Slashdot Mirror


A Gates Foundation Education Initiative Fizzles

theodp writes "Three years ago, Sarah-Palin-bogeyman William Ayers published a paper questioning the direction the small school movement was taking (PDF) with the involvement of would-be education reformers like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And now, after $2 billion in grants, Bill Gates concedes that in most cases his foundation's efforts in that area fell short. 'Many of the small schools that we invested in did not improve students' achievement in any significant way,' said Gates. Bill does cite High Tech High as one of the few success stories, but even there has to limit his atta-boys to the San Diego branch — the Gates-backed Silicon Valley High Tech High closed its doors abruptly due to financial woes (concerns about the sustainability of Gates-initiated small schools were voiced in 2005). Not surprisingly, some parents are upset about the capital that school districts wasted following Bill's lead."

34 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. I could be sarcastic by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and say that nothing that Microsoft contributes to schools facilitates education, but that would be unfair. Gates is not the first, and will not be the last, businessman to try to give money to schools to encourage them down a path that he supports. I am sure they all mean well - but education is too big and complicated, and depends too much on local factors, to benefit from this kind of investment. It's been said that the only thing that businessmen should do is to take a leaf out of Carnegie's book and donate libraries. Not a bad place to start, especially if you are big enough to realise that you will profoundly disagree with some of those books, and that is actually a good thing.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:I could be sarcastic by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am sure they all mean well - but education is too big and complicated, and depends too much on local factors, to benefit from this kind of investment.

      I'm not an educator but it seems to me that we're all in search of a process. Maybe outcomes are less of a product of the system that is used and more a result of the skill and effort level of the educators and parents in question.

      Not that I have much experience with the subject; merely an uninformed opinion...

    2. Re:I could be sarcastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not that I have much experience with the subject; merely an uninformed opinion...

      Don't feel bad. Most school boards have the same problem....

    3. Re:I could be sarcastic by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 4, Funny

      WTF?
      I'm logged in, "Post Anonymously" is not checked, and my hilariously funny comment gets attributed to Anonymous Coward.

      That's the second time that's happened to me.

      ARRRRGGGH!!

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    4. Re:I could be sarcastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nonsense; I posted that comment.

    5. Re:I could be sarcastic by arpad1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, education isn't that big or that complicated.

      We've made it big and complicated but the evidence is all around that it needn't be.

      There used to be little, red schoolhouses all over the place and their modern descendants, charter schools, are also all over the place. Neither one needed/needs a school district with its inevitable central administration bureaucracy and both had/have to concern themselves with teacher competence since parents can don't have to incur the expense of changing their residence if they're not happy with the school.

      Gates almost got it right with his small school idea but the problem isn't the size of the school so much as it is the lack of choices open to parents. A lot of small schools for parents to choose among would mean a lot of schools that live and die by parental satisfaction. Since parents are the only group that can legitimately claim to be interested primarily in getting kids a decent education that makes the concerns of the parents the concerns of the schools.

      In a school district the concerns of the parents may, or may not be, of any interest to the professionals because they don't have to care.

      --
      Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    6. Re:I could be sarcastic by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you trying to say that setting school curriculum and teaching goals is not best done at the federal level? You are unpatriotic and anti-American. I'd call you more words too, if they had taught us more words at school. People like you shouldn't even be here. There is no room here for original thinking, or people who are taking responsibility for themselves. You need to get with the program or GTFO! It's people like you who abuse the gift of federally mandated high fructose corn syrup snacks for our children. If you don't stop spreading your filth and down-right sacrilege, our children (god's gift to us) will end up being free thinking hippie types who don't support our troops.

    7. Re:I could be sarcastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well done sir. Wait why am I congratulating myself? How pretentious of us.

    8. Re:I could be sarcastic by bockelboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do you have any friends who are teachers?

      Turns out, there's a *lot* of parents who either don't give two shits about their kids' education or really would like to participate, but happen to be working multiple jobs.

      Parents are some of the *worst* folks to deal with when it comes to their children's education: they find it hard to believe that their little Johnny doesn't deserve an A because he was up in his room studying *all night long*. I know a few who would call up their children's college professors because their dumbass kids didn't do any work, demanding to know why the professor didn't give them an A / wipe their ass / whatever the parent wants.

