Bolden Is Happy About NASA Education Cuts
Keith’s note: You might want to listen to this audio file from today’s STA luncheon where Charlie Bolden answers a question about huge cuts to NASA education. Bolden doesn’t seem to have any problems with the huge cuts that are being made in NASA’s education and public outrach budgets in the proposed FY2014 budget. Indeed, he seems to think this is just wonderful. So, all of you NASA educators, you might as well give up and find other areas to channel your energies. Charlie Bolden thinks that you need less money.
Details on The Gutting of NASA Education, earlier post
I’m completely okay with this.
I think some folks, particularly in the over 40 crowd, need to have a bit of a reality check with NASA Education. It doesn’t work (with respect to “inspiring young Americans to take up careers in science and technology”. It’s never worked. And it’s never going to work.
I can only speak for myself, and my peers of course, but maybe what I have to say is instructive. I went to one of the top Computer Science schools in the country and have a career in it. At 29, I was also the “target demographic” for the glory years of the Space Shuttle program. Hubble beamed back its first “fixed” images when I was a 4th Grader.
But what got me into science was video gaming. It was playing Quake and Quake 2, and letting my imagination run wild with what I could do with the technology and how it worked. It lead me learn how to program. It encouraged me to take all sorts of science and math courses. My love of Space is far greater, truth be told, than my love of Computer Science, but my love of Science came from chipping away into the latter and just looking and reading about the former on the internet.
NASA Education and Public Outreach? It was never there. Lack of promotion made Space Shuttle crews, despite their historic achievements, entirely anonymous public servants. NASA classroom material? The make that? Stunts like building Lego Space Stations in space are patronizing even to 4th graders.
From my perspective, the Space Shuttle era was the best, most sustained chance to make Education and Public Outreach work, and it’s been a complete failure. Here you had an impressive launch system, that launched fairly regularly, for 30 years. 30 years of iterrating through Education and Outreach schemes should have borne more fruit, but instead NASA is largely ignored.
That’s the past, and that’s my personal story. I’m a scientist who grew up in the golden age of education opportunities, and NASA played no role. Now let’s talk the future.
You go to an airport and airplane lately? You see all the 4 and 5 year old kids playing with their tablets? To them those are “computers” and when they’re 20 years old they’ll probably think it entirely bizarre that “laptops” were the go-to computer for work “back in the day”. They will never identify with computing, technology, access to scientific information, that those of us who remember the 1990s and early 2000s, with its dial up internet, CRT monitors and Motorola flip phones do.
They are going to learn and want to be inspired into science by what they see and do on those tablets. A decade from now, with visual programming languages are more fully developed, it might not even be weird for seven year olds to learn the fundamentals of programming. In a world of computers, those who speak the language of computers will be best placed to succeed, and that will start ever earlier with children. And that will be their gateway into science and technology.
NASA gutting education seems entirely realistic to me. Sequestration aside, it should be an admission that 30 years of it lead to basically nothing, and the foresight to see that the tablet in a child’s hand has already replaced it in educational relevance. If children are being hooked into science and technology by newer, better, methods, there is no compelling reason for NASA to play a role in that, just because it has before.
Instead of focusing on third graders, what I would like to see NASA do is adopt a more “shepard” approach, to try and pick out exceptional students in 11th, 12 grade, hold their hand as they apply, then to go to school for science and engineering, and then giving them a job when they’re graduated at 22,23, or 24. Kind of like ROTC for Scientists and Engineers. Investing in 16, 17 and 18 year olds, and harvesting the fruits of that investment four to eight years later.
That seems to me, to be a much more efficient use NASA funding and a much better approach to actually pulling our nations best scientists and engineers into NASA. Let something else entirely be the initial hook into science. Let NASA be the place where teenagers and people in their early 20s think “if I want to make a career out of science and technology, NASA would be an amazing place to do it and get started”.
As for what NASA Education is now… well it won’t be missed, because the target demographic barely ever noticed it was there. And it’s high time to be honest about that. No one misses something entirely irrelevant.
The efforts of the Shuttle era were very different from what NASA does today. The “modern era” in space science education goes back about a decade, perhaps a few years more. NASA’s classroom materials and professional development for educators are in high demand. They’re reviewed and recommended by educational groups around the country. NASA’s interactive and multimedia content – yes, including content for tablets – is accessed and downloaded by millions. And nearly every opportunity NASA offers with limited subscription – student engineering challenges, educator workshops, internships and fellowships, etc. – is substantially and perpetually oversubscribed. Alongside extensive evaluation of impact and reach, these indicators of relevance and demand show that NASA education will be missed by its target demographics. Perhaps that would be different if NASA was still doing “education” like it did in the 1980s and early-mid 1990s, a time when it was more about buzz than educational research, best practices, and evaluation.
