Slashdot Mirror


Led By Zuckerberg, Billionaires Give $100M To Fund Private Elementary Schools

theodp writes: AltSchool, a 2-year-old software-fueled private elementary school initiative started by an ex-Googler, announced Monday a $100 million Series B round led by established VC firms and high-profile tech investors including Mark Zuckerberg, Laurene Powell Jobs, John Doerr, and Pierre Omidyar. AltSchool uses proprietary software that provides students with a personalized playlist lesson that teachers can keep close tabs on. Currently, a few hundred students in four Bay Area classrooms use AltSchool tech. Three more California classrooms, plus one in Brooklyn, are expected to come online this fall, plus one in Brooklyn. "We believe that every child should have access to an exceptional, personalized education that enables them to be happy and successful in an ever-changing world," reads AltSchool's mission statement. For $28,750-a-year, your kid can be one of them right now. Eventually, the plan is for the billionaire-bankrolled education magic to trickle down. AltSchool's pitch to investors, according to NPR, is that one day, charter schools or even regular public schools could outsource many basic functions to its software platform.

227 comments

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. trickle down economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck trickle down economics. Schools should be mandatory. Schools should be funded equally. And if rich fuckers want a better education for their kids, key them improve the whole system.

    This is a great way of creating a caste system like what already happens on the east coast if you didn't go to some fancy prep school.

    As much as I hate government, this is a good place to apply heavy regulation, at least in terms of funding and talent disparities.

    1. Re:trickle down economics by righteousness · · Score: 2

      I agree with your sentiments, and it's unfortunate that you chose to comment as AC. I mean, it's generally accepted as wrong to discriminate education based on race, or gender, or religion. But why is it okay to discriminate education based on wealth? Every child should have the same opportunity to education. No child should be have the privilege of better education just because he or she happen to be born to rich parents.

      --
      Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
    2. Re:trickle down economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Schools should be funded equally.

      Do you even think about what you say?

      How do you fund a Wyoming school the same as an NYC school?

      Even if you applied the same dollars, do you think the dollar you spent in NYC buys the same things as a dollar in Wyoming?

    3. Re:trickle down economics by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would argue that if this is a philantropic 'giving' deal, instead of simply 'giving $100M' they should open up the whole software package. Why is the software this AltSchool uses proprietary? It doesn't sound like 'giving $100M' it sounds like a seed capital investment. You know that with the Zuck involved there's a scheme to monetize the thing if it takes off.

      Facebook tracking of all school children from the age they enter pre-school? Priceless!

    4. Re:trickle down economics by benjfowler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But clearly, funding local schools from property taxes is a terrible idea. When rich people flee an area and leaves poor and disadvantaged (usually non-whites) behind, they get screwed twice: falling economic activity, and then falling funding for decent schools.

      Bad schools breed disadvantage. You make it worse by turning schools into "gated communities" (e.g. charter, private schools), and consign everyone else to dropout factories.

      A good way to buy social peace, would be to find a better way to fund state schools.

    5. Re:trickle down economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you agree that some teachers are better than others, and that they should be payed more?
      Should I have been forced to go to a school with 40 students per class instead of 20 just because my parents couldn't afford to pay enough to hire double the number of teachers in the entire country?
      Comments like yours are typical "fuck the rich" but with no thoughts of actual consequences.

    6. Re: trickle down economics by kenh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fuck trickle down economics. Schools should be mandatory.

      They are - education is mandatory in every state of the Union.

      Schools should be funded equally.

      Are you serious? If that were implemented inner-city schools would see funding slashed... In my previous home state of New Jersey there were these failing districts referred to as 'Abbott Districts' (after a court case) which resulted in spending in those failing districts to increase to almost double what the average NJ school district spent per-child. Equalizing spending across all schools would hurt the students in inner-city schools. (The schools in the city of Baltimore, where Democrats insist an increased investment in education (among other initiatives) could prevent tragedies like the death of Freddy Grey - which sounds great, until you realize that in Maryland, home to some of the wealthyest counties in country, the Baltimore city school system is the third highest-spending district per student n Maryland.)

      And if rich fuckers want a better education for their kids, key them improve the whole system.

      Do you understand what 'rich fuckers' do now? They pay property taxes at an obscene rate to fund their local public schools and then leave the public school system to privately fund their children's education elsewhere, leaving more money in the school system for the other students.

      If a 'rich fucker' lives in a house that is valued at twice the average value in their community, then they pay twice the property taxes to help fund public schools their 'average' neighbor pays. (There are no deductions or loopholes.) If that 'rich fucker' then turns around and enrolls their child in a private school they are 100% responsible for the tuition costs and get NO deduction or credit on their property taxes.

      The real motivation for change/improvement in public education will be school choice/vouchers - that will allow concerned parents to abandon failing public schools for better ones, and as failing schools are shuttered bad teachers can be weeded out of the system. Competition is healthy, the lack of serious competition is (contributing to) our currently failing public education system.

      --
      Ken
    7. Re: trickle down economics by kenh · · Score: 1

      It's for profit.

      --
      Ken
    8. Re:trickle down economics by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only this but most of the "students falling behind" that you hear about turns out to be about poverty, not about teachers or schools failing the kids. If a child lives in poverty, they are worried about when they'll eat next, are afraid that today might be the day they lose their home, might be scared for their safety in their neighborhood, etc. All of those worries/concerns/fears make it hard to focus on what your teacher is trying to teach you. It also makes it seem irrelevant. If your big concern is whether you'll get to eat dinner tonight or whether this will be the fifth night in a row that you go to bed hungry, figuring out the area of a circle can seem completely useless. Yes, learning pays off long-term, but there are big short-term concerns that drown that out.

      Unfortunately, a lot of rich politicians/businessmen who have never had these worries/concerns like to place all of the blame on public schools and public school teachers and then lobby to pull more money from them to fund other schools for them to send their kids to. Meanwhile, the poor kids do even worse, but at least the rich folks have a nice scapegoat.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:trickle down economics by Needs2BeSaid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "As much as I hate government" and "Schools should be mandatory" ... one of these is a lie.

      You do not hate government, you see government as an enforcer of your beliefs, as a powerful ally. The sad part is that you don't seem to recognize just how corrupt our government is on every level. Any government "forced" system will be riddled with cheaters and thieves. The rich will find a way to benefit and there is nothing you can do about it.

      Using the government as a hammer will only hurt the middle and lower classes.

      --
      Some things need to be said...
    10. Re:trickle down economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, clearly school failed you if you can't think of a way to simply adjust funding so that buying power in whatever county they are in matches rather than the exact dollar amount.

      Here is another one for free: X$ base for buildings + maintenance, Y$ per student served. Now, huge schools aren't disadvantaged because they have more students.

      I tell ya, they should hire me for department of education chair!

