Skip to content

Black Shards Press

Forgetting Past Mistakes is to Repeat Them

Menu
  • Home
  • Novels
    • Liberty First Novels – The Recognition Saga
      • Recognition Free Chapters
  • Short Stories
  • Op-Ed Blog
  • About
Menu

Unlike Other Spending, President’s Teacher Program Too Small

Posted on January 9, 2010 by marc

Since taking office just under a year ago, President Obama and the Democrats have tripled the already obscene budget deficit by spending $500 billion on their “stimulus” program, dollars that, in typical federal government fashion, were spent with remarkable inefficiency.

Now comes word of a new initiative sponsored by Mr. Obama that actually does serve a useful purpose – a math and science teacher training program intended to move underachieving “American students from the middle to the top of the pack in those subjects over the next decade”.

"The quality of math and science teachers is the most important single factor influencing whether students will succeed or fail in science, technology, engineering and math," Obama said in a statement. The money will help prepare 10,000 new teachers and train 100,000 more, the administration said.

I know it’s hard, but let’s have a little fun with math, shall we? A typical professional development course costs about $2500 on the open market. There are approximately 100,000 public schools in the United States, so let’s further assume that one lucky teacher from each school would be educated by the president’s program. The price tag for such an endeavor would be $250 billion or about 50% of the amount squandered during the Dems’ prodigious Pork-o-rama last year.

Yes, yes – perhaps the Department of Education, using the feds’ famous ability to make their programs efficient and cost-effective, could magically cut down on the cost-per-teacher. Sure. But remember my other assumption – 1 teacher per school being taught. The reality is that most U.S. schools are staffed by multiple math/science teachers who could benefit from additional training. If anything the number I gave above is low, perhaps by an order of magnitude.

So how serious is the president about the new math and science education initiative? Not very. He’s willing to kick in a mere $250 million for the cause. What a committed leader. That’s just 0.1% of my original number, an estimate that’s probably far lower than the actual cost of training.

Furthermore, I have to question the effectiveness of a week’s worth of training. Certainly every little bit helps. But the problems with match/science education in this country go deeper than a week’s worth of tips and techniques can address. If we’re serious about regaining our place at the top of the technical skills heap then we need to be prepared to spend a lot of money now, before it’s too late. 

(For reference, I highly recommend reading Thomas Freidman’s The World is Flat for background on the consequences of failure in this area.)

The president’s program, while well-intentioned, falls so far short of what’s needed that it would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. Perhaps if he hadn’t wasted all that TARP money…

There is some good news. In another area the president has recognized a fundamental problem with the students are educated in math and science.

Through the "Educate to Innovate" campaign, the government will work with major companies and universities to recruit and train teachers. The White House has said a substantial vacancy exists in the so-called STEM field: science, technology, engineering and math. Up to 1 million new teachers will be need to be recruited over the next five years to fill the gap, the White House said.

Involving employers in the education process would be a positive step. Not only do corporations have the correct perspective on what needs to be taught – they are, after all, the consumers of the output the education system produces – but they also have the expertise to fill the gaps the White House speaks of.

It would be a new concept for American children, but why not have them be taught by the people who actually know about the subject material, having applied it in a production setting?

Furthermore, I can envision American companies being willing to do this for less than market rates in order to help ensure the quality of their future work force and thus negating my argument that teacher education will require trillions of dollars to achieve – if the government is willing to give up its monopoly on education.

Call me a dreamer, but inviting corporations into the education mix seems like the only way to make the massive math/science teacher infusion that’s needed happen in a cost-effective way.

Categories

  • Abortion
  • Afghanistan
  • Africa
  • Age Issues
  • Agriculture
  • Book Reviews
  • Business
  • Celebrities
  • Child Care
  • Christianity
  • Cinema
  • Communism
  • Conservatism
  • Crime
  • Death Penalty
  • Democracy
  • Denmark
  • Discrimination
  • Drugs
  • Education
  • Energy
  • England
  • Environment
  • Evolution
  • Family Values
  • Finance
  • France
  • Free Speech
  • Gay Rights
  • General News
  • Gun Control
  • Health
  • Holocaust
  • Humor
  • Immigration
  • India
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Islam
  • Israel
  • Justice
  • Korea
  • Law
  • Liberalism
  • Libertarianism
  • Literature
  • Media
  • Medicine
  • Men's Rights
  • Mexico
  • Middle East
  • Military
  • Music
  • My Tweets
  • National Security
  • Pakistan
  • Parenting
  • Personal
  • Philosophy
  • Political Correctness
  • Politics
  • Privacy
  • Race
  • Religion
  • Right to Die
  • Russia
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Science
  • Site News
  • Society
  • Space
  • Sports
  • Stupidity
  • Taxation
  • Technology
  • Term Limits
  • Terrorism
  • Texas
  • Transportation
  • Turkey
  • Unions
  • Venezuela
  • Welfare
  • Women's Rights
  • World
  • Youth

Archives

  • February 2025
  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • March 2020
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • March 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • June 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • December 2002
  • November 2002
  • October 2002
  • September 2002
  • August 2002
  • July 2002
© 2026 Black Shards Press | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme