8 ms·
The Melting of Mark Zuckerberg’s $100MM Donation to Newark Schools
- RodericDay 11y agoI don't understand why if a financier or businessman says they're gonna "pull their business" if higher taxes or minimum wage is enacted, this is seen as a very important thing to take into account. Meanwhile, if a teacher or a nurse says the same thing, you get: > The union boss, Joe Del Grosso, demanded a ransom of $31 million to compensate for what he felt members should have received in previous years — before agreeing to discuss any labor reforms. Why isn't this "ransom" language used when businesspeople threaten to move their business elsewhere, fire people, etc.?
- larrik 11y agoI really don't see the similarity here. Threatening to leave a locale is completely different from asking for a specific amount of money up front.
- fweespeech 11y ago....no, not really. "If you do not do X, I will do Y" is very much the ransom formula regardless.
- manigandham 11y agoThat's not ransom (which is all about extorting money). Saying if conditions change then you'll take a different action is just stating fact. Every change will have it's consequences, that doesn't make it ransom or somehow wrong.
- fweespeech 11y agoGetting things that make you money and cost the other party money is extorting money.
- manigandham 11y agoSo if I win a client from a competing business, I'm extorting money? Reactionary changes are just that. Raise taxes or min. wage and businesses move to do what's best for them. That's not ransom.
- fweespeech 11y ago> I really don't see the similarity here. Threatening to leave a locale is completely different from asking for a specific amount of money up front. A) Keyword is "threatening" as in proactive, not reactive. B) This is the clearly in the context of private individuals demanding stuff from government.
- manigandham 11y agoIt seems you're replying to the wrong post. That was just a subjective word used by another HN user. It's not the keyword in anything. It's just stating the reaction that will happen to proposed changes. And what's wrong with proactively warning the other side? It's the smart thing to do. The actually important point is that both sides are completely free to do as they like. The company isn't forcefully demanding money or causing harm so there's no ransom or extortion going on here.
- fweespeech 11y agohttp://www.businessinsider.com/states-where-teachers-unions-are-illegal-2011-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/states-where-teachers-unions-... You can bust teachers unions. Remind me again how they are forcefully demanding money?
- manigandham 11y ago
- lfjmfkekdk88 11y agoThat really is a misleading definition of a ransom. A ransom is more like, "If you do not pay X, I will do Y"
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- adventured 11y agoBusinesses get vilified all the time for that behavior. Tesla got attacked a lot for their attempts to leverage the best deal possible when pursuing a location for the gigafactory. Articles are still being written about it. I must have read two dozen negative articles against the company regarding that one thing alone. A few of which were on HN's front page. And in that case it wasn't even Tesla threatening to pull existing business from a location. Why is it seen as an important thing? Ask California how much they've enjoyed Texas pulling business from the state. Of course it's an important consideration, the states compete with each other in most things including where businesses choose to locate facilities.
- andreasklinger 11y agoI think the main question here is balance. We could have the same argument with pretty much everything - not only companies / unions. In the end each party is motivated to use its own power to optimize for their end. Systems like markets only seek equilibrium if there is a balance in power between parties. Balance needs to be a neutral position that's still beneficial (read fair) for all sides.
- dopamean 11y agoThat's such nonsense though. The gigfactory didn't exist and they were looking for a place to build it. That is not quite the same as threatening to move an existing business that presumably employs a lot of people in the area.