    11. Re:trickle down economics by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      Really?
      So you are saying the local PTA that raises funds for a school should be forced to pay it all to a national fund?
      So for example my school had no AC so my mother worked to raise enough money to put in AC at my elementary school. So she should have just dumped the money to some national system?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    12. Re: trickle down economics by swb · · Score: 1

      Do you understand what 'rich fuckers' do now? They pay property taxes at an obscene rate to fund their local public schools and then leave the public school system to privately fund their children's education elsewhere, leaving more money in the school system for the other students.

      I think it depends on how you define "rich fuckers". Astronomically, family-dynasty rich? Sure, they pay big property taxes either in an urban school district which is so chronically underfunded and mismanaged that their generous and unused contribution doesn't make a difference or in some elite suburb which is so generously funded their contribution doesn't matter. And they're so rich they don't care.

      On the larger scale though, the HENRY (high earner, not rich yet) generally flock together in affluent suburbs where their property taxes are pooled to fund really great school systems and where housing prices and housing policies basically redline the non-affluent out of the district.

      The real benefit of this isn't the money per se, but the way it keeps out the problem children of the urban wasteland -- those whose parents don't participate in their kids' education or really provide any structure in their lives. These kids are the drag on urban school systems through discipline problems, the extra work required by teachers to get them back to any kind of baseline, special education needs, etc.

      An average funded school district can educate children well if the kids have some kind of parent-engaged baseline to start with.

    13. Re:trickle down economics by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      Well, that's a noble thought. It would be nice if everyone had a fair chance right from the start. It would be nice if we could "fix" schools simply by throwing more money at the problem. But the issue is much more complex than that. Certainly money helps but at a certain point it doesn't.

      The USA spends more money per student than any other country in the world and yet overall we are far behind many other countries in academic achievement. The problem, as I see it, is the gap between the best schools and the worst schools. The best schools are world class and the worst ones are horrible.

      Is it just a coincidence that the best schools tend to be in affluent areas? Probably not but I think it's more than money that contributes to it. The best teachers tend to want to teach at the best schools. Successful parents tend to be better role models. The kids of those parents learn from a very young age the importance of school.

      I think what we really need to do is take a closer look at where the money goes rather than how much we spend. Teachers get a bad rap but a lot of the money gets sucked up by highly paid administrators and other "middle management". We spend way too much money on sports. We don't invest enough in trade schools. Far too many jobs require a bachelors degree when it is completely unnecessary in many cases.

    14. Re:trickle down economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psst. Rich people like the caste system.

    15. Re:trickle down economics by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Schools ARE mandatory, by the US Constitution. They are simply ignoring it and running to steal what they can as fast as they can, before anyone notices.

    16. Re:trickle down economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, really? Where exactly do you find any mention of education in the Constitution? ......... didn't think so.

    17. Re:trickle down economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do not hate the free market, you see the free market as an enforcer of your beliefs, as a powerful ally. The sad part is that you don't seem to recognize just how corrupt the free market is on every level. Any free market system will be riddled with cheaters and thieves. The rich will find a way to benefit and there is nothing you can do about it.

      Using the free market as a hammer will only hurt the middle and lower classes.

    18. Re: trickle down economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vouchers are nothing but a tax scam for the wealthy; the two net results of vouchers would be the wealthy getting yet another break on taxes and those without the means would have to resort to "homeschooling" (read, no schooling in this case) because public schools would still require a payment larger than the vouchers would provide for, so millions of kids literally could not afford to go to school anymore. Public education was one of the great innovations of America, and vouchers would end that innovation.

    19. Re:trickle down economics by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...it's unfortunate that you chose to comment as AC.

      Why? What makes that so? Is identity that important? Is the message meaningless without it? I do not understand that sentiment.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    20. Re:trickle down economics by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      why shouldnt someone who can afford something better be able to have it? That concept seems wrong to me

      What next, cant buy a plane unless you buy everyone a plane? This isnt kindergarten. you are allowed candy without sharing with the class...

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    21. Re:trickle down economics by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      its more about absent parents

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    22. Re:trickle down economics by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      so stop forcing kids to go to schools where they live and give parents a choice on where to send their kids.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    23. Re: trickle down economics by saleenS281 · · Score: 2

      If a 'rich fucker' lives in a house that is valued at twice the average value in their community, then they pay twice the property taxes to help fund public schools their 'average' neighbor pays. (There are no deductions or loopholes.) If that 'rich fucker' then turns around and enrolls their child in a private school they are 100% responsible for the tuition costs and get NO deduction or credit on their property taxes.

      That depends ENTIRELY on the state. There are plenty of states that give the parents vouchers to send their kids to that private school. So no, they aren't 100% responsible for the tuition costs, and they do get a "deduction" or whatever you want to label it, in the form of a voucher.

      The real motivation for change/improvement in public education will be school choice/vouchers - that will allow concerned parents to abandon failing public schools for better ones, and as failing schools are shuttered bad teachers can be weeded out of the system. Competition is healthy, the lack of serious competition is (contributing to) our currently failing public education system.

      No, shitty parents are why our schools are failing. There's absolutely nothing a school can do to cope with parents who don't discipline their children, or make any attempt to help them with their homework. There are only so many hours in the day, and at some point a parent needs to be a parent. When all those "failing public schools" close down, and the state mandates private schools not turn children away, the same shitty parents with the same shitty kids will cause the same shitty problems in the private schools. You're delusional if you think otherwise. Unless of course you're advocating that private schools should be allowed to deny students access to an education after all of the public schools have shutdown. In which case you and your elitest worldview can pound fucking sand. When the poor revolt don't expect anyone to rise up and defend you.

    24. Re:trickle down economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a great way of creating a caste system like what already happens on the east coast if you didn't go to some fancy prep school.

      I'm a graduate of my town's public school system in Central Massachusetts -- a suburb of Worcester, to be exact. Not exactly one of the "rich and fancy" owns near Boston.

      I worked hard in school, went to college, got my degree, and now make excellent money as a software engineer. My current income is approximately 5x the combined household income both my mother and father earned in their blue collar jobs when I was growing up.

      Explain to me how I'm a victim of some horrible caste system because my parents couldn't afford to send me to Phillips-Exeter and Harvard, again?

    25. Re: trickle down economics by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Indeed. But the headline says "give", which is horrendously misleading.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    26. Re: trickle down economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you understand what 'rich fuckers' do now?

      Yes I do! They avoid paying taxes using the following strategies:

      -Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich
      -Foreign Holdings
      -Inversion
      -Stock Options
      -Living Trusts
      -Blind Trusts
      -Public Welfare
      -Many, Many, More

      These strategies do not even account for the many ways that they screw their workforce.

      They then take the enormous pile money that they have and use it to buy politicians and
      manipulate the system.

      They also use the system to privatize anything that can have money squeezed out of it, such as schools, healthcare, and roads. Finally, they use the money to distort the reality of what they have done so people consider them to be "Heros", "Pillars of the Community", and such. The Nobel prize, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. That is what those "Rich Fuckers" do.

