Hacker News Reader

At the end of their 12 years of boarding school, is it still fair to say that these are kids from an inner city failed neighborhood? Much of the challenge with education in poor (inner city or rural) communities is that, at the end of the day, the kids still have to navigate the stresses and risks of home life. Eliminating that for all or most of the year (depending on your school calendar) would stack the deck hugely in your favor, and by the end of their high school abroad it would strike me as dishonest to refer to these kids as being "from Newark".

In my limited experience with kids from elite boarding schools (which tend to draw from already wealthy communities), graduates of these programs seem to tend more towards the culture of the school than that of their hometown. I think this effect would be even more pronounced in your proposed system.

Who would you say would be the losers in this scenario?

I'm not saying there would be losers. But his scenario proposes, essentially, "I'll bet that if I take a random group of at-risk kids, move them to a system where they spend 100% of their time living, studying, and playing in a well-staffed, well-resourced, safe program, that those kids will perform better than their once-peers."

To which the answer is "Of course."

Then lets close half the inner city schools and replace them with boarding schools.

Obviously its not "of course" enough to change policy in this country.

You aren't talking (only) about policy change, you're talking about a financially untenable utopian solution that doesn't bother with the actual constraints of the problem. It reminds me of the old physics yarn "consider a spherical cow..."

What are the "actual constraints of the problem"?

Why are they "actual constraints"?

Are you sure they're "actual constraints", or are they ways of looking at things that need to be updated for progress to happen?

Here are some constraints that I can come up with in a minute of thinking.

1.) Land costs. If you are building inside a major city land costs are huge, and you need acres of land. Outside of cities can be less expensive, but it's still a steep cost.

2.) Permitting/regulations/etc. I have no idea what it would cost to get the land you just built zoned to allow you to build a school, but I'm sure it isn't cheap or easy.

3.) Infrastructure costs. You have to build each of these new schools. The private boarding school that I went to[1] just built two new dorms after receiving a gift of $10m to house 98 students. They are probably really nice dorms, but it's not cheap to build. And that's just the dorms. You also need an academic center, library, gym, and possibly support buildings (like faculty housing, student centers, etc.). You also need to build roads, sewers, electricity, etc.

4.) You need to find and hire administrators and teachers. If you go with the chicago stats cited above then you'll need to pay each teacher ~$70k. One of the best things about private schools is the high teacher to student ratio. My biggest class was 14 students and most were in the 6-8 range. It's complicated to figure out the exact number of faculty off the top of my head, but you'll need at least 10 teachers. My high school had around 380 students and they have more than 60 faculty. So, for 100ish students you'd need 15ish faculty. That's $1m a year in funding. Chicago spends roughly $12k per student, which would cover faculty costs, but...

5.) You also have to pay administrators, janitors, lawn care, and a ton of other providers for service. Chicago administrators make roughly $120k a year. That difference has to come from somewhere.

6.) Oh, and you have to get accredited somehow so your students would be able to get into college.

There's probably plenty more constraints that we could come up with. But the biggest one is cost. Who is paying for this? A billionaire could do it, for sure. But it doesn't seem like people are upset enough about the current situation to pay more taxes to support the schools we do have. I'm not sure how you could convince people to pay to create a private school from scratch...especially if their kids aren't going to be the ones eligible to go.

[1] Westminster School, Simsbury Connecticut - Amazing experience! [2] http://chicagoist.com/2013/06/19/crains_chicago_business_and...

It's going to take more than a minute to think about whether or not things are actual constraints. What you've done is list obstacles, which are not at all the same thing as constraints.

Look at your list. Can you think of alternative approaches that reduce or eliminate each item on the list?

Everyone else besides the selected students.

You won't have created any kind of scalable / repeatable model that would work at the regional or national level; nobody is going to raise taxes enough to fund that and most people aren't going to sign up to send their kids off to boarding school for K-12.

I disagree that it isn't scalable and repeatable. Have you seen what the budget of these schools is like? A billion dollars is not a small amount of money, regardless of what Silicon Valley acquisitions make you think.