- trhway 11y ago>Meanwhile, if a teacher or a nurse says the same thing, you get: >> The union boss, Joe Del Grosso, non-sequitur. Del Grosso isn't a teacher or a nurse. Unions in New Jersey is a pretty specific kind of entrepreneural activity and well covered in many famous literature and TV works. >The superintendent, Cami Anderson, demanded accountability from schools but set her own performance goals only after the academic year was largely over and relied on expensive consultants — whose total bill ultimately exceeded $20 million having grown in USSR/Russia, my first instinctive calculation produces $15M kickback such situation must involve ... of course here things are completely different and expensive consultants is just an expensive and necessary cost of teaching math and reading to schoolchildren :)
- thebmax 11y agoBusiness people who move jurisdictions due to tax hikes are not 'ransoming' anyone - its their own private property and they can move where ever they want. Politicians who are too stupid to realize that raising taxes causes capital flight deserve to lose businesses from their city/state. Your idea is against the whole notion of private property. "Work like sheep for the government all you business owners and if you move or close it down we're going to arrest you"
- kevin_thibedeau 11y agoIt doesn't work that way in professional sports where team owners raking in guaranteed profits hold their host cities ransom every 20 years looking for a new public subsidized stadium. One that could be paid for out of pocket by investing a portion of the profit made over those 20 years.
- rayiner 11y agoFananciers and businessmen don't base their calls to raise their salaries at the public expense on the premise that it'll be good for children.
- threatofrain 11y agoI do think the author of the NYT article used an unfairly mischaracterizing word. The better replacement would be "tough negotiation". From what I've read, the union leader was not threatening a strike, but merely refusing to engage in talks.
- mratzloff 11y ago"I'm not even willing to listen to your position until you pay me" may not be ransom, but it is an extremely unproductive relationship.
- kqr2 11y agoIn retrospect, what would have been the best way for Mark Zuckerberg's donation to have a meaningful impact on the Newark Schools?
- blumkvist 11y agoHim overseeing spending personally.
- pbreit 11y agoBut since that's not feasible, surely he could appoint someone in his network who should be able to tease out better results?
- wehadfun 11y agoUsed his power and influence to replace incompetent and corrupt officials and bring in some low skilled job to improve the socioeconomic status of the population. There is a much better article [0] of what went wrong here. [0]http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/19/schooled http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/19/schooled
- lutorm 11y agoThis seems a bit analogous to people winning the lottery. In other words, a one time windfall without structures in place to handle it isn't likely to make a lasting difference.
- tdees40 11y agoMoney is irrelevant to the problems of Newark schools. The problem that plagues Newark's schools is old-fashioned segregation [1]. The whole district is segregated, but individual schools are worse. Here's a school I literally just randomly chose: it's 2% non-Hispanic white [2]. If Brown v. Board disappeared tomorrow, no one in Newark would notice. [1] http://www.nps.k12.nj.us/district/info/ http://www.nps.k12.nj.us/district/info/ [2] http://www.zillow.com/newark-nj/schools/louise-a-spencer-elementary-school-44819/ http://www.zillow.com/newark-nj/schools/louise-a-spencer-ele...
- johnbenwoo 11y agoThere is a great two-part story from This American Life [1] about this type of thing - it's a problem much bigger than Newark. [1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/t...
- ttcbj 11y agoI agree the This American Life stories were pretty good. They were based on a pro-publica story which has background statistics that make the picture more interesting: http://www.propublica.org/article/ferguson-school-segregation http://www.propublica.org/article/ferguson-school-segregatio... There was also recently this long article in the Tampa Bay times that I found at least as insightful, and with more perspective: http://www.tampabay.com/projects/2015/investigations/pinellas-failure-factories/5-schools-segregation/ http://www.tampabay.com/projects/2015/investigations/pinella... My concerns with this coverage is that they oversimplify the problems in their desire to find a solution (especially TAL). I'd also recommend the book 'Our Kids': http://www.amazon.com/Our-Kids-American-Dream-Crisis/dp/1476769893/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1440620683&sr=8-1&keywords=Our+Kids http://www.amazon.com/Our-Kids-American-Dream-Crisis/dp/1476... Which is far more comprehensive but spectacularly depressing.
- giaour 11y agoIn theory, some of the money could have been used for desegregation. It really is a tragedy that there was no big purpose to which this money was put.
- drdaniel 11y agoAny news on his second donation to Bay Area schools? Was anything learned or just another well-intentioned boon for useless consultants?
- hahamrfunnyguy 11y agotldr: The money was wasted. Did we really expect any different?
- giaour 11y agoI remember the hype around this announcement, and yes, everyone expected it to turn out differently.