I think your observations are somewhat skewed by your own background. I suspect your background is pretty similar to many who read NASA Watch-salary in at least the high five figures and more than likely well into 6 figures, and with ready, continuous computer access.
A large proportion of children in the US do not have regular and frequent access to computers or the internet at all. Recent data shows about 40% with little or no home access. 50% access was attained only in the last few years.
In schools access is a lot less. While many schools have ‘computer labs’, often teachers or classes only get access on an infrequent basis. Frequently the computers are archaic and frequently they are not functional due to maintenance issues. Schools frequently will allot funds to buy computers but then put little or no funds into maintenance. Because of difficulties in scheduling the use of computer labs in many classes the teachers frequently do not even try. In many schools internet access is blocked-access to only specific websites is permitted. Often because the teachers fear some students will have an unfair advantage if they have access to computers or the internet, they will not make assignments that use computers or internet access for homework.
Things are changing with more communities going to universal free wi-fi access and many school districts doing away with textbooks and moving towards computer-based content for instruction, but these efforts are still in the very early stages. In the US dependence on computers for education has lagged the nation in general for a variety of reasons and the subject has been well researched.
One of NASA education’s great failures over the last fifteen years was the decision in the mid-90s to put virtually all content on the internet and restrict the printing of education content in order to save dollars. That might have been OK for the small fraction of kids in the top echelons of the socioeconomic scale (assuming they were self-motivated to go look for the content on-line) but it missed a significant fraction of the students. Those of us who grew up in earlier years remember the NASA Facts on the walls of our classrooms and array of Educational Publications that NASA produced regularly and that were readily available for anyone mailing in a request.
Its those kinds of foolish decisions like going to solely internet based educational content, that are made when the administrators have not looked into the realities or gathered the necessary data before making decisions; that is poor engineering. You wouldn’t design a spaceship that way.
Also, you suggest that those exceptional students are the ones that ought to be coddled and shepherded, but my guess is that if they are that exceptional most will go towards more lucrative and more stable careers than aerospace.
“One of NASA education’s great failures over the last fifteen years was the decision in the mid-90s to put virtually all content on the internet and restrict the printing of education content in order to save dollars.”
Agreed. At the recent Sally Ride Science Festival (SRSF) at UT Dallas the NSS of North Texas display handed out boxes and boxes worth of space materials to the girls; the over 800 of them literally cleaned us out of handouts. One of the event pictures SRSF posted on their Facebook page featured one of the Falcon 9 posters we were handing out getting signed by their astronaut guest. I also distributed NLSI and LPI and CLSE materials in the Lunar Laboratory workshops I ran. Interesting note, the FAA booth across the way didn’t really have any handouts to grab the girls’ attention, so NSS of NT gave them a bunch of FAA Space Commercialisation Office brochures to hand out.
The local Girl Scout troops are apparently so fired up by the great time they had that they have been bombarding the Frontiers of Flight Museum with inquiries about the Moon Day event I’m putting together for July 20th. (we’re a STEM-approved event with Girl Scouts of Northeast Texas). The good news is that they’ll be able to knock out badge requirements at the event. The bad news is that we’ll be getting less material from NASA to distribute.
Once again I’ve butted heads with NASA JSC PAO about getting materials from them. Each year they respond that I can print out materials from such-n-such website. I reply that I have $0 budget to produce their materials for them. They send a list of websites I can print out for folks. I reply that I have a $0 budget, and if I did have a budget I would spend it on shipping up their ISS and Space Food panels for Moon Day, not printing out their materials for them. ‘Round and ’round it goes, every year. But I get the same thing from the corporate folks when I ask if they’ll show off hardware.
All I need is a postcard or bookmark with a website on it. The ones for ISS spotting are a great example. But I need something physical that I can put in the Lunar Sample Bags that we hand out to the kids that they can take home and have at hand when they hit the computer, as well as to stock the exhibits. This year there is apparently a new restriction that materials have to accompany an astronaut visit. Love to have one, but again, $0 budget.