If we spend that money on institutions that actually WORK, we could do a lot. If we need to build those institutions outside the city, to get them away from the clutches of the political machines in those cities ... then we do THAT.

This comment is ignorant beyond belief! Have you ever been to Newark? It's a huge, bustling city - actually, New Jersey's largest city. When you make absurd claims like "[schools] serve as a rare source of economic opportunity in an otherwise shithole town" how can anyone take anything you say seriously?

I go by what I see. I should probably have said "neighborhood" not city.

Do you see how people cling to those fucking administrative jobs, while screwing over kids, like those jobs are the last life preserver on a sinking ship.

Every school district has teacher's unions that are a pain in the ass ... but only in Newark do you see an utterly corrupt organization defended tooth and nail by entire neighborhoods, without regard for how the children are effected.

Its ridiculous. People treat the firing of clerks like its a genocide of a colonized people.

The objectionable part is that it's not a regional issue. Vampires chasing money are everywhere and will relocate to follow the cash teat. This would've happened anywhere in the USA.

Okay, I own up to my post being unfair in that way. This could be the case in Oakland too.

I have to admit I am channeling some childhood angst about a different school system altogether ... not Newark.

Not every state in the union has teachers' union. (In the traditional sense. Some have "unions" but participation is completely voluntary so they more like professional organizations.)

My kids' time in a public school without these unions have had mixed results. The teachers seem good, but the administration seems utterly incompetent. Which is kind of the failure mode I would expect. Bad teachers cannot continue to hide, but what can I do about an administration that takes 3 years to conduct an IEP?

(The answer to that last question is one of "fight to fix the system" or "use legal recourse." Option 1 is incredibly irrational: these insiders know the game better than me and have a lot more invested in it than me. Option 2 is what my spouse and I are doing now, but it doesn't feel at all like it's improving the situation for anyone but our immediate child for the immediate time frame.)

If graduation rates truly are only 67%, I can't help but question how many generations it'll take before the town becomes a "shithole" (if you don't consider it one already like the OP).

This is exactly what I had in mind. I'm thinking about the school I'll build when I'll be a billionaire.

And no, it's not an orphanage. These kids are a burden for their poor parents who try to provide for them, and fail, and have their heart torn apart failing that. And the kids see their parents' misery, and have their heart torn apart, too.

It's a convolution of sadness with itself.

I had this exact same plan, starting at the youngest possible age, so they grow with you. The school teaches them everything, so they become normal human beings and not ghetto people. I don't think there's a single parent who'd like his child to grow up in misery, and if there's a way to shield that child from this shit-hole, I think any parent would be willing to do almost anything.

"The school teaches them everything, so they become normal human beings and not ghetto people. I don't think there's a single parent who'd like his child to grow up in misery, and if there's a way to shield that child from this shit-hole, I think any parent would be willing to do almost anything."

Who decides what 'normal' is? What makes your upbringing better than 'ghetto people'? You're walking a very, very fine line between what is best for children, and what is just cultural indoctrination. Do you see how easy it is to slip between the two?

What you're operating under is called cultural relativism. Melville Herskovits said it best, "Judgements are based on experience, and experience is interpreted by each individual in terms of his own enculturation." In other words, while you may believe that a 'ghetto' upbringing is worse than what you had, you came to that conclusion under a biased observation. Yes, there is a higher crime rate in 'ghetto' areas, but that has less to do with culture, and more to do with opportunity. When you have 0 opportunity, you tend to become hopeless. So, we'll educate the kids, make sure they conform to our standards, then release them back into hopeless areas. What outcome is that looking for?

And yes, there are parents who would prefer that their children not simply be 'white washed' into cultural conformity based on someone else's standards.

I knew I'd get this reply from people who don't live in a ghetto, because only them think the stink of these shitholes isn't that bad. So here I go Takayanagi:

>Who decides what 'normal' is?

Common sense. Saying "I don't know nobody" isn't normal. Imagine you lived in a ghetto with your kid, and there's a billionaire who proposes to offer him a good education, wouldn't you want your kid to get out of that place ASAP.

The most probable outcome for a child who grew up in a ghetto isn't that bright, and refusing to acknowledge the benefit of the above plans just for the sake of political correctness and free choice isn't

>What makes your upbringing better than 'ghetto people'?

Everything. Growing up in a ghetto, you start in life with a handicap:

- They are stereotyped (for good reasons, because they probably fit that stereotype). - They have to deal with things children don't have to deal with. - They are, most probably, less educated than children who grew up in normal neighborhoods. Again, let's leave political correctness aside for a minute, this is a fact.

{ You're walking a very, very fine line between what is best for children, and what is just cultural indoctrination. Do you see how easy it is to slip between the two? }

The line is so thick, it's not even funny. It's not cultural indoctrination, these are facts. There's a reason why ghettos suck, and why no one in his right mind would make a conscious choice of living there. Let alone with a kid.

{ What you're operating under is called cultural relativism. Melville Herskovits said it best, "Judgements are based on experience, and experience is interpreted by each individual in terms of his own enculturation." }

Oh really, where did he live? And where did his children grow up and study? I bet he didn't send them to a slum just to be philosophical.

Try telling this to people living in those places. Anyone who says he lives there and is "proud" is full of shit. The minute they make it, they get out there. Only mobsters choose to keep living there because they'd be a nobody if they ever left.

Ghettos suck. This sentence would get an "Amen" from China to South Africa, and it doesn't even need to be translated.

>In other words, while you may believe that a 'ghetto' upbringing is worse than what you had, you came to that conclusion under a >biased observation.

Biased by numbers, yes. Criminality, illiteracy rate, rate of single moms, murder, poverty, health. Ghettos suck. If they didn't, we'd have no problems actively making a choice of moving there with our families. But we don't. Nobody who can afford to live elsewhere makes an active decision to live in a ghetto.

>Yes, there is a higher crime rate in 'ghetto' areas, but that has less to do with culture, and more to do with opportunity.

Isn't opportunity closely tied with culture?

How many startups have been started by a guy named Maleeek (with 3 'e' s) who grew up in a ghetto? If not none, then very few. Why? Because they didn't have the opportunity to drop out of MIT, Harvard, or Stanford or to get there in the first place for that matter.

Yeah, there are few people who "hustle". A very few. And these apples don't fall really far from the Hip-Hop tree. There are of course outliers, but they're that: Outliers. We need something consistent. Something we can see on a graph and say "Holy shit, the correlation!".

>And yes, there are parents who would prefer that their children not simply be 'white washed' into cultural conformity based on someone >else's standards.

Maybe. But I also think that most parents would prefer that to the most likely outcome of their kid. Any parent can choose to ignore the realities of the world just to make a point, or make the best out of the situation he's in.

1st, it's not for political correctness, not one bit. It's that your view is stating that those people are essentially less good at being people than what you are, and need a savior to fix them. That's just not true, regardless of what you believe.

That view was extremely popular in the 40's and 50's, and is also extremely ineffective. It's a true story.

What is effective, instead of indoctrinating 'ghetto people' to your "better" way of life, is providing them with opportunity. Look at areas, schools or neighborhoods than have been effective and successful, regardless of being in a 'ghetto'. There is one common theme; internal hope and prosperity. It doesn't take white culture to fix 'ghetto people'. It takes hope, opportunity, community investment and old fashioned work from those people living there. Without it, all you'll do is drain the youth from these communities, and allow real estate brokers access to swaths of uninhabited city centers.

Your argument is fundamentally wrong, and is incredibly ignorant of education and community development in failing areas. You are arguing that 'those ghetto people' are broken, their culture is broken, and only removing them from their surroundings and supplanting their culture can fix their problems. You're wrong, you're just wrong is all there is to it. That's been proven by history and research - I'm not at home and don't have access to a database, but you're wrong.