    27. Re:trickle down economics by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Yes, learning pays off long-term, but there are big short-term concerns that drown that out.

      A lot of people believe that the best way to encourage equality in schooling is free healthy school meals, across the board. Even if it means some kids get only one proper meal a day, it can make a world of difference.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    28. Re:trickle down economics by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Do you agree that some teachers are better than others, and that they should be payed more? Should I have been forced to go to a school with 40 students per class instead of 20 just because my parents couldn't afford to pay enough to hire double the number of teachers in the entire country? Comments like yours are typical "fuck the rich" but with no thoughts of actual consequences.

      Are you feeling sorry for yourself because you chipped a tooth on your silver spoon? This is not about "fucking the rich" -- you were not rich, you were a child of no independent means. Your parents were rich. Why should that mean a better education for you?

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    29. Re:trickle down economics by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Schools should be funded equally.

      Do you even think about what you say?

      How do you fund a Wyoming school the same as an NYC school?

      Even if you applied the same dollars, do you think the dollar you spent in NYC buys the same things as a dollar in Wyoming?

      The GP was very naive (clearly didn't grow up in a rich school district) but it's a very, very small step of logic from "funded equally" to "funded centrally on an equitable basis related to local costs". That difference isn't really a matter for the voter to be too concerned with, but something for the civil servants to work out.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    30. Re:trickle down economics by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      So you are saying the local PTA that raises funds for a school should be forced to pay it all to a national fund?

      No, the national fund from taxation should be big enough that schools shouldn't have to put on fundraisers for themselves. After all, that only amplifies the problem of lower school budgets in low-income areas (poor people can't buy as much home baking, after all).

      So for example my school had no AC so my mother worked to raise enough money to put in AC at my elementary school. So she should have just dumped the money to some national system?

      Better would be for the national system to mandate a range of acceptable working temperatures and to fund the installation of AC and/or central heating where the local climate is likely to take the school out of this range during the academic year (excluding extreme weather events that would likely lead to children being told to stay at home), wouldn't you say...?

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    31. Re:trickle down economics by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Is it just a coincidence that the best schools tend to be in affluent areas? Probably not but I think it's more than money that contributes to it. The best teachers tend to want to teach at the best schools. Successful parents tend to be better role models. The kids of those parents learn from a very young age the importance of school.

      This is all true, and it is also true over almost the entire world that the best pre-indicator of success in school is to be part of a middle class family. The US system (school funding from local property tax) then adds a second advantage to those same children, rather than even attempting to redress the balance for the disadvantaged kids.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    32. Re:trickle down economics by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      " The US system (school funding from local property tax) then adds a second advantage to those same children, rather than even attempting to redress the balance for the disadvantaged kids."

      Sadly you are correct. It does give children of affluent families a (theoretical at least) advantage.

      The problem is what to do about it. Putting aside for a moment the very rich, what do you say to those people that have worked hard to buy a home in a neighborhood with good schools? If school funding is somehow leveled out what happens to the value of those homes, now that it is no longer seen as being in a "good" school district relative to other neighborhoods?

      Rich people can always send their kids to private schools and hire tutors and give their kids advantages that the rest of us don't have. Nothing we can do about that.

      What about the upper middle class family making, say, $200K a year? They worked hard and made sacrifices to buy a 500K home in a good neighborhood so that their kids can go to one of the best schools. Is it fair to punish them by raising their taxes or reducing the funding to their schools?

      These sorts of things always start out as "punish the rich" and end up being "punish the middle class" because the rich can always find a way around these things.

      At the risk of sounding harsh, perhaps *some* disadvantaged people should be taking a look in the mirror. Maybe, just maybe, they play a part in their current circumstances. Of course there are some people that find themselves in a tough spot through no fault of their own. Society should, and must, take care of those people.

      But there are some - maybe many - that are there because they made bad choices. Some of them are the kids at the back of the class in high school - goofing off and not doing their homework and generally not giving a shit. Didn't go to college. No skills. Drunk. High.

      Sorry but I don't feel much an obligation to support these types of people. If people are lazy then no amount of handouts is going to help in the long term.

    33. Re:trickle down economics by righteousness · · Score: 1

      It's not about the identity. It's about the Slashdot scoring system. Posts by AC have a starting score of 0, so it would have low visibility until the post is modded up by a moderator. I say unfortunate because this means his message would have a high likelihood of being passed over.

      --
      Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
    34. Re:trickle down economics by righteousness · · Score: 1

      You're right, if the kids could afford better education, they're welcome to have it. But the thing is, kids can't afford anything. Kids have no money. It is the parents who are paying for the education. The kids haven't done anything to deserve it.

      --
      Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
    35. Re:trickle down economics by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Putting aside for a moment the very rich, what do you say to those people that have worked hard to buy a home in a neighborhood with good schools? If school funding is somehow leveled out what happens to the value of those homes, now that it is no longer seen as being in a "good" school district relative to other neighborhoods?

      The same argument can be used to justify any unfair policy. For example:

      Regulating banks is all well and good, but what to you say to those people that have worked hard to get profitable jobs in banks?

      Of course you should take steps to mitigate the effects on individuals, but yes, equality always comes at the cost to privileged individuals.

      Rich people can always send their kids to private schools and hire tutors and give their kids advantages that the rest of us don't have. Nothing we can do about that.

      Not true -- we can ban it. It may seem radical, and it's unlikely any government would ever approve such measures (as most politicians are personally invested in the private education system, but it certainly is "something we could do about it".

      These sorts of things always start out as "punish the rich" and end up being "punish the middle class" because the rich can always find a way around these things.

      Ah, that hoary old "punish the rich" chestnut. Equality isn't about "punishing" anyone, it's about removing privilege and giving everyone a level playing field. Was it "punishing white people" when non-whites were finally allowed to keep their seats on busy buses? Hell no. So why is it "punishing rich/middle class people" when anyone suggests that children in poor areas should have the same access to education as people in well-off areas?

      Clue: it's not. It's just a convenient slogan for protecting your own privilege.

      At the risk of sounding harsh, perhaps *some* disadvantaged people should be taking a look in the mirror. Maybe, just maybe, they play a part in their current circumstances.

      You should have been more concerned about sounding stupid than sounding harsh. We were discussing funding to schools. Let's be clear about this: children play no part whatsoever in determining the funding to their schools. Children are not politicians, and they do not pay property taxes. Yes, some children pay no attention in schools. Some children play traunt. Some children bully teachers. But as it stands, none of this is a factor in school funding, so your statements are nothing more than post-facto justification with a good measure of "just world" fallacy in the mix.

