In light of this announcement, it's worth reading the New Yorker's fantastic piece exploring how Zuckerberg's previous $100 million investment into the Newark public school fared.<p><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/05/19/140519fa_fact_russakoff?currentPage=all" rel="nofollow">http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/05/19/140519fa_fact_...</a>
From a Scandinavian point of view this seems like such a detour. Why wait for billionaires to be so kind of fund schools when you could tax wealth and fund public and universal education? Why do the American people chose this way time after time?
I personally know teachers in the SJ school district who are truly passionate about helping their students succeed, but alas, the way in which these funds will be used I imagine will largely be determined by forces outside of the control the teachers of the frontlines.<p>While I, like many others here, do not expect these funds to make a noticeable difference in the under-served schools in the Bay Area, I do sincerely hope that our expectations are proven wrong.
The problem with public schooling in the US isn't funding, inflation adjusted per-student funding has more than doubled since the 1970s but educational outcomes haven't budged. Pouring more money into the top of the funnel is the same thing we've been doing for decades, and it hasn't worked. If you want to make a big impact in education you either have to spend money closer to the students or you have to build something disruptive.
This is a lot of money when it's yours. Karma points to the Zuckerbergs.<p>In terms of running a school district, it would be nice. Sprinkled across a region...well it's rounding error. If the total cost (compensation, benefits, administration, facilities and transportation) per year of a teacher in the classroom is assumed to be $100,000/year [probably very very low for the Bay Area], then the total package represents 1200 teacher years - or 120 teachers for 10 years. And that's like one teacher per school district.<p>If it were used to bring new facilities online - it's about new high school with furnishings and equipment and no new staff. However, the money isn't going to fund new schools or keep teachers in classrooms (or get children to and from school, or provide Head Start, or after school programs for needy children whose parents and guardians work, or any of the really pressing needs of individual children and families in poverty). Nevermind, thinking about how the housing situation effects their lives - to get a sense of scale, maybe that's how to think about the numbers...moving a few hundred of the region's homeless families off the street and into owner occupied housing?<p>No. the money isn't going for anything that long term.<p>It's going to 'technology' - a category where five years of use is a really long time = where staff salaries are a multiple of what teachers earn...and somebody has to select, install and maintain all those gadgets. It's a consultant gravy train.<p>The person who offers money in exchange for people doing what whatever they say is the served, not the serving. And with private individuals, unlike a government, the serving have no say whatsoever. This isn't a partnership. Zuckerberg isn't asking the districts what they need and seeing which of their needs he can meet. He's come up with a solution without the hard work of prioritizing the possibilities. That's unfortunate.<p>While I honestly admire the generosity, winning access to Exeter Academy and Harvard in the fast swimming semen sweepstakes doesn't make a person an expert in education at the scale of a school district, let alone a region. Even if one worked really really hard building a technology company.
Throwing money at an already failing system isn't going to do anything. Look at how his donation to New Jersey played out. He's just putting money into a dying system. The entire educational system needs to be reworked completely. And the changes we need won't be made by politicians, we need hackers to do it.
This is about as wateful as spending 3 billion on SnapChat!
I haven't read the stipulations, if any, but feel most of
it will be fretted away on administration. I never thought
Mark was a brilliant person, and still believe he stole every original thought since he stole Facebook from the spoiled boys. Only in America? Yes--at a certain point--the rich do not know how to spend money. I'm for a government that taxes their money. If they don't like it
move to Ireland. Yes--I know they moved, but when
I'm president--when Ireland is attacked they would not be
able to look to their home country for help. Sorry--but
you wanted the divorce Deare.
And now they have enough money? Until they run out and the next angel drops a wad of cash on them? That sounds like an absolutely stellar way to fund public education.
That's one solution to Prop 13; I can't help but think that the $120M would be better spent trying to repeal that example of what's wrong with direct democracy.