I'm not saying that ghettos need to remain for the sake of themselves, that the individuals living there love it, or that the people living in there start even close to the same footing as the rest of the world. I'm saying that the way to fix the issues associated with these areas isn't a white knight swooping in to save the poor colored kids; that.does.not.work. It's for these areas to be empowered through community investment to fix it for themselves.

Do you know the best way to empower a community? Education focused INSIDE of it.

And for Melville: I'm not certain that his upbringing is really all that important. Your argument here is really, really weak (and is an outstanding example of Ad Hominem; what does it matter where he's from?). You're arguing that, unless you are from a ghetto, you're not allowed to have an opinion on them. Where did you grow up?

Loughla, I am with you about freedom, etc...

But look at what you said "It doesn't take white culture to fix 'ghetto people'"..

This means your presupposition is that ghettos are predominantly non white, which means that you subconsciously think white folks don't have that problem, which in turns contradicts what you said about not needing white culture to fix ghetto people.. Which is not what I said.

It says a lot: If you can do feature exctraction on a social problem that easily, it means something is really screwd.

I also think there's an impedance mismatch here between what you say and what I understand, and vice versa. I agree on the fact that people living in ghettos must be empowered, and a way to do that in my mind was to get their children a better education, easing the financial burden on the parents, and shielding the children from their toxic environment.

If I went overboard, it's because it's too important to let ourselves dwell on rhetorics. My reasoning was: We may not be able to help the parents (they had their lives), but the children still have a chance. The parents played their turn, now it's the children's turn at life.

But I agree on your point about draining the youth from these communities. I haven't seen it that way.

{ I'm saying that the way to fix the issues associated with these areas isn't a white knight swooping in to save the poor colored kids; that.does.not.work. It's for these areas to be empowered through community investment to fix it for themselves. }

Which would be easier if they had a better education, education which would be easier to obtain if they didn't have to hustle to eat, or have to choose which child to send to school, or chose if the child is going to eat or get an education.

>Do you know the best way to empower a community? Education >focused INSIDE of it.

I'd say education no matter where. As I said, my rationale is that children are too precious to waste on a social experiment of community stuff. They need education and be able to be children. { And for Melville: I'm not certain that his upbringing is really all that important. Your argument here is really, really weak (and is an outstanding example of Ad Hominem; what does it matter where he's from?). You're arguing that, unless you are from a ghetto, you're not allowed to have an opinion on them. Where did you grow up? }

I didn't attack him, Loughla. I even agree with him. And I didn't even say you're not allowed to have an opinion unless you live there (I didn't say that). But the issue at hand has nothing to do with opinion. Living in a ghetto just sucks and nobody needs research or a PhD to know that. It's just reality, man. Not "perception" and not "endoctrination".

It's a toxic environment that would influence the most immune systems. And I didn't say it needs a "white knight", I didn't even mention a white dude saving the day (you did). You assumed that when I said "billionaire", the guy would be white.. Which again, says a frigging lot about the reality you are trying to polish. In other words: you are contradicting yourself because, deep down, in your guts, you don't feel that way about the issue.

Mentalist out (I'm not half as good looking as he is. Oh, well..).

This is pretty much exactly what the Milton Hershey School does. "Today, Milton Hershey School is a cost-free, private, coeducational home and school for children from families of low income, limited resources, and social need. The School is funded by a trust established by Milton S. Hershey and his wife Catherine. Milton Hershey School offers a positive, structured home life year-round and an excellent pre-kindergarten through 12th grade education. Our vision focuses on building character and providing children with the skills necessary to be successful in all aspects of life."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Hershey_School

I'm guessing you don't have children. Putting children under the age of 12 in a boarding school isn't the best idea. Putting kids under the age of 8 in a boarding school is simply a terrible idea. They need too much care at these ages.

If you're idea is done in the context of replacing foster homes for kids who are removed from their parents by social services, I suppose it can work.

I disagree.

