3 ms·

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 a

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.
      - bostonpete 14y ago
        Teachers are not a commodity. Supply and demand do factor in, but that doesn't mean it's wise to drive the salaries as low as possible just because someone is willing to do the job at that price. I don't know much about teachers salaries, but I do know that if the salaries in your school system aren't competitive, many of the decent/good teachers will quickly find better paying positions in surrounding communities.
      - afterburner 14y ago
        In the meantime, only the less educated candidates will bother with teaching since it doesn't pay well enough to justify extra schooling, and so education quality will suffer, impacting all of society. Education is a fundamental societal need, assuming you want to live in a nice country.
      - stevesearer 14y ago
        Teachers rarely shop around at all, though when they do it is most likely for reasons other than pay like a better faculty fit, improved schedule, or better-aligned educational ideals. For teachers I know, which span both public and private realms, pay isn't a highly motivating factor, whereas the items mentioned above are. In fact, many teachers at private schools are paid far less than those at public schools - even up to half as much. Why? Because they believe in private schooling and enjoy the freedom that comes with it. Oddly enough, many of these private schools with low pay have much higher performance than the surrounding public institutions. I have a theory that student success is much more tightly aligned to parent involvement than that of whether teachers are highly paid or not. In private schools, parents pay for the education directly out of their own pocket and therefore have an expectation to get their money's worth and to not have that money squandered. But you are right that most teaching positions do come with great time off and benefits - even for those starting out.
  - afterburner 14y ago
    Well, for one thing, if it doesn't pay enough, teachers end up not being as well educated, since the costs aren't justified.
  - GigabyteCoin 14y ago
    There is a reason most of the world's highly trained technical people immigrate to the USA. Because they get paid more money. If you pay the teachers more, you will attract better teachers than other parts of the world. Thus improving your schools.
- danielweber 14y ago
  This is getting a bit off-track, but last I checked research showed that paying teachers more doesn't result in better student performance. This is hardly "scandal," though. At worst, it's Zuck dictating that his money be poorly spent, but it's his money.
- maxmax 14y ago
  The Rhee people use this as a divide and conquer strategy to undermine the unions. Government tax revenue streams are a major target for corporate interests, with schools being the biggest remaining. The teachers unions are the corporatists last hurdle before mass privatization of US school systems can begin.
  - noahr 14y ago
    This is the main issue that people are concerned about with the donation. There was an excellent episode of Frontline on this same topic last night.
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      There was an excellent issue of Frontline about Michelle Rhee, it wasn't presenting the teachers unions as the last bulwark against privatization at all. That is a deeply misleading characterization of what the program examined, and how.
      - noahr 14y ago
        You're right, I should have been clearer that the episode was about Michelle Rhee and her philosophy that schools should be run more like private companies. And new allegations that her system may have led to test results being manipulated to improve scores and achieve the goals she set out for teachers and principals. Is that fair? Here's an article about it from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/documentary-examines-michelle-rhees-legacy-in-dc/2013/01/04/ae86e8a6-55f7-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/documentary-ex...
        anigbrowl 14y ago
        No, that's not fair either. Her philosophy is that schools must maximize student achievement, and I agree with her about this. The point of education is not to provide jobs for educators.

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.
    - bostonpete 14y ago
      Teachers are not a commodity. Supply and demand do factor in, but that doesn't mean it's wise to drive the salaries as low as possible just because someone is willing to do the job at that price. I don't know much about teachers salaries, but I do know that if the salaries in your school system aren't competitive, many of the decent/good teachers will quickly find better paying positions in surrounding communities.
    - afterburner 14y ago
      In the meantime, only the less educated candidates will bother with teaching since it doesn't pay well enough to justify extra schooling, and so education quality will suffer, impacting all of society. Education is a fundamental societal need, assuming you want to live in a nice country.
    - stevesearer 14y ago
      Teachers rarely shop around at all, though when they do it is most likely for reasons other than pay like a better faculty fit, improved schedule, or better-aligned educational ideals. For teachers I know, which span both public and private realms, pay isn't a highly motivating factor, whereas the items mentioned above are. In fact, many teachers at private schools are paid far less than those at public schools - even up to half as much. Why? Because they believe in private schooling and enjoy the freedom that comes with it. Oddly enough, many of these private schools with low pay have much higher performance than the surrounding public institutions. I have a theory that student success is much more tightly aligned to parent involvement than that of whether teachers are highly paid or not. In private schools, parents pay for the education directly out of their own pocket and therefore have an expectation to get their money's worth and to not have that money squandered. But you are right that most teaching positions do come with great time off and benefits - even for those starting out.
- afterburner 14y ago
  Well, for one thing, if it doesn't pay enough, teachers end up not being as well educated, since the costs aren't justified.
- GigabyteCoin 14y ago
  There is a reason most of the world's highly trained technical people immigrate to the USA. Because they get paid more money. If you pay the teachers more, you will attract better teachers than other parts of the world. Thus improving your schools.
danielweber 14y ago
This is getting a bit off-track, but last I checked research showed that paying teachers more doesn't result in better student performance. This is hardly "scandal," though. At worst, it's Zuck dictating that his money be poorly spent, but it's his money.
maxmax 14y ago
The Rhee people use this as a divide and conquer strategy to undermine the unions. Government tax revenue streams are a major target for corporate interests, with schools being the biggest remaining. The teachers unions are the corporatists last hurdle before mass privatization of US school systems can begin.
- noahr 14y ago
  This is the main issue that people are concerned about with the donation. There was an excellent episode of Frontline on this same topic last night.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    There was an excellent issue of Frontline about Michelle Rhee, it wasn't presenting the teachers unions as the last bulwark against privatization at all. That is a deeply misleading characterization of what the program examined, and how.
    - noahr 14y ago
      You're right, I should have been clearer that the episode was about Michelle Rhee and her philosophy that schools should be run more like private companies. And new allegations that her system may have led to test results being manipulated to improve scores and achieve the goals she set out for teachers and principals. Is that fair? Here's an article about it from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/documentary-examines-michelle-rhees-legacy-in-dc/2013/01/04/ae86e8a6-55f7-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/documentary-ex...
      - anigbrowl 14y ago
        No, that's not fair either. Her philosophy is that schools must maximize student achievement, and I agree with her about this. The point of education is not to provide jobs for educators.