Hacker News Reader

Comment by greghinch | Hacker News Reader

I'm confused by this article. The whole thing is positioned like they are blowing the whistle on some scandal, but what scandal? That a public figure donating a large sum of money wants to make sure it brings some good PR? Is that a surprise?

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

View on HN

I'm not so sure. I think this quote:

“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.

That quote is exactly the sensationalization I was referring to. Because a few paragraphs down, it says the money will primarily go to teacher's bonuses. And it seems like keeping teachers well paid and happy is the best use of the money. But a parent will read to that first quote and get all worked up.

> And it seems like keeping teachers well paid and happy is the best use of the money.

Is there any evidence that this is the best way to improve schools? Honestly curious.

No I suppose not, I'm more speaking from my own experience having a number of friends who are teachers, all of them care deeply for their students and work hard to do the best they can, and all of them could stand to be much better paid.

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.

"and all of them could stand to be much better paid"

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.

Teachers are not a commodity. Supply and demand do factor in, but that doesn't mean it's wise to drive the salaries as low as possible just because someone is willing to do the job at that price. I don't know much about teachers salaries, but I do know that if the salaries in your school system aren't competitive, many of the decent/good teachers will quickly find better paying positions in surrounding communities.

In the meantime, only the less educated candidates will bother with teaching since it doesn't pay well enough to justify extra schooling, and so education quality will suffer, impacting all of society. Education is a fundamental societal need, assuming you want to live in a nice country.

Teachers rarely shop around at all, though when they do it is most likely for reasons other than pay like a better faculty fit, improved schedule, or better-aligned educational ideals. For teachers I know, which span both public and private realms, pay isn't a highly motivating factor, whereas the items mentioned above are.

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.

Last I knew, the stats on private school teachers being lower paid are heavily skewed by catholic schools where you have nuns doing it for pennies. Dunno which numbers you're referencing though, so that may or may not be a factor.

I'm actually not familiar with any specific numbers from research, just anecdotal evidence from the private school I attended, the one I taught at for several years, and hearing about other schools in that area.

Interesting point about nuns, I hadn't thought about that but it could very well be true.

I can confirm what you are saying for the private school that I attended (a boarding school). The teachers lived on campus generally but the pay was much less then in the local public school. Some of the teachers were lifers and raised their families on campus. Others were just passing through to other opportunities. One of my teachers (this was way back) father was a secretary of transportation.

"Oddly enough, many of these private schools with low pay have much higher performance than the surrounding public institutions."

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)

I base my statement that they should be higher paid based on the value they offer (educating the next generation of our society) rather than the individual teacher's ability to negotiate and demand more money. Just because people are willing to work for a low wage in a job that they love doesn't mean they deserve that wage.

It's not at all like programming. Let's take the last 5-15 years. Population has been growing, and presumably that means demand for teachers is growing. What happened to the pot of money allocated for teacher salaries during that period? If you guessed "it went down for reasons that have nothing to do with supply/demand for teachers", you're right!

Well, for one thing, if it doesn't pay enough, teachers end up not being as well educated, since the costs aren't justified.

There is a reason most of the world's highly trained technical people immigrate to the USA. Because they get paid more money.

If you pay the teachers more, you will attract better teachers than other parts of the world. Thus improving your schools.

This is getting a bit off-track, but last I checked research showed that paying teachers more doesn't result in better student performance.

This is hardly "scandal," though. At worst, it's Zuck dictating that his money be poorly spent, but it's his money.

The Rhee people use this as a divide and conquer strategy to undermine the unions. Government tax revenue streams are a major target for corporate interests, with schools being the biggest remaining. The teachers unions are the corporatists last hurdle before mass privatization of US school systems can begin.

This is the main issue that people are concerned about with the donation. There was an excellent episode of Frontline on this same topic last night.

There was an excellent issue of Frontline about Michelle Rhee, it wasn't presenting the teachers unions as the last bulwark against privatization at all. That is a deeply misleading characterization of what the program examined, and how.

You're right, I should have been clearer that the episode was about Michelle Rhee and her philosophy that schools should be run more like private companies. And new allegations that her system may have led to test results being manipulated to improve scores and achieve the goals she set out for teachers and principals. Is that fair?

Here's an article about it from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/documentary-ex...

No, that's not fair either. Her philosophy is that schools must maximize student achievement, and I agree with her about this. The point of education is not to provide jobs for educators.

It's interesting to get a peek behind the curtain. Most people don't have any idea how these things are done.

While money can buy things, it also buys access. This article provides a little taste of that.

I agree, it's more the tone of the specific article. It paints the picture as if it's some sort of controversy, when there isn't one.

It is noteworthy that Newark delayed releasing these records for two years, and then finally did so on Christmas Eve. If they had nothing to hide, why not just hand them over a long time ago?

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.

> It is noteworthy that Newark delayed releasing these records for two years, and then finally did so on Christmas Eve. If they had nothing to hide, why not just hand them over a long time ago?

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?

Zuckerberg didn't give this money to another corporation or a private charity, he gave it to public schools. The money belongs to the people of Newark after that. For parents and teachers who work in the schools there, isn't it expected that they should be concerned about what this amount of money is going to be used for, and whether there are strings attached? If Zuckerberg had something else in mind he could have set up a foundation to create separate, private programs that support public schools (this is what the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation often does).

I concur. I was expecting some kind of plot twist.

donated with specific uses already in mind

==Purchasing

If they don't like the use they can refuse the donation. I would peg this much more like investing.

Good purpose also?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com