Hacker News Reader

Comment by codingdave | Hacker News Reader

The rationale for shutting them down looks sound to me -- for-profit schools that don't meet standards, and are run by unqualified teachers.

View on HN

It's hardly surprising that they would use rationale that makes sense, given that they need to convince a judge. This is not the same thing as their rationale being accurate. Since most HN readers are not there, it's hard to know what is really going on here. For instance, the counter-rationale, that the school threatens other schools as well as the government schools that these children would otherwise be going to also makes sense.

When I'm reading a story like this, there are some immediate questions that come to mind:

1) what are the alternatives these students have and how accessible are they?

2) what are the students educational outcomes vs students who are using the alternative?

3) it seems the organization runs schools in other parts of Africa, so how are they received there?

I could go on...

When I think of Uganda, I do net get a picture in my mind that says fair politics and fair trials, for some reason.

I read the article and at some point was thinking the same as (1), so what are these kids other option. And if it costs more than other options, why do poor people choose the 6$ option?

I think the competition is healthy, it is not like they have a really good proven school system in place. For government to shut this down because their own schools are getting less students seems like unreasonable.

Seems to me this shut down is more based on opinion of the opposition (other school systems). Is there proof that these schools are not performing or not educating what needs to be educated. Have regulators checked licenses of teachers?

"The poor are individual actors who can make informed decisions on how to spend their hard earned money," I agree with this to a certain extent.

Maybe the real problem could be the opposite, that poor kids are learning and having an education and they aren't expected to do this. If those schools really provide a bad education should be easy to cite some examples and specific facts and make a list of things that must be fixed, give a reasonable time to fix it and check again.

To close the schools looks more like a "we'll have the cake for free". All the investment and new buildings.

On the other part. Maybe a school in Uganda needs special safety measures, non obvious at first sight for people in developped countries. The possibility of Boko Haram kidnapping all the children in the class for example would be a nightmare than needs a carefully planned safety protocol.

> When I think of Uganda, I do net get a picture in my mind that says fair politics and fair trials, for some reason

If you basing that solely on your gut, then that 'reason' is bias. If you sufficiently motivated by the topic, I would urge you to research and get more pertinent information about Uganda and its legal system.

Just say no to the "post-fact" world and "that feels just about right".

> Is there proof that these schools are not performing or not educating what needs to be educated.

One of the allegations is that the schools did not submit their curriculum to the education board. Until such a time that they provide it, I think the burden of proof is on the schools.

I searched for fair trial Uganda and Uganda fair government, maybe I would find respectable sources debunking my feeling:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/08/uganda-ensure-free-and-f...

https://www.fairtrials.org/pre-trial-detention-in-uganda/

and a more positive article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14107906

I am all for facts, it was lazy of me to start of like that.

>One of the allegations is that the schools did not submit their curriculum to the education board.

Is this allegation also backed by proof? But yes I do agree that the school should prove either way that their curriculum was submitted. Instead of making this a "he said, she said" thing, be transparent. Why not?

I worked for Bridge previously and have seen their schools and visited numerous government schools in the vicinity. There are a lot of valid criticisms against Bridge but (1) kids do not learn relative to government school (2) kids are not safe, are not amongst them.

Also, I don't understand why "for profit" is considered bad. You are not taking away the free public option but rather increasing their choice set by providing a private option. Parents can choose and that is generally considered to be welfare enhancing.

I'd love for CNN to do some real investigative journalism for a change and actually visit a few schools.

To repeat GP, I'll rephrase are the valid criticisms: Bridge should have submitted the curriculum to the education board. They should also only use qualified teachers. I find these requirements to be reasonable and not really open to debate because it is generally a good idea to follow the laws of the country you operate in.

Heh. You don't educate the poor in autocratic regimes. The government just doesn't want you to. Educated masses organize and autocrats can lose their heads.

The whole thing is a scheme to bilk money from the West. That's the only reason they allowed the schools in the first place, and they're going to keep kicking them around, ensuring that no real education can take place, and score millions in "licensing" fees.

You should make this a toplevel post.

Unfortunately there is massive, systemic corruption within the government of Uganda, and many E. African governments. While they could be right about the poor quality of BIA education, it's equally likely that BIA simply hasn't paid the right people for freedom to operate.

I don't think that's the problem in this case. While E.Africa has lots of problems with corruption, I don't think there's an insufficient number of qualified teachers. It's not clear why they wouldn't try and hire from the same pool that other private institutions hire from. The fact that they're a for-profit makes it seem like they're just trying to cut costs... and Uganda has policy that requires certain standards from its schools.

Bill Gates' flagship HS in the U.S., which he wanted to model every other high school after, was also shut down for largely they same reasons... By the time it shut down, the graduation rate had dropped to less than 30%.

Can you provide a link to the story on this? There must be more to this -- or surely some learnings. Thanks.

Diane Ravitch writes about it here:

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Great-American-School-System/dp...

The school was called Manual High School. If you just search for "Manual" within the book on Amazon you can see at least parts of the story, around page 207.

Thanks. I had assumed tech problems. Sounds like many management issues and infighting, from reading this: http://www.denverpost.com/2006/05/05/manuals-slow-death/

Excerpts:

- “The Gates Foundation really screwed up by giving the grant to DPS before finding an intermediary to hold anyone accountable,” said Van Schoales, who administered the grant for the Children’s Campaign.

- As more than $1 million in private funds was sunk into teacher and principal training and technical support, three feuding principals hoarded textbooks and called police on each other’s students.

- The Gates Foundation now, after stories like Manual, rarely works with individual schools – preferring to collaborate with entire districts on school reform

It was actually mostly to do with school size. Once they got the high school down to the much smaller size they thought would be ideal, students no longer were able to participate in any of the classes or extracurriculars they wanted. So most of the students quickly came to hate school, became completely checked out, and eventually just dropped out entirely.

He still hasn't paid any sort of reparations to these students, despite completely destroying their lifetime employment prospects by using them as a science experiment to stroke his own ego.

Yes, but it's not entirely clear whether those schools actually don't meet standards, or if someone in government has been "motivated" to say so by the for-profit school organization.

True, my point was that the title is misleading -- the shutdown isn't directly related to Gates or Zuckerberg. It is not an attack on them, but a reasonable response to actual problems with the education. Whether or not those claims are true isn't something I can know just based on reading the article.

The title has two facts:

1. Uganda is shutting down a given set of schools.

2. The given set of schools are funded by Gates and Zuckerberg.

The only thing that is arguably inaccurate is that the shutdown order is currently stayed until December 8.

> The Director of Education Standards for the Ministry, Huzaifa Mutazindwa, told CNN that the nursery and primary schools were not licensed, the teachers weren't qualified and that there was no record of its curriculum being approved.

> "The Ministry does not know what is being taught in these schools which is a point of concern to (the) government," Mutazindwa said

The reasons are clearly spelt out. Perhaps you have reason to think the named ministry official is lying, if so then all bets are off.

That's not the rationale, it's the excuse.

The schools are dam good, and that's why parents are willing to pay a little bit to send their kids there.

The problem is that the program exposes the failure of the Ugandan government in terms of their ability to get decent schools to all their citizens.

It's embarrassing for them, and that's why they are shutting it down.

This is Africa.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com