      I went to high school in a country where schools are funded equitably (to within a certain margin of error), and my school served a rather disadvantaged demographic. We had a wide range of problems: bad behaviour, vandalism, truancy, occasional violence, teen pregnancies, substance abuse. But we did at least have books, windows, heating etc (although we did have fewer books than more middle-class schools as kids kept damaging them). Some of the stories I've heard about schools in the US turn my stomach.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    36. Re:trickle down economics by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The local climate is South Florida.
      So what you want to do is restrict people from being active in their community and improving their community. I guess things like Beach Cleanups should also not be allowed since only rich people can spend the time cleaning a beach?.....
      Yeah Sorry but what you are proposing is a totalitarian system where the central government mandates everything. The funding would never be "equal" because you would not have unlimited resources so those areas that lean one way or the other would be starved for funds and swing areas would get more resources. So school in Utah where it is both very hot and very cold that needs AC upgraded would have to wait while a School in Ohio would get a new football stadium.
      It can not work and is a terrible idea.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    37. Re:trickle down economics by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      The local climate is South Florida. So what you want to do is restrict people from being active in their community and improving their community. I guess things like Beach Cleanups should also not be allowed since only rich people can spend the time cleaning a beach?.....

      The Land of Oz called -- they want their strawman back.

      Stopping schools fundraising for themselves doesn't stop them fundraising. It does far more to generate community spirit when the schoolkids are selling cookies for the local homeless shelter or to get the swings repainted at the local playpark.

      In fact, I remember my primary school headteacher being quite put out when the village wanted to hold a jumble sale raising money for the famine in eastern Africa because it would compete with the primary school's own annual jumble sale (in aid of primary school funds). In the end, she reluctantly backed down and had the charity sale in the school instead of the school jumble sale. This did nothing to develop community spirit, especially among us school kids -- the national campaign was organised by a TV programme with a big "totaliser" loaded with flashing lights, and by delaying the sale until when the school wanted to hold it, they ensured that the TV campaign was over, the totaliser put away, and we felt cheated that our efforts weren't going to be included in the flashing lights on TV.

      The funding would never be "equal" because you would not have unlimited resources so those areas that lean one way or the other would be starved for funds and swing areas would get more resources.

      Ah, the old "the system will never be perfect, so we might as well not try to improve it" argument.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    38. Re:trickle down economics by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes, the system is biased against the AC, nothing new there. Read at -1. Many posts are also downmodded for the wrong reasons.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    39. Re:trickle down economics by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Ah, the old "the system will never be perfect, so we might as well not try to improve it" argument."
      Sure but this is not an improvement. I am all for increasing taxes for school and frankly even for more federal aid for areas that have low incomes but a centralized system for all funds will have a negative impact and is unworkable.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    40. Re:trickle down economics by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      As with many things, the solution is obvious. As you say, fund all students equally, from general revenue, ideally Federal as the Constitution requires schools, instead of local property tax revenue. Schools would be flatly equal (other than the usual overclass bunching up in their own enclaves to keep out the poor and dark), rather than the ton spent on the students in the rich areas from local levies and the federal and state underfunding the poor schools, which of course leads to the "failure" of the average test scores we see (richer areas have high scores, poor dead flat ruined, and the "average" drops).

      Schools work fine. We just concentrate wealth on some schools and let everyone else go to hell, in the name of freedom. Whose freedom is the question.

      This is the fallout of slavery, and lately of quietly letting the country fill up with illegal immigrants to keep wages down. In essence, we've been screwed for over 300 years because businessmen wanted to pay zero to almost zero wages and keep the profits.

    41. Re:trickle down economics by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      The rich possess an all-consuming rage that people are paid too much for labor, hence their fierce concentration on destroying the teachers' unions. It's nearly impossible to discuss education in the US without talk of the bad, paid-too-much teachers, which must be replaced with corporate employees half the price who quietly have to get food stamps to survive.

      The teachers in the poorly-performing schools are big damned heroes. They face the fallout of our rage against the poor and dark and any employee who uses collective bargaining to be paid enough to buy a home. They go to school and face the mess that suburban white flight caused, while being condemnded as lazy idiots who can't teach. The students are n-generation washouts, and will only get worse, because that's how America's race dynamics and school funding works. We're unique among nations in our two-level school system, and that's because slavery never really ended. We made this mess, not the teachers.

    42. Re: trickle down economics by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Schools should not be funded with property taxes. That system was designed to keep the money in their own neighborhood, and jack the poorer who don't get to live there.

      Poorer districts take EVERYone, including the hot messes, while the uber-schools firstly are located in districts without a lot of poor people and the mess that goes with it. So it costs more to educate EVERYone, instead of the select who live in a special neighborhood. The rich are not heroes. They made this system with the purpose of keeping out the poor - and so made inevitable the tsunami of the poor we see today. Concentrate the bad in hot zones, eliminate the jobs, shut down the factories, refuse to lend money to buy homes, and gosh, fifty years later the country is exploding with the stupid and the angry. Who knew?

    43. Re:trickle down economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they can give it to me? If my parents were rich (and they aren't), are you seriously saying that they shouldn't be able to spend their money to help me as much as possible? That's like saying "Your parents are German, but you didn't choose to be. Why should that mean German healthcare/education for you?"

  3. Re:Trickle Down? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Different meaning of the word 'trickle down.' It's like a new technology......electric cars were primarily available to rich Tesla drivers, but the 'technology' is 'trickling down' as it becomes cheaper. Same thing happened with microwaves and plenty of other technologies.

    You could have figured this out, but he's saying that if their school is successful, other schools will start using it.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. lots and lots of money by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it costs $26k per student, why do they need $100M in funding? What are they doing with all that money?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:lots and lots of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The $100M in funding is to develop software that can replace teachers.

      The $26k is because you can't replace teachers with software.

      Next question?

    2. Re:lots and lots of money by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      If it costs $26k per student, why do they need $100M in funding? What are they doing with all that money?

      It's for a for-profit venture that develops proprietary materials.

      In other words, that $100M is designed to make its own little children and eventually turn into $10 billion dollars.

      But fear not, there is probably a form of financial assistance for Facebook employees.

    3. Re:lots and lots of money by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      The $100M in funding is to develop software that can replace teachers.

      The $26k is because you can't replace teachers with software.

      Even that is a bit on the ridiculous side. The national average for public schools is a bit under $12K of spending per student. My state thinks even that is too much, and only spends about $9K. Either the public schools could be a lot better too with that kind of money, or the private schools are just wasting most of their money. Either way, throwing even more money at those private schools seems a criminal waste.

    4. Re:lots and lots of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On graduation night, each gets a night with an expensive prostitute. Well, more like 5 minutes if you go by the money sense schools have these days.

    5. Re:lots and lots of money by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      On graduation night, each gets a night with an expensive prostitute. Well, more like 5 minutes if you go by the money sense schools have these days.

      And what are they supposed to do with that extra minute?

    6. Re:lots and lots of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tuition at my daughter's school is $3700.

      It seems that the school boards in your state are the criminal waste.