NASA is not necessary for our Moon Day event. By my design. All of the local museums and science centers are participating, as well as local universities and space-related organizations. We’ve even got the Society of Women Engineers on board (they’ll have an electronics activity). It is a grass-roots space celebration, replicable anywhere, and everyone who wants to be there (no charge for displays) carries their own costs to show off their space goodies. That’s how we can do it for a $0 budget. We would benefit from more of a NASA presence (we do get materials from folks like NLSI, who asked to do some remote broadcasts in our auditorium this year, and NASA IPP, and the local Solar System Ambassadors who participate are JPL-trained, which involves NASA funding. But I think that’s about it. We were hoping for an ARISS uplink, but couldn’t pull together a proposal in time. The local AMSAT guys will still be there, though, with a satellite overpass exercise. Let me think…oh, Moon Rock Disks. Brookhaven College brings those up every year. Otherwise…that’s it), but a NASA presence isn’t necessary for us to have a Moon Day.
Everyone would benefit from having more of a NASA presence at Moon Day, especially the local citizenry. I would dearly love to have more of a NASA presence at Moon Day. No question. What presence there is is of enormous benefit, as I routinely get feedback from parents of their kids taking their overstuffed Lunar Sample Bags home, dumping them out on their bed or floor, and spending hours or days poring through the materials. Even going back to it months later. Space is THE most potent STEM hook that there is for kids. We can use that to our advantage…or not.
So everyone can gripe and moan about what’s
happening, or they can adapt to reality. I don’t give a rat’s patootie
about “inspiring” kids. I do care passionately about educating them (so
that they can be more competitive vis-a-vis their peers when they hit
the dog eat dog world of grown-up-hood), and that’s what Moon Day is
designed to do. That’s why we have our Moon Academy classes and Lunar
University lectures. Everyone is welcome to attend, we get a great
turnout
every year, and the exhibitors are always excited about coming back the
next year.
Transferring the EPO function to the Department of Education, an abomination on the Constitution that shouldn’t even exist, is a huge, huge mistake that will have enormous unintended mal-consequences down the road and is setting up a cultural disaster (just as the existence of the DoEd is an educational disaster, and there can’t be anyone that thinks we’re in a better educational situation now than when it was formed).
The Old Guard of space needs to hand over the reins to the next generations, the Gen Xers and Millenials, now if it hopes to salvage any vestige of a healthy government presence in a healthy U.S. space industry. Besides, they’re cheaper on the payroll, too. We have the skills, we have vision, we have the tools. Space is not what it was, and it is way, way too important to keep trying to do the same old things over and over again. Adapt or perish.
You extrapolate an awful lot from your own personal experience and observations. As a scientist, one would think you would not be so inclined to place so much weight on anecdotal evidence, especially when you are the source of the anecdotes. (A) NASA’s educational programs didn’t influence you much as a kid; and (B) kids these days are highly into tablets, mobile devices, and video games. These two facts lead to the conclusion that NASA should scrap its educational programs? Throwing out the baby with the bath water, aren’t we?
How about instead, we suggest that NASA keep the funds for education and take a hard look at how to update its approach to education to take advantage of new technologies and trends as well as build on its legacy of inspiration to thousands of aspiring young scientists and engineers. And do some research to assess how well it is reaching students across the country and across all ages and grade levels. That would seem to me to be a more “scientific” approach.
There’s a lot of room for improvement in NASA Ed, but I think if you actually look into the programs, you will find that many of them are doing exactly that.
Wow, ok I share a few of your sentiments but not the conclusion. I’m another computer science guy, good program, and have a career in it too. A little differently, I guess, I believe I always had a love of science and knew I would go into some kind of science or engineering, and didn’t decide on Computer Science until relatively late.
NASA related education just needs to evolve like everything else. Why can’t there be lots of NASA materials on those tablets… or everywhere else? As someone who has soaked up most of the 1989 World Book Encyclopedias as a kid, and played on Windows 95 computers and the early internet (and Quake, hehe), I would have likely eaten up all the NASA stuff I could get. The democratization of information today is astounding compared to that. Let’s see, back then I lived in Huntsville for a summer and went to Marshall a few times, watched space related IMAX movies, also went to Kennedy on a family Florida vacation. I loved it! Not everyone gets a chance to do even those little things. That’s about all the exposure I got to NASA besides Challenger news. Kids now could go out and get it themselves in more ways. My mom is a science teacher and brings students to space camp every year.
I still don’t see why not. I think a little bit of REAL space discoveries would be able to get some kids’ imaginations going. Here is the basis for lots of science fiction.
