5 ms·

The problem with education philanthropy

47 points by arikr 8y ago

markdeloura 8y ago
If you talk with U.S. educators, you'll find them passionate and knowledgeable, with strong opinions about how to teach their students best, yet little flexibility or finances to make any changes. Many of them feel locked in by tight curriculum standards and a need to teach to the test, so the result is to just maintain the status quo. Meanwhile we see many countries around the world pulling ahead in the OECD PISA rankings. Philanthropy can help through pushing and prodding, exploring new techniques, highlighting new research, and funding tests and experiments... and there will be failures as well as successes. But to not strive to improve our education system is irresponsible - generations benefit from each small increase in capability or effectiveness. I for one hope that these organizations continue striving to improve learning for future students. Who else has the resources -- and the will -- to do it?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I think the US needs to learn again to improve exisitng systems. I think philanthropy is often a way to avoid tackling difficult issues and instead trying to score some points quickly without changing the system. Whatever the philanthropy effort come up with is pretty useless or only of use for a few people if the results that don't actually get implemented in the mainstream. When I talk to people in the US most of them seem to think that the current systems are hopeless and can't be improved, be it infrastructure, health or education. Philanthropy can help maybe a little but I think it's more important to improve current systems. You can't just let things for slowly and hope for billionaires to fix them. They won't.
nelsonic 8y ago
This article makes the case that within the "INT" (Importance, Neglectedness & Tractability) framework for effective philanthropy, Eduction is neither neglected nor tractable and that the money being spent by the billionaires is in some cases "cancelling out" the grassroots movements to improve education. Yes, Education is undoubtedly an important problem to solve and the "return on investment" to society is huge, but it's one which already receives significant investment/budget and throwing more money at the problem is often counterproductive. While the article does not mention Finland, I feel it should. Finland has considerably better education standards than (any state in the) USA by all measures on PISA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_St... In 2014, the U.S. spent an average of $12,157 per student on elementary and secondary education. see: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country... Finland's education budget is €2,100 per capita. ($2,400 USD i.e. less than 20% of the spending!) Spending less money leads to a much better outcome for students. No billionaires required. Just take the profit out of education. Tuition fees are _strictly prohibited by law in Finland. Which means everyone receives the same standard of education regardless of their parents/family's financial situation. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland Why Finland has the Best Education (Michael Moore Doc): https://youtu.be/XQ_agxK6fLs https://youtu.be/XQ_agxK6fLs Summary: No homework! All schools are the same standard. Top 10 Reasons Finland has the World’s Best School System: https://youtu.be/zmG4smezeME https://youtu.be/zmG4smezeME Further reading: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-schools-successful-49859555/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-s...
- throwaway8798 8y ago
  You're conflating two different statistics: US spending per pupil is $12,300 Finland spending per pupil is $9,800 https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cmd.pdf https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cmd.pdf If you want to look at per capita spending, the article says the US spends about 668 billion, divided by a population of 321 million, you get about $2080 per capita. So if you're calculating it that way, the US actually spends _less_ per capita than Finland.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rglovejoy 8y ago
    > If you want to look at per capita spending, the article says the US spends about 668 billion, divided by a population of 321 million, you get about $2080 per capita. > So if you're calculating it that way, the US actually spends _less_ per capita than Finland. Nobody is calculating it that way: the US does not have 321 million schoolchildren.
    - jacobolus 8y ago
      > Nobody is calculating [education budgets per capita] The top-level poster did, in a (hopefully unintentionally) grossly misleading apples-to-oranges comparison: > U.S. spent an average of $12,157 per student [...] Finland's education budget is €2,100 per capita [...] less than 20% of the spending!
  - nelsonic 8y ago
    Thanks for the correction.
- sytelus 8y ago
  Great comment! There are many countries which spends more than US like Switzerland so the only conclusion one can derive is that after some amount the marginal gains in quality of education are small. However the conclusion that marginal gains actually reduces are not correct. The fact is that quality of education depends on many more things after certain minimal spend is established. Teacher training and incentives, standards, methodology etc are much more important. For example, why are we still doing passive learning in classroom where students are expected to just sit and listen as opposed to hands on project based or Montessori style learning. Think about the difference just this will make. I also think US system is fundamentally flawed because of government established monopoly. This prevents other players to come in and make improvements. Even worse, students in US is tied to a school based on house a parent can afford. Why can't a parent take education allowance from government and go to any school they prefer? This would allow competition, private entities, market economy and most importantly fast evolution by innovating on other factors.
perseusprime11 8y ago
There is a general problem with philanthropy in nature. I am always skeptical of foundations that seem to pay exorbitant salaries to the executives running the foundation. There’s got to be a better model.
nimbius 8y ago
Coming from a trade-tech perspective, companies like UTI and Lincoln that claim to offer a course for shop and engine mechanics rarely prove better than spending a year (or two) at your local city trade college. For trades its all about your benefits. its the old-timers that move into teaching. No greybeard wants to hire on at a private school for higher private rates but ultimately lower benefits. A woman for 40 years experience as a plumber will choose lower pay at the city college for better health, retirement, and vacation packages. The state also wins big again at trade colleges because many of the instructors have worked 40 years in the largest fleets: city bus or EMS/Police motor pool. These people are legends in their field and the city goes to great lengths to keep them around. Private colleges might get the occasional lead mechanic from Nascar or a pro-racing circuit endorsement, but she hasnt held a wrench to a normal engine in more than a decade. lastly its about content. private schools polls industry to see what they want, and if industry is short on good (cheap) oil change monkeys then thats most of what youll learn. Old-timers know you'll need more than an oil pan to bring home a paycheck. Theyll teach you things to make you faster, safer, and better at all the work you need to do.