      I know of parents who don't want exit exams because they knew their kids couldn't pass them. A system which is based on the guidance of the parents would be the worst in the world -- it would give incentive to making parents happy, and the way to do that is give good grades to every dumbass which passed through its doors.

    9. Re:I could be sarcastic by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The process you are seeking is making parents accountable and making sure their children actually go to school.

      How about, while we're at it, we stop telling the little brats and their brats about how special they all are and instead start sending the message that it takes hard work and dedication to amount to anything in this world?

      No ma'am, your little Jimmy really only has himself to blame for that F. So unless you think a future where he spends his time shining my shoes is a good idea, how about you ground his disobedient little ass for a week till he starts doing his homework?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    10. Re:I could be sarcastic by LatencyKills · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm of the belief that modern schools fail for two reasons. 1) Uninvolved parents. You can't learn math in 3 - 45 minute sessions a week (or at least most people can't). You need homework, and it's not as much fun as the Xbox 360. Kids in home where parents encourage learning and demand a level of studying will learn almost regardless of the quality of the school they attend. 2) Schools are unable to get rid of disruptive students, and believe me as a guy who taught high school for awhile, one disruptive kid can distract 30 others who are happy to learn. When I was in high school we had one of those - he got punted to some remedial school somewhere, I don't even know where, but he was gone. Good luck managing that one today. Oh, and take a completely uninvolved parent and tell them that there kid is disruptive and being sent to a remedial class, and you'll very quickly see just how much that uninvolved parent will climb up your ass to protect their snowflake.

      Oh, and schools/teachers/administrators/politicians can't/won't do anything to change either one.

      --
      Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
    11. Re:I could be sarcastic by mshannon78660 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow - I think you've got your history very mixed up there. Those little red schoolhouses were few and far between. You didn't choose which one to send your kids to based on their performance - you hoped there was one close enough to send your kids to. And there would be ONE that was close enough. Mostly, those one room schoolhouses were successful because they weren't trying to do nearly as much as schools are asked to do today. There were no extra-curricular activities, no football teams, cheerleading squads, chess clubs. There were generally no art classes, and usually no music classes - if it was a city school, and the parents were fairly well off, there might be a piano. They did not teach calculus, or chemistry. And, depending on exactly what period we're talking about, there might absolutely be a school district consolidating some operations for multiple schools in an area. But the real reason those schools were successful is that they didn't have to educate everyone. They could expel troublemakers, and those who weren't interested in being educated could generally leave school when they had had enough (even after compulsory attendance was introduced, it was often possible to get exemptions, at least if you lived on a farm). Nothing against charter schools, but they are a different concept, with a different agenda, goals, and means of acheiving those goals, than the old one room schoolhouse.

    12. Re:I could be sarcastic by b4upoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Good Lord,
                  Please keep the parents isolated from the educational system. They are the problem.
                  If you want the solution it is to "DEMAND EXCELLENCE". Let kids know that they will either fly high or sweat in poverty in a coal mine. Be more than willing to flunk them out and more than willing to throw them out for bad behavior. Toss the failures in the front lines during war or keep them in starvation jobs. It worked forever.

  2. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What does Sarah Palin have to do with anything? What the fuck is even the point? Protip: The election ended 3 months ago.

    Shit like that really makes the site look bad.

    1. Re:What? by operagost · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's noteworthy because he was the member of a group that firebombed a judge's house, not because Sarah Palin allegedly thinks he's the "bogeyman".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:What? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Informative

      It doesn't even do that.

      Not everyone is a news junkie and not everyone is going to remember who Bill Ayers is, as the last time he was a regular topic of discussion in the proess in October of last year, nearly 4 months ago. Theodp was simply trying to remind the reader of who Bill Ayers and why he was noteworthy in the news.

      If he was trying to remind the reader of who Bill Ayers is, he would have used the term "domestic terrorist" instead of invoking Sarah Palin. He's trying to head off any reasonable discussion of Ayers by acting like Ayers is a normal guy that that old meany Sarah Palin was using as a punching bag.

      Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist. Perhaps many of you are too young to remember the Weather Underground, I barely remember as I'm just 40. But they set bombs, killed people, and only through their gross incompetence didn't kill many more. One of their foiled plans would have set a barrage of roofing nails into a black restaurant at lunch time.

