Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Government Politics

EdTech Funding Cut from Proposed FY06 budget 72

Posted by Zonk from the who-needs-mice? dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Bush's proposed FY06 budget eliminates a $500M Enhancing Education Through Technology program that is a major component of many schools' tech budgets. Rural school districts that serve underprivileged populations are going to be especially hard-hit, since they rely so heavily on technology to use educational resources that would otherwise be unavailable."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EdTech Funding Cut from Proposed FY06 budget More

EdTech Funding Cut from Proposed FY06 budget

Comments Filter:

  • I somewhat agree (Score:3, Insightful)

    by I_Love_Pocky! ( 751171 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @03:58PM (#11610741)
    I think for the most part the money given to schools for technology is wasted (it was at my school). Technology is not the only important thing to learn in school (far from it in my opinion), and I really feel like the money can be better spent on other things (like more and better teachers). The problem is that this cut isn't going to be used for something else in education. In effect Bush is cutting education spending in favor of spending on his imperial aspirations in the middle east, and that is what I take issue with.

    • Re:I somewhat agree (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @04:07PM (#11610873) Homepage Journal
      Well, I sorta agree on your somewhat agreement. Or at least I would if there were any plan at all to help out schools without resoruces to have libraries and to attract highly qualified teachers. But there's not.

      A computer lab with an Internet connection can serve to supplement the libraries of these schools.

      It isn't that computer skills are going to be important to today's K-6 kids; they'll be using telepathic interfaces or something like that by the time they enter the work force. But kids in poor school districts will have accumulated decades of deficit in terms of access to information. We'll have created a third world underclass in our own country.
      • We'll have created a third world underclass in our own country.

        I often wonder if that's the goal-- an uneducated labor force will keep wages down (And profits UP UP UP!), are less likely to complain about poor working conditions, less likely to organize, vote, or call their government representative to complain.
        • I too feel this may be an underlying goal of today's US gov't. I know these kind of ideas sound like crazy talk to most people...but if you take a long look at the way our country is headed, and the way the govt's been acting towards education and the like it's not very hard to come up with such conclusions. If the kids aren't aware of the first amendment and such, how will they ever notice it erased from their history books? Was Orwell just off by about 25 years or so?
          • This has been the goal of public education ever since it was founded over 100 years ago.

            It's got nothing to do with the current government, it's just always been the goal of government in general.

        • Re:I somewhat agree (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hey! ( 33014 )
          Well, this would be a very stupid way to increase profits. To be sure, it would be helpful for industries like agriculture that employ tons of unskilled labor, but even Walmart needs people who can read and calculate and interact with people.

          Future profitability is the reason (or at least the economic reason, there are others) that society needs to invest in education.

          No, it all has to do with short term/long term. If you plan on not being here in twenty or thirty years, less education spending is a goo
          • I haven't got a link to this, but I do know, that it has been used by rightwing/conservative thinkers. Argumenting, that an educated population, will produce more people believing they are competent to lead.

            My interpretation/take on this had always been, that the more these people are raving on about competition and societies need of such in every spehre of life, the more those people actually fear just such a concept, leading to policies that superficially seem to support freedom, but in the long term a
            • ...that an educated population, will produce more people believing they are competent to lead.

              It's also a major theme in the book Brave New World. The book suggests that one cannot have a society of only alphas. You need the betas, gammas, deltas and epsilon-semi-morons.

          • Future profitablity is the reason American corporations are expanding their overseas trade: globalism. The problem with rich American consumers is that they often demand environmental and labor costs go up. If you plan on being the only rich people left to divide up the remaining power in the next 20-30 years, when the government isn't in an economic or credibility position to do anything about it, you don't want to leave the country. Just starve the beast that's kept you from your natural prey for too long
          • The ratio needed of skilled labor & business leaders to unskilled labor & grunts is very low.

            As it is today, 50% of the US population over the age of 22 has at best a high school degree, and half of those don't even have that much. There's plenty of need for those poorly educated folks, even today.