I do like your ideas for a ROTC-like program. I know they have internships and I think they sounded like a great setup when I looked this up in the past. They try to get interns close to the exciting stuff in some way I think, and they generally want to keep their interns later on. Maybe targeting high schoolers in addition, and early-college, would be a good idea and I’m sure there are other ways to improve.
They can move it to Dept. of Education or whatever but they still need to do it. I hope Dept. of E really eats up its feed to NASA programs and goes to town. It could be done well, that is possible, I just hope it is done.
You are absolutely correct. Not only that but NASA is not suffering from a lack of qualified applicants. NASA educational programs are little more then self promotion advertisements. They are high cost and deliver little to the classrooms that is not accessible elsewhere.
I don’t even know what to say. The Administrator’s lack of understanding of his programs is a bit stunning. And the notion that NASA education hasn’t lost $45M under the President’s budget, just because it hasn’t gone to reconciliation, is disingenuous. If there was a plan, with partners, with metrics (that he seems to intent on), I would at least understand. But make no mistake, this isn’t the case…. we are giving money to agencies that have little to no experience implementing programs, decimating in the process, programs that have a metrics-based track record of serving audience. Something our Administrator doesn’t see to be aware of…. I’m soooooo disappointed….
I heard Bolden and Gerstenmaier, years ago, say that they were working to do exactly what has now been done-move NASA educational programs to the Dept of Education. That was shortly after Bolden came in as Administrator. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were the ones behind the move or that it happened at their initiative. These guys obviously have no clue what the Dept of Ed does/does not do, and they have no clue why it is important for NASA to be in the public information business. In lieu of marketing, it is critical to public support. No doubt NASA has worked inefficiently in this area, in large measure because people like Bolden and Gerstenmaier and their non-educator, non-marketer, engineering buddies, who do not understand what needs to be done, have been the ones in charge. If they’d got their act together years ago they would not be in the budget predicament they find themselves in today. They are their own worst enemies when it comes to communicating what they do. Sure, in a perfect world NASA would not need to work on educational and public affairs programs, and the entire world would be excited by NASA’s activities, and NASA could focus solely on technical engineering. Everyone would sing kum-bi-ah together. But reality is different. They don’t get it. Unfortunately not only are they poor at education and communication, they have shown little technical acumen either, which is why the program is in its current disastrous predicament.
BTW these statements were made soon after Bolden came in as Administrator at an employee all-hands I’ve no doubt that someone who had his ear was putting bad information and bad ideas into his head.
Wow. Just… wow. I understand that NASA is under the executive branch, and that Bolden is obligated to support the administration’s FY2014 budget proposal. However, this recording makes me wonder if he understands what the STEM reorganization will entail. He seems to be imagining a future where NASA content will be magically infused into a variety of programs across the government, without the funding, infrastructure, or personnel to make that possible. His words were “if we do this right,” and that seems to be the key problem here.
The FY2014 budget removes all of the funding directly from mission-related education and outreach, the funding that currently supports communications from these missions that convey their inspiring, cutting-edge science and technology, and the educational programs that are built around teaching NASA STEM content. Meanwhile, the funding removed from NASA (and other affected agencies) is funneled into three agencies who have their own priorities of how to use it – Smithsonian wants to create resources around their online collections, and the Department of Education wants to offer more grants to schools. NASA and other agencies are barely a footnote in these plans. The rationale behind this reorganization is enticing, but Bolden should have nothing to be excited about – NASA is going to be a big loser in this, as their unique and desirable content gets lost in the shuffle.
Bolden says that NASA has the best content of any government agency, and yes, it would be wonderful to see that content included in a broader range of cross-agency STEM programs. But the budgets won’t support that vision, at least not in a lasting and effective way. ISS downlinks for a few 4-H groups? That’s not education – that’s buzz. Ironically, the mission education funding cuts are canceling established, evaluated efforts to bring a wide range of NASA content to 4-H groups (and other afterschool groups) across the country. I’ll let you guess which content those groups have more use for.
Most members of the public, and even some members of the science community, are unaware of the breadth and depth of NASA’s education and outreach efforts. Classroom curricula used in thousands of schools around the country. Professional development for educators to feel comfortable teaching space science in their classroom (or afterschool program). Science and engineering challenges for a variety of age groups that provide real interactions with NASA missions, data, and personnel. Interactive and multimedia content that depict how real science is done. Nearly all of this will disappear, or at least cease production and dissemination, when the consolidation takes place (and perhaps before, as NASA has already begun internal reviews and reorganization in anticipation of the proposed changes). The audiences that use these resources and take advantage of these opportunities – millions of teachers, students, and members of the public – will miss them. And there’s no plan to replace them.