      Not to sound like a snob, but gentlemen do not associate with Ayers and his ilk.

  3. Who thought it was a good idea... by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...to ask a drop out for advice to government on how to spend education dollars?

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Who thought it was a good idea... by Schiphol · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Many people (I venture to say that the majority, in the US) think that business success is a clear sign of overall excellence. A extreme version of this line of thought is Calvin's doctrine that worldly success was a clear sign of being pre-destined for salvation. Mutatis mutandis with Microsoft and being the saviour of higher education.

      There is no justification for Calvin's version of this idea, neither is there for most of its contemporary counterparts.

    2. Re:Who thought it was a good idea... by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Many people (I venture to say that the majority, in the US) think that business success is a clear sign of overall excellence.

      It seems to me that business or political success is *usually* more a result of some type animal cunning with a heapin' helpin' of ruthlessness thrown in for good measure.

      As for Calvinists, they always seemed to me like the people that Jesus warned us about instead of the ones he advocated becoming.

  4. I stopped reading... by Silverhammer · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...after the following sentence in the first paragraph:

    [...] our vision of small schools was closely connected with issues of social justice, equity, and community.

    And you wonder why conservatives don't like Ayers?

    1. Re:I stopped reading... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, we don't like Ayers because he tried to BOMB GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS. Also, he's a communist.

    2. Re:I stopped reading... by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's guys like Ayers that use terms like "social justice" to mean "everyone should get the same stuff in life, regardless of what they produce."

      For someone who is complaining about indoctrination you sure are demonstrating how well you memorized the main propaganda talking points the US government inflicted upon it's population in the 60s and 70s.

      I live in a socialist state where the current governing party is none other than the socialist party. Yet, capitalism is alive and well, people still get different pay checks and still see some people advance in life while others fail to do so well. So where exactly does that "everyone should get the same stuff in life" pops up?

      Well, nowhere. The thing is, when socialists talk about the concept of "social justice" they are talking about benefiting from the same starting point without being hindered by some poverty-induced limitations. To put it in other words, "social justice" means that no matter how poor you are, you still get the same chance of advancing as some millionaire offspring.

      For example, the access to my country's equivalent to the ivy league schools doesn't depend on your family's wealth, which means that if you are dumb as a door knob and you happen to be the son of a billionaire then you still have to work your ass off in order to be admitted to one of those schools. It also means that if you are terribly smart and talented then you may enrol in those schools, no matter how poor you are. It's raw talent that matters, now raw cash.

      That's what social justice means and frankly the US sees too many raw talent going to waste just because the right people happen to be born into a poor family.

      And he has spent years overtly advocating for the use of schools as idealogical indoctrination centers aimed specifically at cranking out kids who see the world as one big entitlement engine.

      Are you so naive to really believe that the US, including the school system, doesn't try to indoctrinate their population? Oh really? So how come so many people foam from the mouth when faced with anything related to "communism"? Well, pretty much like you have reacted to the word "socialism", although you clearly demonstrated you failed to understand the concept.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    3. Re:I stopped reading... by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 5, Informative

      Parent is not a troll. He did bomb gov't buildings, his organization did kill an innocent cop, he was planning to bomb a dance at a military base, he did dedicate a book to RFK's killer Sirhan Sirhan.

          Not sure if he's a communist but he did some reprehensible things that cannot be forgiven nor should they be forgotten.

    4. Re:I stopped reading... by Beetle+B. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right. It depends on someone else's wealth. So, you could have two extremely hard-working parents who have a kid that's of average intelligence and native academic skills. They know that putting that kid in a really excellent setting (analagous to an Ivy League school) would help the kid make the very most of his averageness. And they're willing to put their hard work (money) on the line. And then you've got another kid of significant IQ, academic potential, etc., whose parents don't have the same hustle or dedication to getting their offspring educated. You're saying that the two hard working parents should give up on having their kid go to the really good school, and instead write a check to put a different kid - one that someone else decided to have - into that school. That's "social justice?" You're making the average kid's parents slaves to the smart kid.

      Wow.

      I mean, just wow.

      You're suggesting that the criterion for admission should be how hard the parents work?

      Well no. I guess you mean it should be money. Yep. That's what you're saying. Those who can pay for it, get in.