            And the skilled labor and business leaders will just be the product of private schools, while the public schools churn out the mindless masses that will do the grunt work.
        • The parent post is flamebait-or at the least a troll. I'll bite either way. What proof do you have of this? What have you done to fund technology in schools?

          Sending money from the government to fund technology is the worst way to get technology in schools! You have no accountability what so ever as to how that money is spent. You don't know if they spend the money wisely and get systems that will help them, and not be 3 to 10 years behind the times!
          A better solution is to set up a non-profit o
      • A computer lab with an Internet connection can serve to supplement the libraries of these schools.

        I completely agree, and I feel that this is the bare minimum required for any school. I just don't think that a school needs much more than this (but a lot of them do).

        • Case in point... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by benhocking ( 724439 )

          The school I used to teach at spent an unwholesome amount of money installing a satellite dish. This same school had about two or three working TVs, and additional TVs were not bought. Note: I'm not saying that this would have been a good investment even if we did have ample TVs, but it was a blaringly obvious waste of money in our case. (Not that this excuses anything, but the decision was made at a higher level, for all schools in our county.)

          Also note that the amount of money would not have been at all

          • Well, it comes down to marginal effects.

            Sure, doubling the amount paid for teacher salaries would have more effect than doubling the technology budget. But if the technoloyg budget is three grand, spending six grand at a school on technology might have a greater impact than spreading that ten grand over a twelve teachers.
            • Sure, it might. It might also demoralize the teachers and actually have a negative impact. It depends partially on whether the people spending the money spend any time in the actual classrooms that the money will affect. If not, then most likely they will spend the money unwisely. I'm not saying that only the teachers know how the money should be spent (although it wouldn't be a bad idea to seek their counsel), just that before money is spent, a little time (and money) should be invested making sure that th
  • It will swell market demand, and thus prices (bad)
    It will give you less job security in 10 years (bad)
    It will annoy the piss out of your as girls use thier l33t laptops as diaries, and put flowers on them
    10 year old wardriving kids beating you are HL2... grrrrr ...

    1 million laptops will be sold on ebay for the price of a concert ticket/belly piercing: GOOD!

    For everything else, there is always mastercard fraud.
  • Two of my best friends are teachers. One at a high school and the other at a grammar school. The idea of either of them teaching technology to kids is frightening. The fact that they know how to use e-mail at all is a miracle.

    Hiring a stock person in the electronics department of the local WalMart to teach technology would be a better investment of our tax dollars.
    • This is how it worked in my high school.

      Administrators wrote grants to get new computers.
      Administrators hired tech guy to install and maintain network.
      Teachers had no idea how to use network for educational benefit.
      Kids are allowed to run wild.
      Within 6 months, the smart students have broken every security protocol on the netwrok, and shown the slow ones how they can p[lay games during class time.
      Tech Guy conviences administrators that they need to upgrade in order to improve security.
      Repeat.

    • You do realize that "educational technology" money often goes to a lot more than teachers teaching technology (or the technology itself).

      From the article:

      "The administration's elimination of the EETT program will spell the end of meaningful technology training for the 2,600 teachers in Calcasieu Parish Public Schools, will result in greatly reduced technology opportunities for the 35,000 students who attend our schools, and will cause me to eliminate up to six full-time technology positions. The real-worl

  • So What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @04:18PM (#11611013) Journal
    Here's a radical idea; how about making sure that kids can handle pencil-and-paper science and mathematics before we throw computers at them?

    And let's be honest...short of some vocation training (typing, basic word processor-spreadsheet usage), what will kids use computers for that they can't get with books and a live teacher?
    • I can't tell if your post is satire or not. Think of all the jobs available that do not use computers of some kind. Without basic computer usage abilities, kids will be at a major disadvantage in the job market. Look at the register at a fast food place even. Ever tried to order food and had the kid not be able to figure out how to make changes or put in the order?
      • Not that I disagree with your basic sentiment, but I am constantly flummoxed by those working a cash register who become completely unglued if I give them 4 dollars and a nickel for something that cost $3.80. They got confused because when they saw the 4 dollars they immediately entered 4 dollars as amount tendered, before noticing that I was also handing them a nickel.