- x0ra 11y agoreally ? This is a large amount of money in the hands of public "servants". This was doomed to failure from day 1.
- merpnderp 11y agoWhy? Money and education results don't correlate. Every single factor in education is overwhelmed by parental involvement. So maybe that $100 million should of been used to pay parents to participate in their children's education.
- VLM 11y ago> Money and education results don't correlate Even if they did, see my math analysis above that roughly 1/5 of employees are front line instructional and 4/5 are deadwood administrative. Therefore even in the most superficial analysis 80% of the money will be wasted on metrics and TPS reports and consultants. The reality of course is deadwood can cause much more damage than a front line instructor, lets say 2x as much, so of the $100M at least $90M would be wasted on deadwood and only $10M would get to the instructors. $10M to the instructors sounds helpful, but its a big district so it divides out to only $10K or so per instructor. Figure a substantial portion of that will be lost in paperwork and corruption (4 out of 5 employees exist to get in the way...) so you only get $5K per teacher effective. Assuming money equaled results, $5K isn't much. A math teacher could buy 50 brand new TI calculators, assuming buying brand new calculators increased student results, which they probably don't. Or about ten ipads, so the ten worst troublemakers could play angry birds and get out of the way of the rest of the class. Or $5K is about two sets of new overpriced textbooks for newark's very large class sizes. Again assuming any of those expenses give results anywhere but the product sellers bottom lines... But even if they did give results, they couldn't give much.
- pbreit 11y agoCan't he designate one person to make sure that a $100 million investment works out better?
- detaro 11y agoSort of too late now... but could probably have been done by not donating the lump sum, but setting up a "trust fund" that would give out money (or not) for specific projects. This probably would have been met with more resistance and more discussions, because it easily looks like someone external enforcing a specific way, so everybody who is unhappy complains about that. And Zuckerberg probably gives a good enemy figure for many in that regard. Also, the structural issues would remain and even more impossible to tackle, so I think a fund mostly could have slowed the process and probably would have redirected the money to more small-scale issues (because these are easier to get through). Which probably would have been the better alternative with what we know now...
- pbreit 11y agoYeah, dropping in $100 million at once without seemingly much of a vision doesn't seem exceedingly prudent.
- devindotcom 11y agoHow depressing. A colossal windfall for an ailing public resource desperately in need of reform, and it's squandered in vendettas and hidden interests. Even more depressing is that we didn't expect better. Perhaps gifts like this should come with conditions like "75 cents out of every dollar must be spent on in-classroom improvements" or "40 million reserved for teacher requests." Second $100 million contingent on the first being spent properly or something. What a waste — not that, as many point out, Newark's school system can be sorted out with a cash infusion. But $200 million buys a lot of band-aids.
- emodendroket 11y agoI appreciate the sentiment but I don't think allowing Mark Zuckerberg to direct exactly how the money is to be spent is really the best solution to the problem.
- wuliwong 11y agoSounds like it could hardly be worse?
- moron4hire 11y agoIs it better than what actually happened? You're going to wait a long time if you're waiting for the "best" solution to your problems.
- emodendroket 11y agoNo, I'd say letting someone with no expertise play superintendent because he's got a lot of money is arguably worse.
- tankm0de 11y agoThere was long-form about this awhile back. Interestingly the blame for waste seemed to lay with both teacher's union and pro-reform consultants demanding a big piece of the action. When teacher's union didn't get what they wanted they manipulated the community of parents against the deal, which also ensured the politicians/bureaucrats would not be held accountable for the squandered opportunities and wasted money. In short, it seems like places like Newark have bad schools because of bad governance and rent-seeking behavior running rampant at the local level. The state should be more firmly involved to police these issues.
- emodendroket 11y agoWhat makes you think the state would do so much better?
- ch4s3 11y agoMore people are watching NJ than Newark. State elections have higher turnout than local elections as well.