      Well, FYI, last time I checked, some elite schools actually do care about this thing called standards.

      If the hard working parents want their kid to get into a top university, how about making sure he gets a good education before university so that he can get in?

      And I do take it you're opposed to public elementary and high schools in the US? You know - the ones that take other's money to teach kids?

      Oh no, I get it just fine. You want the government to say which kid gets to benefit from a parent's hard work.

      No - he's saying he wants a system where a kid gets benefit because he works hard, not because his parents work hard. As if, BTW, a smart kid with poorly paid parents didn't "work hard" to ensure the kid grows up smart. It seems that for you, working hard equates to making money.

      Your notion of "social justice" isn't that a smart kid should naturally get access to a better school, it's that hard working parents don't have a say in which child - their own, or someone else's - gets the benefit of their hard work. How just of you!

      Yes, because there's no way the rich parents will benefit out of paying taxes to educate others, right? All those property taxes going to fund other people's kids! What good could that possibly do for them? How on Earth will they benefit when some of those kids become their doctors, I wonder?

      True social justice is found in the notion that it's not very smart to have children when you're not ready to provide for them.

      And your definition of not being able to provide for them is...? And BTW, if the average performing kid with the rich parents couldn't get into an ivy league school, then have the parents not failed him? Maybe they shouldn't have had him, right?

      --
      Beetle B.
    5. Re:I stopped reading... by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right. It depends on someone else's wealth.

      No more than the roads you drive on depend on someone else's wealth.

      So, you could have two extremely hard-working parents who have a kid that's of average intelligence and native academic skills. They know that putting that kid in a really excellent setting (analagous to an Ivy League school) would help the kid make the very most of his averageness. And they're willing to put their hard work (money) on the line. And then you've got another kid of significant IQ, academic potential, etc., whose parents don't have the same hustle or dedication to getting their offspring educated.

      I'm sorry, who exactly is applying for college? Is it the parents or the kids? If the kids are the ones applying for college then where exactly would society benefit if it was only possible to provide opportunities to some kid depending on how much money the parents are willing to throw to open doors for him?

      You're saying that the two hard working parents should give up on having their kid go to the really good school, and instead write a check to put a different kid - one that someone else decided to have - into that school. That's "social justice?" You're making the average kid's parents slaves to the smart kid.

      If you have a hard time commenting what I said then, instead of putting words in my mouth, consider not posting at all. No one besides yourself stated anything similar to "hard working parents should give up on having their kid go to the really good school". All parents, independent of how much they make a year, should participate and invest in their children's education. Yet, the term "investment" does not nor it should mean "injecting capital" exclusively. The end result of an education is not the total bill that the parents ran up since kindergarten but talent, acquired knowledge, mental agility. That is exactly the only thing that matters and relying on money to evaluate academic matters will only corrupt the evaluation.

      Oh no, I get it just fine. You want the government to say which kid gets to benefit from a parent's hard work. Your notion of "social justice" isn't that a smart kid should naturally get access to a better school, it's that hard working parents don't have a say in which child - their own, or someone else's - gets the benefit of their hard work. How just of you!

      You demonstrated yet again that you don't have the faintest clue about what you are talking about. In any socialist society, which pretty much means all european states, in order to apply to a state school the only thing that matters is the equivalent of the US's SAT score. Back here that score is composed of the score that the candidate gets in a nation-wide series of tests and the equivalent to the high school grade point average. That is as much state interference as the US's SATs.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  5. On the other hand by Petey_Alchemist · · Score: 4, Informative
    Schools like Bronx Lab, which are primarily funded by the Gates foundation, have been unbelievably successful. The SSI split a massive NYPS apart and chopped the building into sections, including this one, run by Mark Sternberg of Harvard Business.

    The first high school class is graduating this year. Their high school graduation rate has gone from less than 10% under the old school to 96% in the new school, with all graduates going to college.

    There are a lot of factors here of course. But that's what I'm saying. It's far, far too premature (and simplistic, and utterly reductionist) to say "well, small schools work" and "small schools don't work." Some small schools work well. Some don't. Some are more or less educationally sustainable than others.

    But some Gates foundation schools have had dramatic success, and we should keep that in mind before we universally condemn that mode of education. Tagging OP as misleading here.

