Gates: Not Much To Show For $5B Spent On Education

theodp writes "Since 2000, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has poured some $5 billion into education grants and scholarships. Ten years into his record-breaking philanthropic push for school reform, the WSJ reports that Bill Gates is sober about the investment and willing to admit some missteps. 'I applaud people for coming into this space,' said Gates, 'but unfortunately it hasn't led to significant improvements.' This understanding of just how little influence seemingly large donations can have has led the foundation to rethink its focus in recent years. Instead of trying to buy systemic reform with school-level investments, a new goal is to leverage private money in a way that redirects how public education dollars are spent. Despite the good intentions, some are expressing concerns about how billionaires and the Gates Foundation rule our schools, including the lack of transparency and spotty track record of the wealthy would-be reformers. Perhaps Gates should consider funding a skunkworks educational project for retired Microsoft CTO Ray Ozzie, who was working on networked, self-paced computer assisted instruction in 1974 — 36 years before Bill and Google discovered Khan Academy!"

Comments

$5B spent on education "reform"

[jfruhlinger]

My understanding that much of Gates' donations have been spent on organizations trying to reform public education along "market-based" lines -- i.e., public schools run by private companies, which supposedly makes them more accountable. Maybe he's discovering this isn't the panacea that the reformers have sold?

Re:$5B spent on education "reform"

[MickyTheIdiot]

It seems like the vast majority of people think that education and job training are the same thing or at least should be the same thing. My opinion has been that this is actually the root of the problem. If this actually is true then making schools "accountable" actually makes the problem worse.

I know talking with those older than me that companies didn't used to expect people to know everything before they could be hired. Now companies don't want to hire except when the person is perfect. It's not only education that has changed.

Re:$5B spent on education "reform"

[Reality Master 101]

Now companies don't want to hire except when the person is perfect.

That's a symptom of oversupply of labor, not a structural change. With unemployment so high, if I'm looking to hire someone, why would I hire someone who needs training if I there are 10 people in a line with high experience who are competing for the same job? When demand outstrips supply, you'll see this trend reverse, as it did during the dot-com boom of the 90s, where any fool was being hired as a "web developer".

Goes to prove the point . . .

[Espresso2xshot]

Proves the point that we knew all along, throwing money at the educational system does not fix it! Just look at the govt track record. Time to dump the institutional model? I'm sure this article will spark the ever repeating slashdot argument about what's wrong with America's school system.

Re:Goes to prove the point . . .

[ByOhTek]

Throwing money at the wrong thing will never fix a problem.

You can spend all the money you want on your plumbing, if you gaskets are salvaged from a junk yard, and can't make solid seals, you are going to have leaks.

The problem with the modern education system is parental apathy. Observe the better school districts, you'll have more parents that care, but not necessarily better teachers or equipment (though usually at least better equipment). Now, look within a school district, and compare students who do well, vs. those who do poorly (excluding those with learning disabilities), the better students, in general will have parents who have more concern with their kids education, and play a more active role.

Parental education is a better place to start with reform. Getting them to care about their kids future, and teaching them that their kids have more than just McDonalds and WalMart in their employment future is what is needed.

Re:Goes to prove the point . . .

[ByOhTek]

One word: Parents.

Re:Goes to prove the point . . .

[jdpars]

When is ANY difficult answer like this able to be addressed in one or two words? Yes, teachers' unions are often roadblocks in reform, but without them, teachers would be downtrodden and unwilling to enter the profession. Yet uninvolved parents can stop a good teacher from showing what he or she is capable of. But I know some people who would say that a really good teacher can manage around parents who don't care or even actively work against the education. We do know that "throwing money at it" doesn't work. Money has to be specifically targeted, and it must have a plan that all parties are willing to follow, even if they don't all agree. "A bad plan followed well is better than a good plan followed poorly."

Re:Goes to prove the point . . .

[ByOhTek]

I"d argue that's a correlation and not a cause.

People who have money will tend to value knowledge, because it's how they got the money. They'll tend to pass it on to their kids, and even if they don't agree with the education system as it is, they will encourage their kids to learn, which will help them in school.

It's not the money, it's what got the money, that helped those kids.

Re:Goes to prove the point . . .