    7. Re:lots and lots of money by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Does it not also have endowments and grants? Most private schools do.

    8. Re:lots and lots of money by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Your school doesn't accept the poor or badly parented., or those with low test scores. So, gosh, costs are low. Who could have guessed.

  5. Corporate Sponsored Education in Public Schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like it's already there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  6. Educational software by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given the quality of educational software I've seen, if they are depending on software to teach kids, I can't imagine this being a success.

    As in, I've never seen any educational software that is good, and it only gets worse as the scope increases.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Educational software by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      it's overheated technophilia

      if their idea is for software to guide children's education rather than, you know, teachers, they are proposing subpar education

      just copy finland

      finnish education is amongst the best in the world and has a number of novel differences that beg inspection and perhaps adoption

      and they don't automate education like a drone flightplan

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:Educational software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Three more California classrooms, plus one in Brooklyn, are expected to come online this fall, plus one in Brooklyn.

      I see it's working. It might be a little weak in English, however, as the math of 3+1 plus the same 1 only =4.

      The captha was "scholar"

    3. Re:Educational software by symes · · Score: 1

      Replacing teachers and traditional schooling will remove one of life's most important lessons, that is how to socialize. The kids that stare at a computer from age 5 onwards will suffer immeasurably and be very lonely later in life.

    4. Re:Educational software by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      From reading the website, it seems like the curriculum involves quite a bit of social activities, going to museums, etc.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Educational software by paiute · · Score: 1

      The kids that stare at a computer from age 5 onwards will suffer immeasurably and be very lonely later in life.

      Borderline Asperger patients like Gates and Zuckerboig think that is a feature, not a bug.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    6. Re:Educational software by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      In any class you always have quite a bit of variation in student's abilities and learning capabilities, this means that often you have to teach something longer than the necessary for some students while moving too fast for others, both in general and for specific topics. Since we can't afford a 1:1 ratio of teachers to students, in the long run computerized teaching systems that are auto-adaptive will generate vastly better results than the current one to many lecture method. Even without strong AI this should be a fairly straightforward application of expert systems combined with micro-lessons.

    7. Re:Educational software by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      no AI can ever do a better job than a competent teacher. the problem you describe is not some amazing new problem no one ever dealt with before, you only reveal the novelty the idea is to just you. all AI will do is hamstring a teacher's effectiveness by proscribing "solutions" according to an algorithm which cannot possibly see the status quo better than a moderately involved human being. as well as saddling the classroom with unnecessary intrusive and burdensome measurements to justify the inaccurate AI's solution

      your words speak of blind technophilia

      technology has the power to solve many problems in this world. but other types of problems are still beyond, and maybe forever beyond technology. i am not a luddite, i work in technology. the problem is not fear of technology here, the problem is this quasireligious overly evangelical faith that technology can solve all things, even things it obviously cannot

      i think technology has wonderful promise in hobby learning and catch up. but no AI and no delivery method will ever do better than an involved human being, a competent teacher, in a classroom. at best technology is supplementary, probationary tool, with an involved teacher proscribing when and where it is used

      education is not a factory floor, and never will be, and trying to force it into that mold will just turn students off and they will hate learning. they will learn how to manipulate the algorithm and make a mockery of the AI solution you think is superior, wrongly

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    8. Re:Educational software by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      no AI can ever do a better job than a competent teacher.

      That's a pretty bold statement considering the current factory model of education we use now. I have to disagree, though I'll be the first one to say we're not there yet.

      all AI will do is hamstring a teacher's effectiveness by proscribing "solutions" according to an algorithm which cannot possibly see the status quo better than a moderately involved human being.

      One of the main problems with education now is that there isn't time to give students significant individualized training. That is a problem that technology can solve. For example, take a course, algebra I for example, break it down into its component lessons, record each of the lessons and create online homework & testing for each lesson. The student watches the recorded lecture and does the homework and testing at his own pace. The teacher is there for when the student gets stuck. Does this replace teachers? No, but it allows students to do self-paced learning and it also allows a higher student : teacher ratio while also giving more time for individual assistance. This particular method doesn't even involve expert systems, it's just basic process redesign. The current live lecture method is highly inefficient and there is no reason to continue doing it that way when we have recording technology and automated testing software.

      education is not a factory floor, and never will be, and trying to force it into that mold will just turn students off and they will hate learning.

      Have you even been to a US school? They are explicitly designed along the Prussian model to be just like factories.

    9. Re:Educational software by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      we should adopt the finnish model, they have one of the best if the not the best education system in the world

      and your denigration of the prussian model is correct, but your lesson form that is counterintuitive. i'm certain the zeal for the mass production successes of the 1800s informed its development in ways that should not be celebrated... so your conclusion is we should pursue automation and remove the teacher from decision making even more? i'm not sure you have thought that out completely

      we should never depend on algorithms to analyze and proscribe any model of learning for any student. it is absolutely impossible for such an algorithm to do a better job than a moderately involved, competent teacher, who should be the only one involved in any decision making in any capacity for any student. technology is wonderful as a supplementary tool in many ways, but it must be a teacher behind the what, when, where of how that is invoked

      i cannot understand someone who thinks an algorithm, any algorithm, can do better than a decent teacher in a classroom. such a belief defies reason and only tells us about your unbridled technophilia. you really need to rethink what avenues of society are and aren't applicable for improvement by automation and technology

      i can think of one parallel that is instructive here: compstat form the 1980s and 1990s that saw the USA break the back of an intense crack ridden crime wave

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

      but the technology was only used to improve reporting and tracking

      it was more of management philosophy change than a technology overhaul that, in parallel to what you are proposing, moved computers at the heart of decision making in police work

      that's kind of insane actually

      it was still cop grunts that had to fight crime with blood and sweat, and police brass that made decisions

      no one, outside of a dystopian robocop fantasy movie, would have suggested that an actual computer make decisions about crime fighting. in fact, you should watch that movie as a good lesson about blindly optimistic technophilia and how simple human corporate greed and shortsightedness makes a mockery of that

      i'm sorry but it really is just plain insane that you assert AI should drive the classroom. it might make a good science fiction premise. a miserable, depressing, maddening science fiction premise

      write a dystopian fantasy book. don't fuck with kids heads to prove something to yourself that you need to learn the hard way, not them. please

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    10. Re:Educational software by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      we should never depend on algorithms to analyze and proscribe any model of learning for any student. it is absolutely impossible for such an algorithm to do a better job than a moderately involved, competent teacher, who should be the only one involved in any decision making in any capacity for any student.

      Not much point in discussing the best ways to improve education with technology if you don't believe that's even possible. Let's just say I disagree with your base assumptions and leave it there.