47 points by arikr 8y ago

If you talk with U.S. educators, you'll find them passionate and knowledgeable, with strong opinions about how to teach their students best, yet little flexibility or finances to make any changes. Many of them feel locked in by tight curriculum standards and a need to teach to the test, so the result is to just maintain the status quo. Meanwhile we see many countries around the world pulling ahead in the OECD PISA rankings. Philanthropy can help through pushing and prodding, exploring new techniques, highlighting new research, and funding tests and experiments... and there will be failures as well as successes. But to not strive to improve our education system is irresponsible - generations benefit from each small increase in capability or effectiveness. I for one hope that these organizations continue striving to improve learning for future students. Who else has the resources -- and the will -- to do it?

maxxxxx 8y ago
I think the US needs to learn again to improve exisitng systems. I think philanthropy is often a way to avoid tackling difficult issues and instead trying to score some points quickly without changing the system. Whatever the philanthropy effort come up with is pretty useless or only of use for a few people if the results that don't actually get implemented in the mainstream. When I talk to people in the US most of them seem to think that the current systems are hopeless and can't be improved, be it infrastructure, health or education. Philanthropy can help maybe a little but I think it's more important to improve current systems. You can't just let things for slowly and hope for billionaires to fix them. They won't.

nelsonic 8y ago

This article makes the case that within the "INT" (Importance, Neglectedness & Tractability) framework for effective philanthropy, Eduction is neither neglected nor tractable and that the money being spent by the billionaires is in some cases "cancelling out" the grassroots movements to improve education. Yes, Education is undoubtedly an important problem to solve and the "return on investment" to society is huge, but it's one which already receives significant investment/budget and throwing more money at the problem is often counterproductive. While the article does not mention Finland, I feel it should. Finland has considerably better education standards than (any state in the) USA by all measures on PISA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_St... In 2014, the U.S. spent an average of $12,157 per student on elementary and secondary education. see: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country... Finland's education budget is €2,100 per capita. ($2,400 USD i.e. less than 20% of the spending!) Spending less money leads to a much better outcome for students. No billionaires required. Just take the profit out of education. Tuition fees are _strictly prohibited by law in Finland. Which means everyone receives the same standard of education regardless of their parents/family's financial situation. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland Why Finland has the Best Education (Michael Moore Doc): https://youtu.be/XQ_agxK6fLs https://youtu.be/XQ_agxK6fLs Summary: No homework! All schools are the same standard. Top 10 Reasons Finland has the World’s Best School System: https://youtu.be/zmG4smezeME https://youtu.be/zmG4smezeME Further reading: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-schools-successful-49859555/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-s...

throwaway8798 8y ago
You're conflating two different statistics: US spending per pupil is $12,300 Finland spending per pupil is $9,800 https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cmd.pdf https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cmd.pdf If you want to look at per capita spending, the article says the US spends about 668 billion, divided by a population of 321 million, you get about $2080 per capita. So if you're calculating it that way, the US actually spends _less_ per capita than Finland.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rglovejoy 8y ago
  > If you want to look at per capita spending, the article says the US spends about 668 billion, divided by a population of 321 million, you get about $2080 per capita. > So if you're calculating it that way, the US actually spends _less_ per capita than Finland. Nobody is calculating it that way: the US does not have 321 million schoolchildren.
  - jacobolus 8y ago
    > Nobody is calculating [education budgets per capita] The top-level poster did, in a (hopefully unintentionally) grossly misleading apples-to-oranges comparison: > U.S. spent an average of $12,157 per student [...] Finland's education budget is €2,100 per capita [...] less than 20% of the spending!
- nelsonic 8y ago
  Thanks for the correction.
sytelus 8y ago
Great comment! There are many countries which spends more than US like Switzerland so the only conclusion one can derive is that after some amount the marginal gains in quality of education are small. However the conclusion that marginal gains actually reduces are not correct. The fact is that quality of education depends on many more things after certain minimal spend is established. Teacher training and incentives, standards, methodology etc are much more important. For example, why are we still doing passive learning in classroom where students are expected to just sit and listen as opposed to hands on project based or Montessori style learning. Think about the difference just this will make. I also think US system is fundamentally flawed because of government established monopoly. This prevents other players to come in and make improvements. Even worse, students in US is tied to a school based on house a parent can afford. Why can't a parent take education allowance from government and go to any school they prefer? This would allow competition, private entities, market economy and most importantly fast evolution by innovating on other factors.

perseusprime11 8y ago

There is a general problem with philanthropy in nature. I am always skeptical of foundations that seem to pay exorbitant salaries to the executives running the foundation. There’s got to be a better model.

nimbius 8y ago

Coming from a trade-tech perspective, companies like UTI and Lincoln that claim to offer a course for shop and engine mechanics rarely prove better than spending a year (or two) at your local city trade college. For trades its all about your benefits. its the old-timers that move into teaching. No greybeard wants to hire on at a private school for higher private rates but ultimately lower benefits. A woman for 40 years experience as a plumber will choose lower pay at the city college for better health, retirement, and vacation packages. The state also wins big again at trade colleges because many of the instructors have worked 40 years in the largest fleets: city bus or EMS/Police motor pool. These people are legends in their field and the city goes to great lengths to keep them around. Private colleges might get the occasional lead mechanic from Nascar or a pro-racing circuit endorsement, but she hasnt held a wrench to a normal engine in more than a decade. lastly its about content. private schools polls industry to see what they want, and if industry is short on good (cheap) oil change monkeys then thats most of what youll learn. Old-timers know you'll need more than an oil pan to bring home a paycheck. Theyll teach you things to make you faster, safer, and better at all the work you need to do.