It’s also insulting to hear Bolden dismiss the evaluation and metrics that his own education personnel have been collecting on the programs that they run. For years, mission-funded education has come with a requirement of external evaluation, and hundreds of reports have been put together about the impact and reach of NASA education programs. But then the agency’s own internal reporting system asks the program leads to distill their evaluation to paltry metrics like participant numbers and materials distributed. This is what goes up the chain to CoSTEM and OMB, and what makes NASA education look weak and unevaluated. Bolden wants to see longitudinal studies that prove that STEM education is working – studies that follow individual students after their exposure to NASA to see if they enter STEM careers. These are incredibly difficult studies to conduct, costing millions of dollars over decades, with significant attrition as time passes. It’s also short-sighted to focus entirely on whether children enter STEM careers – increasing science literacy and decreasing science phobia has a broader and long-lasting impact on how our entire culture perceives STEM.
Keith, we all know that if this Administration proposed more fresh air and sunshine it would still be DOA with this Congress. So the real question is, what does Congress think about this weird attitude toward education and do they plan to do anything to restore this funding in their versions of NASA’s budget? Of course Sen. Shelby is going to have his big rocket or pop a vein, but is there anyone in the House or Senate who is similarly passionate about NASA Education? Please let us know what you know, or what you can find out.
NASA was in a constant wrestling match with the Office of Management and Budget during my years with the agency. This initiative is reminiscent of of the type of “consolidations” OMB was always certain would save money. It reminds me of the many years of the American auto industries’ decline when the accountants took control of product decisions and almost drove both Chrysler and GM to the ground.
I know the feeling. Like when 20 high-paid managers sit in a room for three hours doing a cost reduction planning for a production run of 500 pieces and agree to replace four 3-cents transistors with a 2½-cent alternative; end of meeting. A net negative cost reduction. And nobody consults the people on the shop floor who could easily have knocked significant money off the production costs based on their experience.
I doubt very much that the people in OMB, then or now, ever worked any EPO or NASA or DOE, so what makes them think they’re in any way qualified to make these sorts of decisions? It seems to me that the bigger they come, the harder they foul up.
AFAEK Space Grant was spared, and they do a lot of direct lobbying of their congress critters through an independent organization
This rambling non-answer just shows that Charlie Bolden is fundamentally unaware of what his own agency is doing. He slams the efforts of his own personnel, who have been developing successful programs and extensively evaluating their efforts. He also seems completely disconnected from the reality of what this consolidation will entail, and how the removed NASA dollars will be repurposed. I suppose one way to eliminate duplication of effort is simply to eliminate as many efforts as possible. How can resources be redistributed among agencies if there is no one left to distribute or implement them?
You know, there’s another possibility here that no one seems to be considering — maybe these guys know what they’re doing because they have information that we don’t.
Over the last 15 years or so, many NASA budget items have been reduced, some all the way to zero. For example, I’ve been told that many NASA libraries, including in the History Office, have been giving away, or outright scrapping, books and other materials on a large scale because there was no longer any budget for producing and maintaining them — or even for a building to keep them in! This was not a situation where the people involved were given any choice.
It’s not unlikely that EPO was the next link in the chain of long-planned shut-downs. NASA senior management seeing the writing on the wall, when the rest of us can’t, may simply being bowing to the inevitable and attempting to hand this off in an efficient, organized manner since, despite their preferences, it’s going away anyhow. Cooperating with the inevitable will do NASA more good than challenging every cut back that comes along — and there are a lot of cut backs coming along, face it.
I don’t know if this idea has any validity, I’m merely theorizing. But it seems to have as much to back it as all of the finger pointing accusations that they’re deliberately getting rid of it of their own choice.
Steve – I think you are wrong-the organizations are pretty much being maintained. Most EPO funding is not being cut. Just a relatively small amount, that goes into production of educational and outreach products. So the organizations will continue to produce scientific results or engineering achievements and maintain a significant portion of the EPO organization, but stop the products that tell the story of NASA’s activities.
I understand, but the net result is pretty much the same. It’s like the library situation, if nobody knows but the guys who already know, what value is gained? It’s like winning the lottery but not being allowed to spend the money and you can’t tell anyone about it. Dissemination of information to the public is also part of the legislation that created and defined NASA. Are they going to change the rules and then maybe get around to amending the legislation after the fact? I think there are so many more things that could have been trimmed by the same small amount with far less impact and affecting far fewer people. It feels like the budget controllers continually chipping away at NASA, determined to kill it one way or another.