There are many successful societies where boarding schools are the norm for the most wealthy and successful people. I don't just mean China and India, where it is extremely common. I mean also England, where it had been more common, and has now become less common; Wealthy WASPS in the North East of America have a few institutions where they send their kids; there is at least one public boarding magnate school that is highly regarded in the American South ... I don't remember its name, but a quick Google will provide I'm sure. There are many other examples.

The idea that a child is best served at the bosom of his parents might be right in the best of circumstances. It is certainly NOT right in an American inner city neighborhood.

Now if your goal is to say, I refuse the best solution, because I hold out for the dream of solving all inner city problems at once, and turning these neighborhoods into pleasant neighborhoods ... then I say, cheers.

You are precisely the reason why we need a billionaire for this venture ... public money will never come to support something so radically different.

Take it from someone in a position to know: this arrangement is not as great as you make out to be.

The arrangement is not a mandate. Its an option when other options are clearly not working.

     Give admission based on a lottery ... not on the basis
     of an examination ... so no one can accuse you of taking
     only the best kids.

It's better than that: if you admit based on lottery you're providing the randomization for a randomized controlled trial. Either you or someone else can measure the difference later in life between applicants that are and aren't admitted.

Except it's not random who applies for the lottery. And also charter schools are notorious for rejecting students for various reasons that public schools are not allowed to use, including rejecting special ed students, all in the name of making their test scores look better: http://nepc.colorado.edu/newsletter/2013/05/tcr-dirty-dozen

> Except it's not random who applies for the lottery.

It's not, but you can randomly choose an equally-sized comparison group from the population who apply and are not selected.

> And also charter schools are notorious for rejecting students for various reasons that public schools are not allowed to use, including rejecting special ed students, all in the name of making their test scores look better: http://nepc.colorado.edu/newsletter/2013/05/tcr-dirty-dozen

Now you are changing the stated starting conditions. The plan is based on admission by lottery. Period. What other, selective private and charter schools do in admissions is irrelevant.

Schools like this - proof points that low income students can succeed - already exist today!

For example: Summit Public Schools in California, FirstLine Schools in New Orleans, Excel Academy in Boston - just to name a few I've seen first hand.

There is a real discussion over this by education reformists, and for 100 million dollars you could make two or three of these.

Your thesis seems to be that education could be made better simply by making it private rather than public, and that it would be so obviously better that it could serve as a beacon.

Given that there is evidence of very successful schools run by governments outside the USA (Finland is often used as an example, but it is certainly not alone), despite the fact that they have bureaucracy and unions, why do you believe this?

No. My thesis doesn't care who runs the school outside the city. Only that it should be outside the reach of these dysfunctional city institutions and neighborhoods.

Let anyone run them.

A billionaire is necessary only because the current political system brooks no competition. The teachers will not allow it. Their cushy incompetence would be put in sharp relief if something like this were to succeed.

An out of state boarding school starting with six year olds? Doesn't that sound an awfully lot like an orphanage to you? I don't think many parents would go for it. Even Eton in its heyday waited until 11 or 12.

If I was a poor parent in a neighborhood with no other options, I would send my kid to the boarding school.

Kids would be sent home for holidays, and weekends even (if the parents want to pick them up).

I think some parents would leap at the chance to have the week free, so they can work. Childcare is a big problem in the inner city.

People I know would be taken care of by grandparents, old neighbors, trusted older kids, etc., while their mothers would work (in the case when father was absent).

Might as well trust an institution.

Absolutely. I've lived for 3+ years in Shenzhen in China. Every Sunday night, you'd see a ton of school kids lining up at the subway and bus stations lugging suitcases to go spend the week at school. They'd have dorms and everything. If this is a social norm in an entire city with millions of residents (albeit with a different culture), why wouldn't that be a possibility in other cities in the US too (albeit with different cultures)?

> Let anyone apply. Give admission based on a lottery ... not on the basis of an examination ... so no one can accuse you of taking only the best kids.

That doesn't fully counter the "creaming effect" argument unless you assume the applicant pool is a representative sample of the population.