6 ms·

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

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

JabavuAdams 14y ago
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.
- greghinch 14y ago
  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.
optymizer 14y ago
I concur. I was expecting some kind of plot twist.
001sky 14y ago
donated with specific uses already in mind ==Purchasing
- greghinch 14y ago
  If they don't like the use they can refuse the donation. I would peg this much more like investing.
- petrel 14y ago
  Good purpose also?
binarymax 14y ago
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.
- greghinch 14y ago
  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.
  - pemulis 14y ago
    > 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.
    - greghinch 14y ago
      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.
      - larrys 14y ago
        "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.
noahr 14y ago
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.
- gwern 14y ago
  > 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?
  - noahr 14y ago
    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).

JabavuAdams 14y ago

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.

greghinch 14y ago
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.

optymizer 14y ago

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

001sky 14y ago

donated with specific uses already in mind ==Purchasing

greghinch 14y ago
If they don't like the use they can refuse the donation. I would peg this much more like investing.
petrel 14y ago
Good purpose also?

binarymax 14y ago

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.

greghinch 14y ago
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.
- pemulis 14y ago
  > 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.
  - greghinch 14y ago
    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.
    - larrys 14y ago
      "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.

noahr 14y ago

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.

gwern 14y ago
> 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?
- noahr 14y ago
  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).