How $100 Million Really Gets Donated, Mark Zuckerberg Style
fastcompany.com
fastcompany.com
Or that the money was donated with specific uses already in mind? Shouldn't someone who donates that much money be allowed to condition it on the changes they'd like to see made? If you don't like their ideas, don't take the money.
Or is it that the bulk of it is to pay teachers bonuses? That sounds like a good thing?
Seems like sensationalization of a non-issue
While money can buy things, it also buys access. This article provides a little taste of that.
==Purchasing
“Mark’s money is not going in to classrooms.” -Bari Mattes, 9/19/2010
Is the "surprise" here. I am guessing spin here around the 'Waiting for Superman' backdrop is that the public would have expected the donation to the schools to be used for the classroom and to directly impact students, where now it seems that it was used for salaries and investments to those with the same educational agenda as those who donated.
Again, no surprise for the HN crowd, but I suspect this will probably get some NJ parents warmed up.
Is there any evidence that this is the best way to improve schools? Honestly curious.
Hopefully, since this is going to bonuses, those are weighted well on performance and so may be better incentives than just salary. Then again, the teacher's union may have negotiated specific bonus rates that have to be paid across the board.
Many people could make the argument that they should be better paid. It's a supply and demand situation. There's enough people who want to be teachers that they pay can be what it is and people will still want that job. Don't forget also that a standard teaching job comes with much time off and some good benefits. Airline pilots are notoriously (from what I read) underpaid. I've read some really whacky low numbers. So that's something to consider before taking on a career in aviation. Or in teaching.
If the collective people stop going into those careers then the remaining people will be highly paid and the balance will shift. Like with programming.
In fact, many teachers at private schools are paid far less than those at public schools - even up to half as much. Why? Because they believe in private schooling and enjoy the freedom that comes with it. Oddly enough, many of these private schools with low pay have much higher performance than the surrounding public institutions.
I have a theory that student success is much more tightly aligned to parent involvement than that of whether teachers are highly paid or not. In private schools, parents pay for the education directly out of their own pocket and therefore have an expectation to get their money's worth and to not have that money squandered.
But you are right that most teaching positions do come with great time off and benefits - even for those starting out.
Interesting point about nuns, I hadn't thought about that but it could very well be true.
Not odd at all because if you look at the student body it tends to be quite homogenous at a private school vs public (where anybody can attend) so much of this makes sense. Everybody at the private school can either afford it (and comes from a highly motivated family who pays and obviously cares about education) or is given a scholarship (and is also highly motivated). The school has the stick of being able to kick people out if they act up or disturb the other students.
I went to a private school but my sisters didn't want to go and went to the local public school. I also remember at least one person who started in my class and returned to the local public school. They preferred to socialize and have many friends (private school class in total was quite small).
I think many people (who haven't attended a good school whether it be college or high school) fail to realize the big advantage of being around a group of people who are enjoying the experience and essentially want to be there (not that there wouldn't be some people who would rather not and were forced to but they were in the minority from my experience)
If you pay the teachers more, you will attract better teachers than other parts of the world. Thus improving your schools.
This is hardly "scandal," though. At worst, it's Zuck dictating that his money be poorly spent, but it's his money.
Here's an article about it from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/documentary-ex...
And I'm confused about why you think this article is making the story look like a scandal. The headline says it's about how $100 million gets donated, and goes on to say it's a glimpse at what happens behind the scenes of such a large donation. At the very end it does say: "If there is a smoking gun" - that's pretty far from editorializing or sensationalism.
Precedent? Fear that you can hang an honest man? Intrenched bureaucratic inertia and desire for control over info? The belief (justified or not) that Zuckerberg et al prefer privacy on these internal communications?
There's a special place in hell for Zuckerberg.
I imagine even Gates has people who do things like this even though he's effectively retired now. Doesn't matter if there's a PR spin on it, $100m was donated.
"The public," Bloomberg says, "insists, and arguably has a right to insist, that it knows where its money's going. [They] have a very high expectation of results." He is talking about how the government spends its funds. "That is not the way innovation works. Innovation--the essence of innovation--is you don't know what you're going to build, what it's going to be called, how much it's going to cost. You cannot use public monies unless you can answer virtually every one of those questions, which is why government tends not to innovate. The public wants that accountability in advance, that justification in advance. But that's not going to work for certain things."