    • Re:So What? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Wylfing ( 144940 ) <brian@wy l f i ng.net> on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @04:50PM (#11611482) Homepage Journal
      Amen. We've thrown billions of dollars at kids so they can have live Internet connections in all their classrooms. Yet the average U.S. student is a dunce at math, grammar, and geography, and has no concept of the scientific method and formal logic.

      (Not to mention the fact that every one of the schools that has implemented a "high technology" plan is committed to spending obscene amounts of money on Microsoft licenses for the next 15 years.)

      How about we try teaching kids facts and thinking skills? Wouldn't that be something?

    • Here's a radical idea; how about making sure that kids can handle pencil-and-paper science and mathematics before we throw computers at them?

      Why exclude one in favor of another?

      Kids are perfectly capable of learning pencil-and-paper science and mathematics AND learning computers at the same time.

      Computers can be quite useful in school. They can and should be suppliments to books and a live teacher.
  • Unfortunatly, budget cutting is never an easy task. I'm not saying that this particular program should or shouldn'e be cut, but the fact remains that in order to effectively cut costs, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and it's a certain guarantee that not everyone will agree where that line should be drawn.
    • Surely, they could draw that line in the midst of the massive amounts of military spending, couldn't they?

      Call, me crazy, but I think that educating people is more important and better for humanity than killing others...

      • Re:military? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by eglamkowski ( 631706 )
        For better or worse, there is nothing in the US constitution that would allow the federal government to spend anything at all on education. There is, however, authorization for them to operate a military.

        And why in the world would anybody in their right mind want the federal government educating their kids in the first place? That's something that just boggles my mind. That comes directly out of the Communist Manifesto. Are we becoming a bunch of flaming commies in this country? Sadly, I believe the a
        • I'm not saying I want the US government to educate the US children. There is no need for them to dictate what is taught, how it is taught, etc.

          I'm just saying that it would be nice if they threw a bit more money towards schools and less towards the war machine.

          It reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw: "It will be a fine day in the US when schools get the funding they need and the Air Force will have to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."

          • But if the federal government provides funding to schools, then the federal government gets to control what is taught and how. Because if the schools don't teach the way the feds want, the feds can cut their funding to the offending schools.

            The schools become dependent and the feds get a big stick to force schools to teach things their way.

            It's the worst possible disaster when it comes to education. It's also why, historically, schools were funded locally.

            We're at the point now where state governments
      • More money will not solve the problem some of our schools suffer from. Inner city schools, for example, are often the most expensive, yet produce the worst students.
        • Bingo. Schools reflect the condition of the community in which they exist, not the other way around. We need to fix the communities, not the schools. Fix the communties and the schools will improve as a matter of course.

          Of course, how one goes about fixing broken communities is not something I have an answer for. Well, not one that most people would consider acceptable, anyways....
  • "...they rely so heavily on technology to use educational resources that would otherwise be unavailable."

    Like books?

  • Obligatory movie tie-in (Score:3, Funny)

    by Safety Cap ( 253500 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @06:07PM (#11612457) Homepage Journal
    Senator: All fellow members of the senate hear me. Shall we continue to enact tax-break after tax-break for the rich? Or shall we aspire to a more noble purpose and fund decent education for the poor? How does the senate vote?

    All of the senate: FUCK THE POOR! [imdb.com]

    Senator: Good!

    • It isn't a matter of hating the poor, it's a matter of constitutional authority. There's nothing in the constitution that permits the government to spend a penny on education.

      Like it or not, that's the way it's set up.

      And frankly, I think it's a good thing. And we need to go much further and cut all the other communist agenda items. See if you can match up US spending with Communist Manifesto agenda items:

      1. Abolition of private property.
      Have you kept up with all the gross eminent domain abuses lately
      • We need to eliminate those damn solcialist institutions that our lovely government keeps trying to set up and move to a pure market-based society [slashdot.org].
        • I'm not advocating that all levels of government ever be prevented from doing anything for the social good. I'm advocating the FEDERAL government limit itself to what's in the constitution.