    11. Re:Educational software by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the base assumption is that we are dealing with human beings, not factory specifications

      there is no civil disagreement between two valid opinions here, there is acceptance of the obvious on my part and a quasireligious blindly exuberant faith in technology on your part that is ruinously insane

      let us hope you or anyone who thinks like you never gets near a classroom. those poor kids

      everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but no one is entitled to their own facts. you can not educate a human being from an AI which at best is limited to whatever crude specs you fill it in with, in whatever limited timeframe and context, it can never make up for the complex interplay and social feedback of a real human being in the moment

      i have no respect for you and your position as a respectful disagreement depends upon both parties acknowledging basic facts and reality beforehand, which you do not

      at best, you need a remedial education, ironically, on the basics of human social interaction and information transmission before it can be said you have a respectable, informed opinion on the subject matter

      adios, starry eyed cotton candy head futurist

      stick to science fiction fantasy please

      you're a harmless nutjob at best, and damaging to children's development at worst

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    12. Re:Educational software by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      the base assumption is that we are dealing with human beings, not factory specifications

      Certainly, and yet we automate things having to do with human beings all the time. Are we ready to fire all the teachers, and replace them with technology, of course not. That doesn't mean that we couldn't use a variety of technologies to improve both teacher productivity and student outcomes. If you think nothing is going to change in the classroom due to technology over the next fifty years then you're highly mistaken.

    13. Re:Educational software by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      And yet a really good teacher can still be better than an adaptive system, because a really good teacher weaves stories out of the subject and engages the imagination in a way that a computer screen can't. Timing, dramatic pauses, recovering from interruptions -- these things draw the kids in and make them relate to the teacher.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    14. Re:Educational software by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      And yet a really good teacher can still be better than an adaptive system

      No doubt about it, yet can they better for every student at the same time, how many students can they handle simultaneously, how expensive is a "really good teacher" and how often do we hire those? You don't need technology to be a 100% end to end solution for it to be useful. Generally you deploy a technology that meets most needs then use people to handle the oversight and edge cases. This is the same thing that has happened in nearly every other field and it's going to happen to education as well.

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. LV88H by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why delete my comment, I asked where does Facebook earned 100 mil?

  9. Re:Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be good to get some checks and balances

    I'm sure those two are foremost on this company's plan.

  10. Re:Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not just electric cars, all cars. And aircraft.

  11. The beginning of the headline is a tad misleading by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The beginning of the headline is a tad misleading

    Led By Zuckerberg, Billionaires Give $100M To Fund Private Elementary Schools

    Would the same wording have been used in this instance.

    Led By Zuckerberg, Billionaires Give $100M To Fund Uber

    No, right? This isn't a gift. It's an investment. Also, the fund is going to a single company called AltSchool.

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. Re:Trickle Down? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    but I'm not sure a school system that works in downtown San Francisco will have the same needs as one in, say, downtown Detroit.

    Then at least we'll have one that works in downtown San Francisco.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Juust imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If this read "Koch Brothers" Slashddot would be recoiling in horror. Announcing the end of the world.

  16. Re:LV88H by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    No one deleted your comment, it got modded down because your question wasn't very interesting (or even relevant, really).

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  17. Facebook could help shools more.... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

    Facebook could help schools far, far more by enforcing their minimum age requirements of 13. I'm seeing far younger kids sucked into their computers by the Facebook chat, and refusing to go outside or explore knowledge outside their own little clique of online "likes".

    1. Re:Facebook could help shools more.... by ledow · · Score: 0

      Why the hell should that be Facebook's job?

      The problem here is not lack of schools, lack of teachers (though they are problems, that's not the driver behind poor education), it's LACK OF PARENTING.

      If you're kid is not learning because they're on Facebook (or Xbox, or the iPad, or whatever) all the time, you've FAILED as a parent. For some reason, that's accepted nowadays.

      I work in schools.
      I work in "elementary" schools (we don't call them that, but similar age range).
      I work in private "elementary" schools.

      The kids there don't learn because the teachers are infinitely better, or because the school buys a thousand iPads. They learn because they are ENCOURAGED to. They have to perform or they fall behind and, if they fall too far behind, the school will ask them to leave.

      The schedule for a child is - to my state-educated mind - insanely busy and active. They are literally doing two things at once at all times and barely stop all day.

      Because they are given a work ethic, and the parents have the incentive (money) to enforce that work ethic, they achieve much, much more.

    2. Re:Facebook could help shools more.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's a curious middle-class conceit that people who work in jobs think they know everything there is to know about the socio-political situation around their industry. Teachers commenting on education policy is no more interesting per se than policemen commenting on laws. And you're not even a regular policeman, you're a rich well-paid policeman who looks after a small gated community that is law-abiding, and your solution to crime is basically that everyone should be rich like these guys then there wouldn't be a problem.

    3. Re:Facebook could help shools more.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I work in schools.
      I work in "elementary" schools (we don't call them that, but similar age range).
      I work in private "elementary" schools.

      Yet you can't even select the correct "your" to use when you say

      "If you're kid is not learning..."

      Not content with that small slice of idiocy, you then proceed to rant on about how people should be encouraged to learn, and then probably ramble off into "hard workers are successful, if you're not successful, then you're not a hard worker." For every successful hard worker, you'll find thousands of unsuccessful workers who worked even harder.

    4. Re:Facebook could help shools more.... by jjhues7676 · · Score: 2

      How do you expect kids to go outside? Parents in North Carolina had the cops called on them because their kids were at the park without supervision.

    5. Re:Facebook could help shools more.... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      If you're kid is not learning because they're on Facebook (or Xbox, or the iPad, or whatever) all the time, you've FAILED as a parent. For some reason, that's accepted nowadays.

      I work in schools.
      I work in "elementary" schools (we don't call them that, but similar age range).
      I work in private "elementary" schools.

      I find it vaguely ironic that someone who can't spell "your" (or someone who can't choose the proper form from among "your" and "you're", if you prefer), and who works in various schools, thinks he can pinpoint the failure point in education...

      Just curious, did YOUR parents fail you in education?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Facebook could help shools more.... by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      And you're not even a regular policeman, you're a rich well-paid policeman who looks after a small gated community that is law-abiding, and your solution to crime is basically that everyone should be rich like these guys then there wouldn't be a problem.

      Amusingly enough that's actually mostly true. A very large proportion of crime is committed due to desperation and poor circumstances. Obviously that doesn't cover crimes of passion, but that's a much smaller percentage. Find some way to fix poverty and big chunk of crime would just go away.

    7. Re:Facebook could help shools more.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So ... upper- and lower-class people don't make the same thinking error?

  18. Re:Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, you mean "race to the bottom". Now I get it.

  19. I know a better headline I'd like to see ... by Qbertino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know a better headline I'd like to see: "New fair taxes enable feasible education budget. Donations not neccesary anymore." How about that, hu? ... Just saying sometimes I'm glad I live in Germany (allthough taxation could use a redo here aswell).

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:I know a better headline I'd like to see ... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Would you really want the government educational system doing weird experiments with schools? Most likely this experiment will fail, like most startups fail.