- tankm0de 11y agoThe state is not perfect either but typically a larger organization has more (professional) eyes on it, thus making it harder to mismanage or corrupt for a special interest. Same rational as why Michigan steps in to run Detroit as it was going bankrupt.
- merpnderp 11y agoEvery single factor in education is overwhelmed by parental involvement. If Mr. Zuckerberg wanted his $100 million to have an impact, he should have payed parents to participate in their children's education.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- sanderjd 11y agoI think teaching parents how to effectively participate in their younger children's education would be a fantastic initiative. I know there is a subset of parents who just aren't interested in participating, but I suspect there's a larger subset who are interested but don't really know what to do. Would be interested if anybody know of any initiatives like that!
- threatofrain 11y agoConsultants worth $20M? My god.
- rayiner 11y ago> The union boss, Joe Del Grosso, demanded a ransom of $31 million to compensate for what he felt members should have received in previous years — before agreeing to discuss any labor reforms. Zuckerberg's relatively hands-off approach to the donation seemed curious to me. He's a savvy guy. Would he invest $100 million in a failing company without replacing the existing leadership? The problem in places like Newark isn't money. Newark City and Camden spend $24-25k per student per year, just a couple of thousand less than expensive suburbs like Monmouth County, and double the national average. When a system that has plenty of money is that dysfunctional, there's a underlying reason, and pumping money into it won't fix the problem.
- cpursley 11y agoI don't understand the "schools need more money". My wife teaches in a Title 1 school housed in a brand new facility. It's not about the facilities or even teachers as much as it is the student's family situation. The common trend with her students is those who's parents who are involved perform better. The focus should be how to create more of that.
- sliverstorm 11y agoMaybe "more" isn't the operative problem, but when underpaid teachers pay out of their own pockets to supply & decorate their classrooms, there would appear to be a money problem. There's also the general observation that if we want to empower teachers & attract good candidates, it needs to be a reputable job and $32k salaries are a major obstacle to that.
- cpursley 11y agoI think you're missing my point. If the student does not have the basic understanding of why an education is good for them and a parent who stays on top of them, it does not matter how much money you throw at teacher salaries or school facilities. There's case study after case study confirming that it's not about funding. No doubt my wife would like a higher salary, but that is not going to motivate an unmotivated student. It's the whole lead a horse to water thing...
- sliverstorm 11y agoNot to comment about your wife, but the notion is that if teaching is reputable & pays well enough, they will be able to attract to the profession more of the incredible individuals who as teachers can motivate & draw in those unmotivated students. I'm not sure if case-studies can cover this particular notion. It's a big picture problem, like not enough women in engineering. You could try to make the perverse counter-argument, that pathetic salaries actually selects for people who care so much about the kids they will self-sacrifice and perhaps those people are more likely to be the phenomenal-teacher variety, but I've never seen evidence to support that. Anyway my ultimate point is that whether or not increasing teacher pay to the level they deserve fixes education and saves under performing students, shouldn't preclude paying teachers what they deserve! But perhaps it is simply an unrelated issue that is not relevant.
- cpursley 11y agoI don't understand the "schools need more money". My wife teaches in a Title 1 school housed in a brand new facility. It's not about the facilities or even teachers as much as it is the student's family situation. The common trend with her students is those who's parents who are involved perform better. The focus should be more of that.
- Bamafan 11y ago"But it is downright chilling to watch the leadership team throw around buzz phrases from business best-sellers with minimal focus on the nuanced requirements of applying these principles to the education ecosystem generally" Replace "education" with software and still applies. :)
- ellebee213 11y agoSad and frustrating. Not only will this deter future donations but it once again highlights adults behaving badly. Given Newark's track record, the money should have been: -given to a foundation to manage -restrictions should have been placed on how the money could have been utilized -Newark as a whole or individual schools or community partnerships should have been required to submit spending plans -A grant writer could have been hired to leverage this gift far beyond the $200 million as there are probably any number of federal, state and private grants that could have been pursued to - some measurement of the impact of the various initiatives that were funded from the gift should also have been tied to funding What Newark can not do is cry poor mouth again.