NASA's education budget could be zero

[cbale2000]

Keeping the conversation within scope here (NASA’s influence in FIRST), corporate sponsors can be more difficult because the cash flow would be much less static. A company might commit money for one year or two years, but if a key contact leaves the company, or the company scales back its budget, FIRST or FIRST teams could be left scrambling. From FIRST’s perspective, this would be a heavy blow.

[On a personal note, I am not against government agencies providing government funds for education-based programming- we can never have too much. If you want to move the FIRST sponsorship funds from NASA to the Dept. of Education, an argument can be made for this, but you also lose a lot of the little bonuses that come with having NASA as a partner.]

It is worth considering though that if this new budget come with the associated corporate tax cuts that have been proposed, it would free up funds that companies might choose to “invest” into programs like FIRST, especially if they see a void created by government cut-backs that directly affect their future talent pool. It’s also possible that states might opt to raise taxes to fill in funding gaps left by federal cutbacks which could also benefit programs like FIRST.

Generally speaking, the statistics have held that as federal government spending on education increases, the quality of that education either stays flat or goes down. Currently the US is in the top 5 countries in the world in terms of educational spending, but doesn’t even make the top 15 in terms of test scores. Personally I think education should be handled at a much more local level, I don’t have a problem with the federal government giving out grants to specific programs like FIRST if they fill a void left by the shortcomings of the education system (it might even be the sort of thing you roll into an NSF budget) but these really should be more of the exception than the current “throw more money at the problem” rule. These are also the kinds of programs that could be funded at the state level, much as FiM has done.

My 2 cents anyways.

[Travis_Hoffman]

So are private defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems going to step in and fill the team support void since presumably they will be receiving a boon from increased military spending? And none of this only support teams within a certain radius of a facility bullcrap. I’m talking full nationwide support.

[Lil_Lavery]

Steelerborn and nlknauss have a point.

If you look at the budget it shows a $52B increase in defense spending that will benefit some of the FIRST sponsors and a $0.2B reduction on NASA. I think that we are overreacting. I believe in the benefits of FIRST and the quality of the students that we put out of the program. There will always be money available for things that work.

What, if any, of that $52B increase will be going to DoDSTEM? Will DoDSTEM open grants to teams that don’t have direct connections to DoD Laboratories?
If there is always money available for FRC, why do so many teams struggle to find adequate funding? Why is the cost one of the biggest drivers of team attrition? What guaranteed nationwide revenue sources are available to replace lost education spending at NASA?

[BSV]

From what I’m reading, the Robotics Alliance Project is under Directorate Management in Planetary Sciences, which isn’t getting cut.

NASA budget: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2017_budget_estimates.pdf

FYI, that’s for the current fiscal year (FY17) and isn’t the new (FY18) budget proposal. It does give a good breakdown of how NASA is organized (and which programs would be affected), though. Thanks for posting it.

Space Grant is under NASA Education, and it supports FIRST Tech Challenge in our state (and possibly other places).

[Basel_A]

I feel like people overlooked my last post, so this time in more obvious verbiage and larger text:

The grants to FRC teams are not funded by NASA Education. They’re funded out of Planetary Sciences*, which isn’t getting cut. There’s no indication that anything is happening to the FRC grants.

*And have been for at least the last three NASA budget proposals. I’d guess this is because that’s where Dave Lavery was in NASA

[AdamHeard]

I feel like people overlooked my last post, so this time in more obvious verbiage and larger text:

The grants to FRC teams are not funded by NASA Education. They’re funded out of Planetary Sciences, which isn’t getting cut. There’s no indication that anything is happening to the FRC grants.

Whoa whoa whoa, don’t ruin a good chief argument with facts.

[Lil_Lavery]

I feel like people overlooked my last post, so this time in more obvious verbiage and larger text:

The grants to FRC teams are not funded by NASA Education. They’re funded out of Planetary Sciences*, which isn’t getting cut. There’s no indication that anything is happening to the FRC grants.

*And have been for at least the last three NASA budget proposals. I’d guess this is because that’s where Dave Lavery was in NASA

And you think that eliminating education budget at NASA won’t have any ripple effects to education efforts in other departments at NASA?

e; To make this clear, just because one initiative is under a different department, doesn’t mean it’s safe from budget cuts. The ripple effect of elimination one educational effort could very well impact the educational budgets in other departments, such as Planetary Sciences.

[nlknauss]

So are private defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems going to step in and fill the team support void since presumably they will be receiving a boon from increased military spending? And none of this only support teams within a certain radius of a facility bullcrap. I’m talking full nationwide support.

What, if any, of that $52B increase will be going to DoDSTEM? Will DoDSTEM open grants to teams that don’t have direct connections to DoD Laboratories?
If there is always money available for FRC, why do so many teams struggle to find adequate funding? Why is the cost one of the biggest drivers of team attrition? What guaranteed nationwide revenue sources are available to replace lost education spending at NASA?

As Travis and Sean mention, depending on private companies is a big IF.

I am sure NASA will communicate accordingly to the teams and regions that will be affected.

[Andrew_Schreiber]

I feel like people overlooked my last post, so this time in more obvious verbiage and larger text:

The grants to FRC teams are not funded by NASA Education. They’re funded out of Planetary Sciences*, which isn’t getting cut. There’s no indication that anything is happening to the FRC grants.

