According to ESSA, the school agencies that receive $30,000 or more need to spend at least a fifth of their allocation on "well-rounded education activities," at least a fifth on activities for promoting "safe and healthy students," and "a portion of remaining funds" on other activities that promote the effective use of ed tech. By the time the rest of those allocations are handed out, ISTE suggested in a prepared statement, there will be too little left to support the effective expansion of technology that American schools need.
Depending on whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, passage of the Scientific Research in the National Interest Act (HR 3293) is either a simple reminder that federal dollars should be spent wisely, or an unwise and unwarranted intrusion into NSF’s grantsmaking process.
Today (Jan 30), President Obama is unveiling his plan to give all students across the country the chance to learn computer science (CS) in school. We’ve made real progress in education -- over the past seven years, 49 States and Washington, D.C. have raised expectations by adopting higher standards to prepare all students for success in college and careers.
The tendency of researchers to avoid publishing negative findings is an excellent example of how research dollars can be wasted. Scientists are incentivized to publish innovative, groundbreaking new findings, not the results of experiments that failed. Yet as important as it is to report positive findings that support a hypothesis, it is equally important to publish results that disprove a hypothesis.
Based on these specifications, the United States ranks just 10th overall, “largely because its innovation-supporting policies (such as funding for scientific research) are lower than those of the leaders (on a per capita basis),” researchers write. While, on an absolute basis, the United States arguably do more to drive global innovation than any other nation,”in its often dogmatic faith in “free markets” does relatively little to proactively support it,” they add.
In recent years, research universities across the country have faced squeezed public financial support as the agencies that channel funds through them, like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), dealt with sequestration and the 2013 cuts in federal government funding. So what does the $1.5 trillion spending measure that passed in Congress in December mean for scientific research and the so-called innovation deficit in the United States?
The original intent of STEM education was to increase U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace of workers. Teachers from various disciplines including reading, athletics, and the arts have tried to argue their respective subjects can enhance STEM learning and, therefore, should be included in the funding priorities.
The Obama administration’s next annual budget will propose $4 billion over the next 10 years to fund the testing of self-driving cars because of their potential to reduce pollution, traffic and accidents, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said Thursday at the North American International Auto Show. President Barack Obama will likely discuss this plan further on Jan. 20, when he tours the convention in Detroit to applaud auto innovation and further his agenda to rebuild America’s transportation infrastructure.
The FY16 omnibus appropriations legislation and an accompanying bill related to tax provisions were signed by President Obama on December 18. After several years of sequestration spending caps and mostly flat funding for TBED-related programs, the new agreement will bolster funding for many science and economic development initiatives, as well as extend a number of tax credits for small and high-tech businesses. In this article, SSTI takes a closer look at the changes for research and entrepreneurship funding delivered by the deal.
As a select few accumulate massive fortunes, two schools of thought vie on how to funnel some of that money toward the public good. One school says to hike taxes on billionaires and let our elected officials spend the revenues on worthy projects. That's involuntary giving, and the giver doesn't have much of a say about where it goes. The other school backs the light taxation of great wealth and applauds when the superrich make large charitable donations. The giving is voluntary (spurred on by tax incentives), and the money goes exactly where the donor directs it.