      I think it's kind of a good thing for an education system to be conservative (conservative in the sense of not chasing every fad).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:I know a better headline I'd like to see ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird experiments? no.
      But normal experiments yes.
      How else do you improve schools?

    3. Re:I know a better headline I'd like to see ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I went to school in the US since 6th Grade.... there has been nothing but experimenting on us the whole time... and weird doesn't even describe it. One notable example, when I started High School they decided to do away with 45 minute classes and give us 90 minute classes, but only 4 subjects per day with subjects changing every half year like colleges... And right after I graduated they decided it was a failure because kids were not doing super-duper-much-better than before and went back to 45 minute classes.... WTF?! I actually liked it, but most of my peers could not sit on their arse for 90 minutes. This schedule enabled me to take more classes and have the ability to only go to school half a day my senior year, with other half spent working an internship. I felt it was very well worth it. But politics.

    4. Re:I know a better headline I'd like to see ... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Would you really want the government educational system doing weird experiments with schools?

      The GP poster said:

      I know a better headline I'd like to see: "New fair taxes enable feasible education budget. Donations not neccesary anymore."

      Do you consider giving schools enough money to do their jobs properly a "weird experiment"? I think of it more as an eminently sensible policy....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    5. Re:I know a better headline I'd like to see ... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Do you consider giving schools enough money to do their jobs properly a "weird experiment"? I think of it more as an eminently sensible policy...

      You want know what I'm saying? I'm saying you're an argumentative git who can come up with something deeper and more relevant to say than that, but you didn't. What exactly do you think 'weird experiment' refers to here?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  20. Re: Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually trickle down economics has worked -- not just under Republican presidents like Reagan but under Democrat ones like Kennedy.

    See
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-calls-it-fairy-dust-trickle-down-does-work-economist-art-laffer-says

    It's better than welfare economics which we've tried for decades and it hasn't worked for our poor communities to give them a leg up.

    Welfare economics makes us feel good and give us the false impression that we're doing something to fix the problem. But the truth is that these decades old policy has done nothing for our poor. Their children who have grown up are mostly still poor. So what's the answer? Throwing more good money at the problem or rethinking the problem to determine a new solution?

    Since we have tried welfare economics with poor results, maybe we should try trickle down economics or something else to see if that will work. These poor communities need jobs and a hand-up; they don't need a hand-out.

  21. scumbags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How about paying taxes and not lobbying the country to shreds? Maybe then we could all have schools.

    Prosperity *is* pizza you fucks.

    1. Re:scumbags by jblues · · Score: 2

      How about paying taxes and not lobbying the country to shreds? Maybe then we could all have schools.

      Prosperity *is* pizza you fucks.

      I went to a state-run school for the criminally gifted. I can't help but think if it was a private school I might've ended up somewhere like Goldman Sachs.

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
  22. Isn't that what taxation is for? by Oxygen99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or, y'know, they could just pay an appropriate level of income tax and let educational professionals decide how best to invest that money. Of course that wouldn't boost their collective ego nearly so much. Still. Once you've made enough money from stock market bubbles to reduce social responsibility to charity who are we to argue?

    --
    I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
    1. Re:Isn't that what taxation is for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boost their egos? You mean boost their investment in E-Learning initiatives that track not only a child's grades but their opinions, atitudes, and behaviors -- Like Common Core? The elites do want two classes of education: The dumbed down one for the masses and the advanced one for elite offspring.

      Bootstrapping the gamification and tracking will occur first in the elite class of education. This will then be merged with the existing education system's attitude tracking and behavior modification.

      Bill Gates (Microsoft is also a gaming and tech-service company) pushes Common Core while keeping their kids from being taught this propaganda, and Zuckerberg (Facebook is user behavior analysis) et. al. pushes the elite forerunner to show what education could be like in the "future". When it's all said and done the poor schools and students will have the high-tech learning systems, but they'll have a different curriculum than the private schools teach the elite's kids. They believe that we only need a small group of innovators, the masses can be blissfully ignorant behaviorally normalized interchangeable worker drones -- or possibly eliminated over time to reduce population and thus pollution (this + robotic workforce == a final solution for "climate change").

      If you don't believe me, then bookmark this post and come back in a few years and see if things haven't been playing out as foretold. Microsoft Research as well as the DoD and EA, and others, have been heavily investing billions in "serious games" for education, training, medical science, neuroscience, etc. Now, if only we could change the public perception of gaming from a "nerd" thing such that society thinks "games don't have to be fun"... Maybe another manufactured crisis, like the Code.org debacle, but this time with games?

    2. Re:Isn't that what taxation is for? by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Or, y'know, they could just pay an appropriate level of income tax and let educational professionals decide how best to invest that money.

      Conflict of interest. That's somewhat akin to letting lawyers make all the laws, oh wait, we do that now and it's not working out so well.

  23. Re:The beginning of the headline is a tad misleadi by JeffOwl · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think it is pretty clear. If there is any doubt all you have to do is read Zuckerberg and you should know this isn't altruistic. After eliminating many of the teachers he'll use this to classify the rest as "Tech Workers" and replace them with H1Bs. If any doubt,remained the first sentence in the summary says "...announced Monday a $100 million Series B round led by established VC firms and high-profile tech investors..."

  24. Re:The beginning of the headline is a tad misleadi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTFL:

    This area includes self-awareness, self-confidence, growth mindset, gratitude, curiosity, self-regulation, and grit.

    They are going to teach gratitude? My cynical self thinks - "Oh thank you my billionaire masters for giving me what I do not deserve. I will grow up to vote for candidates that look out for your interests at the expense of mine, oh my benevolent masters."

  25. mold young minds via an elite-centric curriculum by rightwingLeftist · · Score: 2

    for many decades the plutocrats and big corporations have been shaping the culture by getting to young and impressionable minds via the educational curriculum. Plutocrats&corporations give money to large nonprofit foundations --> foundations pay activists/writers/academics to generate propaganda that serves the needs of the plutocrats and corporations---> this propaganda winds up in the educational curriculum --> young minds are shaped for life in ways that favor the interests of the plutocrats and corporations. For example, the plutocrats and corporations want more money. So they get it by depressing wages by increasing the supply of labor. How? Multiculturalism combined with mass immigration increases the labor supply. How? By making white people feel guilty about racism. How? By creating an educational curriculum that did just that. See Dr Roelofs' book FOUNDATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY: THE MASK OF PLURALISM. So, what zuck is doing here is just what the rich and powerful have been doing for many decades--using money to domesticate the culture and the people.

    --
    posting at http://leftistconservative.blogspot.com
  26. Re:Trickle Down? by MPBoulton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And who wouldn't trust that billionaires have the same objectives as a publically elected government when it comes to educating our children?