*And have been for at least the last three NASA budget proposals. I’d guess this is because that’s where Dave Lavery was in NASA

Well, then I withdraw my objection /s (I still think gutting education is a stupid thing)

But I’ll edit my previous posts.

[Basel_A]

Well, then I withdraw my objection /s (I still think gutting education is a stupid thing)

But I’ll edit my previous posts.

Yep, this is still pretty awful. Among other things, there go hundreds of NASA internships…

[FrankJ]

When spending money whether its your own or somebodies else’s the question are you getting the best bang for your buck is always a good one. Your corporate sponsors are also asking themselves the same question every year. No surprise people in the government are doing the same. It is their job. You can bet that there somebody there saying we can better spend our limited resources somewhere else. FRC consumes a lot of money. Part of the our job as the collective we is to be showing what the benefits are. Assuming that that the benefits are obvious and the funds come automatically is a good way to loose them.

[Richard_McCann]

[quote=cbale2000;1660581Generally speaking, the statistics have held that as federal government spending on education increases, the quality of that education either stays flat or goes down. Currently the US is in the top 5 countries in the world in terms of educational spending, but doesn’t even make the top 15 in terms of test scores. Personally I think education should be handled at a much more local level, I don’t have a problem with the federal government giving out grants to specific programs like FIRST if they fill a void left by the shortcomings of the education system (it might even be the sort of thing you roll into an NSF budget) but these really should be more of the exception than the current “throw more money at the problem” rule. These are also the kinds of programs that could be funded at the state level, much as FiM has done.

My 2 cents anyways.[/quote]

The graph you show doesn’t have any relationship to your discussion. The fact is that educational achievement is highly correlated with the economic status of the parents within a district. If you look at only districts where less than 10% of students are on the free school lunch program, those students achieve the highest math/science scores in the world, beating the usual Asian nations that top the scores when rolling in all students. Achieving better education outcomes is about achieving better equity.

[wajirock]

I wish I didn’t live in a world where the advancement of science and education is considered controversial and political.

[rpaulsen]

I think that FIRST would be able to find private companies to replace any lost NASA money. I think many in the FRC community would all help if needed.

Personally, in my opinion, I don’t think government should be funding a program like FIRST, we are more than capable of finding corporate sponsors. And government money can go away in a blink of an eye, it is foolish to rely on it.

The government should most definitely be funding a program like USFIRST. Trust me you do not want to live in a society that must beg aristocrats for crumbs, it never ends well. The entire NASA budget for the Office of Education, of which FIRST grants are only a small part, is only $115 Million dollars. That may seem like a lot, but only represents $0.35 per each of the 320 million Americans. We will never be able to raise even a pittance of the already limited funds that our Nation invests in science education and research if we force ourselves to rely on the “generosity” of the wealthy and corporations, rather than asking everyone to pitch in a few cents here or there.

[rpaulsen]

Generally speaking, the statistics have held that as federal government spending on education increases, the quality of that education either stays flat or goes down. Currently the US is in the top 5 countries in the world in terms of educational spending, but doesn’t even make the top 15 in terms of test scores.

This is more a function of the fact that as a society we have:

1. further committed ourselves to ensuring that all students, regardless of their socioeconomic status or cognitive, physical, and emotional abilities, have access to an equitable and quality education.

2. Become far better at recognizing and diagnosing cognitive and emotional disabilities that would have gone ignore or referred to as “social diseases” in previous generations (this is also the key to understanding the rise in autism rates in the nation.)

It is not that we are spending more money and creating worse results. Ensuring that all of our students receive an equitable education means making investments in the students who cost the most to educate. Our schools are actually producing better results than our nation ever has, and is producing some of the best outcomes in the world. The truth is that we our schools are constantly forced to do so much more with so much less, and we are now ensuring that the students who would have been driven out of the system are receiving the services they need to succeed.

[Jessica_Boucher]

If you’re upset about this, call your congresspeople.

And if you’re really upset, run for office.

[Lil_Lavery]

And if you’re really upset, run for office.

Running for office in 2018 or 2020 won’t impact budget decisions in 2017. Running for state or local office in 2017 won’t impact the federal budget.

[Basel_A]

Running for office in 2018 or 2020 won’t impact budget decisions in 2017. Running for state or local office in 2017 won’t impact the federal budget.

If you like NASA and want to make an immediate impact, you could support Tracy van Houten, a JPL engineer running in a special election!

[annabelle5459]

I feel like people overlooked my last post, so this time in more obvious verbiage and larger text:

The grants to FRC teams are not funded by NASA Education. They’re funded out of Planetary Sciences*, which isn’t getting cut. There’s no indication that anything is happening to the FRC grants.

*And have been for at least the last three NASA budget proposals. I’d guess this is because that’s where Dave Lavery was in NASA

Where did you find this information? When I went to look I couldn’t find it directly stated but it seemed to be implied that the education department was where it came from.

[Basel_A]

Where did you find this information? When I went to look I couldn’t find it directly stated but it seemed to be implied that the education department was where it came from.

Page PS-5 (or page 130 in a PDF viewer) of their 2017 budget estimates. It’s in a section describing the Planetary Science budget, and says “Directorate Management supports the Robotics Alliance project.” The Robotics Alliance Project includes the FRC grants. I looked at 2015 and 2016 as well, and there were similar sections in each.