          This is a HUGE difference that people like tmp ignore in order to build up strawmen they can have fun knocking down.

          If local or state governments want to install and maintain fire hydrants (to pick his first example), that's just peachy. Indeed, I support fire hydrants, paid for at the appropriate level. But the feds

  • cuts don't go far enough (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Why should I as a taxpayer in California pay for computers for kids in Wyoming? What business does the federal government have taking my hard-earned tax dollars and shipping them across the country??

    Now that we have a conservative president and a conservative congress, it's time to pass a conservative budget. Cut or eliminate all social programs, reduce taxes dramatically, and let issues like EdTech be funded at the local level if citizens choose to fund them.
    • There are too many people who have been educated in government schools who believe government is the answer to all their problems. This is hardly surprising, and while I share your sentiments, the government has already made it not only impossible to accomplish this, but even socially unacceptable to the majority of folks.

      Government schools were never a good idea, and now we're getting the final results of it. It won't be islamic terrorism that destroys us, nor budget deficits nor the decline of the doll
      • There needs to be facts to back up your statements. There are MANY examples of well run schools, particularly in districts where parents are more involved and in where the structures are in place for the accountability of each student. In many cases, this happens to be wealthier or more activists districts where parents have the time and motivation to keep tabs on their kids, and the schools have the structures in place to keep those kids accountable, such as decently paid teachers that care about student

  • Well we told them this would happen (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dave1g ( 680091 ) on Tuesday February 08, 2005 @10:15PM (#11614878) Journal
    People in rural america just don't think about the day to day things the government does for them. Instead they vote on guns, god, and gays.

    They voted for him, i didnt.
  • The Federal government shouldn't be in the business of funding education in the first place.

    Now, with the federal funds gone, the individual states will have to decide if they want to make up that money in their school budgets. Which means it will be state leaders making important decisions about spending and taxes for kids in state X, not federal leaders. And the state leaders in state X are more accountable to the citizens of the state, which gives those citizens a (small) measure more control over the
    • Proponents of devolution have a valid point. When descisions are made by more local governing bodies, they more directly reassemble the opinion of those directly effected by the outcome of the legislation. I agree, particularly at the town/city level. It's a good general philosophy, but there are some flaws. Any society --democratic republic, corporate oligopoly, anarcho-capitalist, fascist dictatorship-- that has a powerful private sector has organisations willing to buy political interest proportiona
      • one of the problems (certainly their tyranical compulsory nature is the biggest) with american schools is that funding is based on property tax. Thus poor areas have poor funding. People remain ignorant and economically disadvantaged in certain communities for years.

        Not so, some areas fund it in other ways. Such as Chicago with the Gas Tax. Also, this is why many areas of the country group together to have larger school districts. Some states also help out with funding.

        National funding is certainly
        • Fine, allow US military recruiters....Just give equil time to recruiters for AL Quada, the militaries of whatever country sends them, various revolutionarie armies (like the FARC), any gang or organised criminal organisation, etc.

          The goal of the US military is killing. At time's their killing really does liberate someone...but increesingly, it's directed at civilains and the ultimate goal is to further the economic power of US elites.
        • What federal law is that? I think you may be mistaken.
    • Couldn't agree more. They also regulate what is being taught. Take for instance, a sex ed program that suits inner-city LA certainly isn't acceptable in a small Mormon town in Utah. But instead our noble leaders in D.C. think they can come up with a program that fits all.
  • "School is like starting life with a 12-year jail sentence in which bad habits are the only curriculum truly learned." -- John Taylor Gatto

    American high schools often do resemble prisons, and not simply because they tend to be large, impersonal institutions filled with gangs, drugs, and cops or because they tend to prize order above all else. The real parallel is that they are both filled with many people who would rather be elsewhere.

    Anyone with a basic understanding of human rights finds compulsory educ

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close