  6. Maybe, just... maybe... by Brad_McBad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...you can't fix education by throwing money at it.

    Perhaps you have to know what you're doing.

  7. Skimming... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Skimming through the articles, I saw LITTLE mention of just about the only thing that really works in education - parental involvement. We Americans are FAR too convinced that throwing money at education is bound to fix the problem, when we spend more than any other country per student and don't get half as good results.

    It's not about wealth, equality, social justice, or any of that. It's about parents who care enough to push their kids to do well in school.

  8. Only on Slashdot... by ActusReus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... can a guy intentionally making homemade explosives that killed people, who had a role in major riots, who detonated bombs in public parks, and who never really apologized for any of it get cast as the GOOD GUY against Bill Gates!

    Yeah, I voted against GOP last year too, in part because this was 40 years ago and and it was cheap for the Republicans to wait so late to bring it up. However, the fact that Ayers was criticized by some lousy political candidates doesn't that he deserves no criticism. This guy is a symptom of why the Left is a minority philosophy in the U.S., and can't win a Presidency without a major recession or impeachment just before the election.

  9. So government is just as stupid as private sector by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You see stuff like this happening all the time in the private sector. Notable guy buys stuff, everyone else jumps in and buys the same thing he does. Notable guy sells stuff or stops funding everyone else does the same.
    When will people realize that even Notable people are human, are prone to mistakes just like everyone else. So except for blindly following what they are doing you should more carefully examine what they are doing. If you disagree with it, then don't follow, if you do agree with it then follow.

    I am sorry there are no quick fixes in life. There is no Messiah who will make things all nice and easy (Even if you are Christian, Jesus actually made peoples lives more difficult then easier, forced them to think about ethics of religion vs just blindly following the rules). Sometimes people will get lucky and become successful quickly however for the most part hard work and dedication is the way.

    To improve education there is no quick fix, small schools large schools, high-tech schools low-tech schools... All these are one detail in a more complex subject. If you say swap all the kids from an over achieving schools with those in an underachieving schools with the same budget you will find the overachieving kids will still overachieve. As they have parents who are more willing to participate in the child's education, they understand the value of education.
    There is no quick fix for education you will need changes on all levels. Improved Parental involvement, Classes that help integrate other classes, ability to evaluate teachers and reward them for good performance, A grading system that rewards learning and allows mistakes as part of the learning process , not punishes the students for mistakes, Fair market pay for teachers with their skills (Pay Math and Science teachers as much as Engineers). And I know I am missing a much more.
    Just putting money in education doesn't fix the problem, if that was true New York State would have the best education in the world. But how you wisely use the money and and work on changing the culture.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  10. Re:article should read by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don't have to like the guy; but you could at least read TFA. Ayers wrote in considerably greater detail than "OMG Gates will fail". He laid out his issues with the approach, and his concerns about it. Also, he has been involved, for a fair few years now, with educational improvement programs.

    You don't have to approve; but knowing what you are talking about can't hurt.

  11. Schools and Technology. by lionchild · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In order for IT to succeed in small schools, there is one thing that is key to keep in mind: Technology, especially IT, is a TOOL for the classroom, it it not a be all and end all for making a class. If you do not have a use for a tool in the classroom, then it only gets in the way.

    You can be as forward thinking and as technologically advanced, laptop/netbook in ever child's hands, but if you don't have lessons to teach that make use of that tool, ti's just dead weight.

    In order to overcome this issue, you first have to have teachers and instructors in place who have a learning plan, lessons, and other means that will utilize technology, such as smart boards, 'clickers' and other items in their day-to-day lesson plans in transfering knowledge to children. If these teachers aren't trained, aren't educated with how to use these IT-tools in their classrooms, then we are indeed, just throwing away money.

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
  12. obviously by speedtux · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obviously, Bill Gates is bringing the same skill and insight to his charitable efforts that made Windows what it is today.

  13. admiting failure is awesome by ghostlibrary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What most impresses me, ignoring all the Ayers stuff, is that Mr. Gates was willing to admit publically that parts of his initiative failed, and retool it. There's a little whining (some schools 'did not take radical steps', etc), but overall it was pretty frank at saying "we need to change some of our approach". I wish more school districts would take that approach, rather than requiring you remove the school board before they'll change off a destined-for-doom plan.

    --
    A.