Donate to help schools purchase science supplies

From a rural Louisiana middle school that has never had a microscope, to a school in California that lacks basic laboratory safety equipment (think, nitrile gloves) — many schools in the United States aren't getting kids the resources they need to learn science. You can help by donating to these causes through Donors Choose. (Via Jaquelyn Gill at the Contemplative Mammoth blog)


  1. This is nearly identical to the situation Xeni has been railing against:  why should schools depend on random acts of altruism instead of a solid government-based rollout of necessary equipment?

  2. Because the government in question would rather buy a missile or two than properly fund education of poor people. Poor people who, I might add, are aggressively targeted to join the military because their relatively limited educational/vocational options make them far more likely to sign up.

  3. Hey, when I was in high school we didn’t have no fancy safety equipment in our labs. And I still have the scar on my hand to prove it.

    …I guess we better get them some safety equipment.

  4. Sadly, it’s less the lack of funds than the mismanagement of said funds.  We are paying nearly three times in per-pupil, inflation-adjusted dollars for education now than we were 40 years ago.  The fact that, while student population has increased by about 10% since 1970, education employment (mostly administration) has increased by nearly 100%, might be one of the reasons for this.  

    I would love for our military to be scaled back to a reasonable size and use that money to fund education and healthcare for all Americans, but a good chunk of it is going to get lost to incompetence and corruption, no matter what.

      1. Gosh that sounds like a great way to misrepresent my argument, but you forgot to provide any facts.

        If what I posted is incorrect, why not show that, instead of offering only and merely snark?

        1.  Perhaps you could lay-out why you think the cost of education has risen so much since 1970? You simply blurt this supposed fact, and present it as if the cost should statically mirror the simple rise in student population.

          In fact, the tools and materials necessary for education cost much more today, and are much more varied and complex. Schools didn’t have computers (or the IT infrastructure supporting computers) in 1970, for instance. Schools didn’t have to accept disabled students and cater to their needs in 1970, either. Those are just a few easy examples of why per-student school expenses are so much higher today.

          1. Those are excellent points and I have no doubt they have contributed to the rise in costs.  I fully support rises in costs caused by increased opportunities for education to kids with special needs (I was a special ed teacher for years).  But even with special ed, the increase in administration costs simply doesn’t reflect the increase in student population or the increased technology.

            And it’s important to remember that the computers and high-tech equipment haven’t really been improving education for most kids.  Even if we ignore the stagnant test scores (and I’d certainly be happy to stop using standardized tests as assessment tools), it still remains a fact that most kids (past elementary school) hate going to school and/or feel like a lot of their time is wasted there.  That’s because a lot of their time is wasted there.  And time, as they (whoever they are) say, is money.

            As long as we maintain the current paradigm of compulsory classes and arbitrary curricula, needlessly increasing and generally over-paid administration, standardized tests and an anti-individualist approach to education, we will be wasting huge quantities of money, along with opportunities to give kids an effective, lasting education.

  5. I’ve been stockpiling Gideon bibles from hotels around America over the last decade; just give me an address and I’ll send them off! Everybody wins!

Comments are closed.