious...

[mcgrew]

The reason is two experiences: one me in school, and the other my youngest daughter in school.

When I was a kid they came up with the "new math". Basically, it was a different way to do long division. The theory was that this new way better explained how numbers work, but in reality it did no such thing. All it did was to prevent my parents from helping with my homework, since I couldn't do long dividion like they did and they couldn't do it like I was taught. I was at a disadvantage for years, until I learned how to use a slide rule, which actually did teach me how numbers worked.

When my daughter was in kindergarten they had a new thing called "invented spelling", and it was an unmitigated disaster. She still misspells many words the same way she misspelled them before she learned to read (she's 22 now).

The truble with new teaching technologies is that unlike medical experiments, you can't do them on animals first. Test them on real kids and if the experiment fails, so do the children.

Re:Finally?

[InsaneProcessor]

This is typical for the federal government. Not only is it unconstitutional (10th amendment) but, more than 60% of what is spent will go to the beurocracy and it will just suck up more tax dollars. Soon enough there will be no money for any of these programs because there will be nobody left to pay the taxes.

Re:Oh, man! I wish I had a DARPA

[TubeSteak]

When I was growing up, all the other kids on my block had a DARPA, but I didn't.
I had to do with some stupid National Science Foundation

When I was growing up, all the other kids in the country had the National Science Foundation, but I didn't.
I had to make do with the Texas Board of Education [google.com].

Re:Finally?

[kaiser423]

Could you please explain to me how the federal government researching better educational methods violates the 10th amendment? Please. I'd love to hear it. This program isn't taking any power away from anything. It is just funding research into educational methods.

For those whom do not know, 10th Amendment is: "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."

Seriously. Comprehend before ranting.

Re:Finally?

[davejenkins]

well-- the 10th amendment seems pretty clear: unless it's spelled out in the constitution, leave it to the states or the people. So, the real question is your own: Could you please explain to me where the feds get the right to do this? Which part of the constitution allows this?

Re:Finally?

[moeinvt]

"Could you please explain to me how the federal government researching better educational methods violates the 10th amendment?"

I think that the OP chose poor wording and got the discussion going in the wrong direction. You shouldn't have to explain how a specific law "violates" The Constitution. That whole line of thinking rests upon the FALSE premise that "The government can do anything unless it's prohibited by The Constitution." The question should be "What part of The Constitution authorizes the Federal government to fund research into better educational methods?" If it really is DARPA-like, maybe it would fall under the power to raise and support armies, but then it would have to be renewed every two years.

Almost ALL Federal government involvement in education is un-Constitutional from NCLB, taxpayer grants and the whole bloody D of E itself.

Re:Finally?

[StubNewellsFarm]

Do you really think that improving education doesn't fall under "promote the general welfare"? It has just as much justification as "provide for the common defense". Especially since Jefferson and other founders believed so strongly that a representative government would fail without educated citizens, you could also argue that support for education is necessary to "secure the blessings of liberty."

"I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength: 1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom. 2. To divide every county into hundreds, of such size that all the children of each will be within reach of a central school in it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810. ME 12:393

Re:Another clever way ...

[Unequivocal]

It's not like they're redirecting massive amounts of funding towards this. The total US K-20 education budget is $1T (bigger than Defense, FYI). It's not all controlled by the Feds of course - it's highly distributed. Even so, it seems reasonable to me that spending small amount of money on "big think" projects to develop answers for the future state of education is wise. You can't fix everything with technology but you ought to be able to improve the state of technology in education at the least, and at best improve overall education by developing totally new ways of using technology in education.