[cjcela]

It is an American cultural problem as well. There is a reason why if you go for a graduate degree in sciences or engineering the majority of people are foreign nationals. Money or teachers alone will not solve this issue. If in a kid's mind studying, reading, and learning would be cool, instead of having the latest gizmos, being 'popular', or making 'tons of money', the outcome would be different. This comes from their homes. Walk into any American home and count how many books are there, how many parents discuss sciences with their kids, or how many parents read instead of watching TV, and you will see clearly the root of the issue. But then everybody want to go to the best schools. There are expectations of great rewards with no effort.

Re:Goes to prove the point . . .

[Unoriginal_Nickname]

There is definitely a cultural aspect to this problem. Consider the 2011 Intel STS, for example: 60% of the finalists were children whose parents entered on an H-1B visa, even though former and present H-1B holders make up less than 1% of the US population (source.) These children are American citizens, and educated in American schools, but for some reason being born to non-American parents gives them a significant advantage in STEM subjects even when controlling for their parents' education and socioeconomic status.

Re:Goes to prove the point . . .

[vlm]

Money might be a good start. Even in schools where this $5 Billion reaches, they still expect to pay teachers poverty wages.

The social contract was you pay them poverty wages at age 22 right outta college then every year they get inflation adjusted PLUS 5% more. So rather suddenly they find themselves middle class, and by the time the gray hair arrives, they're doing pretty darn well.

This is completely different from the private industry model, where you hire at 22, pay pretty good wages, fire at 35 due to ageism, and after that they ... I donno what we/they do.

The problem is we're having a second great depression, and the hiring has stopped, and the laying off has begun. So they no longer hire at 22, they hire at, say, 35. Not so easy to get 40 years in if you're not hired for your real job until 35. So the social contract has gone from "you'll start out young and poor, and retire rich" to "you'll work as a day care worker and/or bartender until middle aged, then be dirt poor, and maybe with luck retire as almost middle class".

The other problem is the union busting government wants to change the social contract to the private industry model, yet not modify salaries to match. So they wanna hire them at 22, tell them they'll get 5% wages until they retire, then fire them at 35 once they get too expensive relative to a new grad who will hear the same old lie about starting out in poverty but you'll get 5% raises until you retire (forgetting to mention they'll be forcibly retired at 35 now instead of 65)

The only solution is to let it completely blow up and self destruct, then start over with something new.

What, no one size fits all solution?

[kmdrtako]

If I learned anything from my teacher wife*, it's that there are dozens of ways that children (and adults) learn, and you have to tailor the learning experience for each of them.

Some children may do very well with things like the Khan Academy. Others will not.

Anyone who tries to shoehorn all children into the same learning solution is likely to leave a large percentage of them behind.

* and my own experience in contrast to my brother, and my own two childrens' very different learning experiences in public schools.

not surprising.

[Anonymous Coward]

I did a Master of Arts in Teaching in the early 90's. What I think I learned from my History of Eduction Reforms was this: 1) kids will learn given half a chance, 2) most (if not all) education reforms have had AT BEST marginal impacts, 3) so you can do something good or screw up and it doesn't matter all that much. Education and the drive to become educated starts at home.

we've tried this

[nimbius]

here in california with 'charter schools' which have turned out to be little more than money laundering operations for major corporations, business elite, and a handful of food service vendors. Corporations are also granted another platform to showcase to the public a model of business sans union.

businesses are dismally suited toward the task of education. Their mandate, a legal one at that, is to maintain and grow shareholder earnings and profit.children are complex and perform differently. as such they are a poor if not dangerously unpredictable revenue generator for shareholders. So, instead of measuring childrens success in education by plausible means like college enrollment rates or hireability in the workplace, businesses running education tend to emphasize performance based on standardized testing batteries and total number of students enrolled; a sort of quantity over quality model

i surmise when bill says 'education reform' what hes tacitly implying is nothing less than what was implied when charter schools were created.

Kids do as well as their parents...

[Maximum Prophet]

I had a friend who was an education Ed.D. candidate. She did a lot of studies of studies and for the most part found that any new education initiative could have a large positive impact, but it was all the Hawthorne Effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect Young, idealistic, teachers could make any new program work, but once it was filtered down to regular schools, there was no difference in student achievement. Study, after study, and basically the kids do as well in school and after as their parents did.

Putting money to redirect "how public education dollars are spent", isn't going to help, if we don't know how to do better.

You'd probably do better to judge a school based on how happy the students and parents are. If the S&P's are unhappy, fire the principle and try a new one until the "customers" are happy. Frankly, if the students are happy with school, and actually going, then learning will happen. You have to actively beat down a human to keep it from learning, but that's exactly what many schools do.