This is just plain not true in SMD. Project budgets for FY14 have already been cut by 100% of the education/public outreach effort.
At least one thing Mr. Bolden said in the recording struck me as odd He mentioned, almost in passing, that NASA’s educaton efforts lacked evaluation/validation — proof that the target audience retained knowledge or interest after some period of time. That is counterfactual in at least the SMD efforts, which for the last several years have had mandatory evaluation efforts, and the results have been good.
The implementation detail for an Education/SI/NSF STEM program that I don’t understand is how they expect to get the participation of anyone at NASA — do they think the people working on all the products and programs now are volunteering their time? With the exception of some scientists and engineers, it just ain’t so, it’s trained and credentialed professionals and people with years of experience communicating NASA science and technology to students and the general public. Is SI going to use its own professionals or hire some of the NASA contractor E/PO staff? No one knows.
“NASA’s educaton efforts lacked evaluation/validation“
sunman,
I sort of stumbled past this comment because I didn’t know whether he meant evaluation internally or by the user community. I thought he was referring to the users, but I wasn’t sure.
I think you’ve hit on the major problem in all of this — who’s going to do the work? Perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, there are people in other agencies who are expected to take up the workload formerly performed by NASA people; if so, we’re screwed, because that’s never going to work. The information can only be assessed and presented by those who have the first-hand knowledge and experience of the subject matter and program(s) involved. This should be completely obvious, but I have a suspicion that the political higher-ups are going to insist on pretending it’s not true and assign the work to people who are unfamiliar with what they’ll be made responsible for. More impossible political mandating; just what we needed.
“I’ve been told that many NASA libraries, including in the History Office, have been giving away, or outright scrapping, books and other materials…”
Which specific History Office center(s) are doing this?
Does everyone here (Keith included) really have such short memories as to not know exactly where this action is coming from? Here let me help refresh your memories: Let me take you back to 2007/2008. Does anyone remember what Candidate Obama said about what he wanted to do with NASA viz-a-viz the Department of Education? No, no, no…I am not talking about the SECOND thing Obama said (which he “evolved” into after the first thing he said went over like a box of rocks). No, I am talking about the very first time Candidate Obama spoke on and about NASA and how he would reform it. Are you remembering yet? Did it not involve transferring funds from NASA to enhance and augment the Department of Education?
What you are getting is exactly what Candidate Obama said he would do…the first thing he said, before he found out he had to lie to win Florida. And he did not pull the trigger through his first term because, well, because he had to win a second term. Now that he is in his final term, you are getting exactly what he said he would do. This has little to do with Bolden, other than Obama choosing Bolden because he knew he could count on Bolden to salute and do Obama’s bidding when the time came.
For the record, I am a part-time aerospace educator at an accredited engineering university. I have used NASA materials in the past. So please do not try to paint me as “anti-NASA education.” I am merely pointing out that this should come as no surprise, provided you were awake when you first elected Obama.
I don’t think so;
The amount of money being transferred is relatively small for both NASA and D of Ed. It is not just the D of Ed-money and functions are also being transferred to the NSF and Smithsonian. Total being transferred is a few tens of millions$$. NASA’s budget is about $17 billion. Dept of Ed is $70 billion. It also is effecting other agencies like the DOD.
The idea might have originated with Obama but 5 years ago he was talking about taking major pieces of the NASA budget to give to Dept of Ed. This minuscule amount of money will have zero effect on Dept of Ed, which really does nothing with their dollars except give hand outs to schools around the country. They have a $70 billion budget of which less than $5 billion goes to their own operating expenses. Just their STEM grants are in the several hundreds of millions. The pittance from NASA wipes out everything the NASA is producing in science education but has minor effect on the Dept of Ed budget.
Therein lies part of the problem. Dept. of Ed is geared toward managing grants, not running programs. Even if everything else about this idea was hunky-dory, you’re taking programs away from an agency which is used to running them and handing them to an agency which has a different function and focus. While they’re at it, they may as well move propulsion research over to the Highway Department.
You are just desperate to use this website to spew ObamaHate aren’t you? Feel better now?
Bolden is correct. Money is not the answer to everything. Previous Administrators also have felt NASA’s educational programs not worth the money invested in them. Public education is not NASA’s core business. They have not proved at all effective in this area and have little in the way of strategic goals and objectives.