  27. Name by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Might I suggest a catchy name like... Corinthians?

  28. Re: Trickle Down? by benjfowler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Quite possibly the easiest way to do that would be to adopt China's approach of selectively implementing trade barriers in the name of domestic self-interest. Everything made of cloth or plastic should get a 200% tariff on it; and those barriers should only be relaxed when we've 'drained the swamp' at home.

    This, and cutting all passive welfare to the able-bodied.

    At the end of the day, not everyone is smart enough to go to college. Thick people need jobs, money and dignity too.

    Unfortunately, this is anathema to our naive neoliberal overlords, whose world-view never went beyond Econ 101.

  29. Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their system is too dependent on technology and it will not scale to poorer school districts who cannot afford all the laptops and tablets.

    This is a great way of creating a caste system like what already happens on the east coast if you didn't go to some fancy prep school.

    Exactly! This kids are getting opportunities that other kids will never get and they get those extra steps towards being successful.

    Of course, when they grow up, they'll be under the delusion that they got where they are all by themselves and anyone who can't accomplish what they did are just lazy and entitled parasites who should be thankful that they are not in India.

  30. What a waste by cHiphead · · Score: 1

    How about they give 100 million to local public schools to eliminate funding shortfalls instead?

    --

    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:What a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I'm not a Zuckerberg fan, and know software doesn't teach kids (sorry, no economies of scale here), he *did* try exactly what you suggest, and in the same amount. I can see why he'd try something different this time.

      http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/08/01/cory-booker-accused-of-mismanaging-100-million-zuckerberg-school-donation

  31. for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the ideal is a meritocracy- if you work hard, you're rich. if you don't work, you're poor

    that's the ideal

    of course reality means we have rich kids who don't do shit and can't fail, or whose dad gets them a cushy do nothing job with his friends at the golf club

    it also means there are poor people who are busting their asses at two full time jobs who will never get ahead, barely tread water, and are one accident or medical problem away from losing everything, due to depressed wages because of power imbalances, and an insane healthcare system. and poor people on assistance who don't work simply because the financial incentive is to stay not working: it pays more

    so we do not live in a meritocracy

    we should, of course. and we should try to model our society on that ideal

    and one way we do that is we guarantee a baseline of medical care and education to everyone

    but if being poor means your education will be pathetic, you'll stay poor. and if you're rich and are a loser flunkie who never tries in school but still gets ahead due to connections

    we WANT to subsidize poor people's healthcare and education, so we can actually and honestly say "you're poor because you don't try." we can't say that with honesty today. if we don't actually have everyone STARTING on level ground. the ideal of meritocracy requires everyone to start at roughly the same spot. then, indeed, you can criticize people for being poor, and laud people for being rich. rather than our increasing classist reality in the usa of a shirnking middle class, a rich kid who cannot fail and does nothing, and a poor person who cannot succeed and works his ass off

    in fact, the usa is not the world leader in social mobility, the ability of the poor to get ahead by hard work

    that title goes to "gasp" nordic countries, evil "socialist" countries, where people are happier and richer than "capitalist" america, which really isn't capitalist in the meritocratic sense, but more like plutocratic rent-seeking, social darwinistic fuck-you-i-got-mine-die-in-the-street america

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > we should

      Why?
      Surprise, surprise, parents want the best for their kids.
      They'll try to use any kind of advantage to improve the situation for their kids.
      Whether it's working 14 hours to pay for school, or asking friends for favors.
      You outnumber rich people more than 1000 to 1.
      You want their money? Gather up 1000 people, walk over to their house, and take it.

    2. Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      You want their money? Gather up 1000 people, walk over to their house, and take it.

      that's unjust and immoral

      unless we live in a society where the rich are born that way and stay that way even if they are lazy, and the poor are born that way and stay that way even if they are hard working

      then, indeed, people will revolt and rich people's houses will be ransacked. not because the people are unjust, but because society is unjust

      the point is to AVOID that, because revolutions are horrible for everyone. and we avoid that by having a just society. which was the point of my post. and that's why you *should* care

      not that you do care, as your post demonstrates. if you don't think we should live in meritocracy, good for you. but if you think we should just treat everyone like shit, not try to be fair in society, and revolts and mobbing rich people's houses is inevitable and unavoidable and we can't do anything about that, then, objectively speaking and not as a baseless insult, you are stupid and malicious

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Thank you, this is the best I've heard it said. I wish I had a mod point.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      unless we live in a society where the rich are born that way and stay that way even if they are lazy, and the poor are born that way and stay that way even if they are hard working

      Wait, are you suggesting we don't live in a society like that?

    5. Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Are we really so far from that? What is the real level of mobility upwards in status in America today? More and more people have been falling into the 'born hard working and stay hard working' camp since the 70's. One must only note the H1B visa situation and the 'free intern' situation to see that.

      And people don't revolt because governments have superior force. The most impoverished will obviously try to revolt first. Hm, were do we see impoverished standing up against authority? Ferguson, Cleveland, Baltimore.. These events happened before, but the difference is that the population is more pissed off and frustrated.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      we are approaching that, we aren't completely there yet. we still have some social mobility, although it is shrinking and we are becoming a classist, stratified society

      our social mobility is not as good as nordic countries. every country has corruption but we have far worse, legalized corruption, unlike the nordic countries. actual sane laws can be made against the commingling of money and power, as places like canada and europe show. at least laws against the perverse ways money infects and weakens our government, that the usa tolerates for some unnknown reason. corporations and plutocrats buy our congresscritters and use them to write rent seeking laws that siphon off a couple extra billion for no extra effort, while shafting everyone else. somehow they believe this is better for their bottom line than a growing and healthy middle class that actually buys their fucking products, and would make them many many more billions rich than the rent seeking, middle class destroying laws. short sightedly stupid and corrupt

      the idea is stop this madness by outlawing such commingling of money and power (i wish we had a supreme court on the people's side) and reclaim the usa's claim as the country where the poor go to work hard and succeed, and increase our social mobility ranking back to where it used to be

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    7. Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you're welcome

      please stand up and oppose the rent-seeking corporations and plutocrats that are destroying this country, whenever you can. we need to save this country from their corrupt predations

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    8. Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      OVERALL Prosperity Index: Besides scores for their economies and entrepreneurship opportunities, countries are rated on factors pertaining to social capital, effective governance, human rights and liberties, health, and security. The U.S. ranks 10th, behind the Scandinavian countries, Austalia/NZ, and Canada.

      ECONOMY: Rates countries across 17 factors including gross domestic savings, unemployment, inlfation, non-performing loans, and respondents satisfaction with standard of living and employment opporunities. The U.S. ranks 18th.

      ENTREPRENEURSHIP Opportunities: Rates countries across 14 factors including business startup costs, R&D expenditure, and respondents perception that "Working Hard Gets You Ahead". The U.S. ranks 5th, behind Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and the U.K.

      http://www.verisi.com/resource...

      of note, the *perception* the usa is the country where you can work hard and get ahead is higher than the *reality*. we can and should close that gap by opposing the rent-seeking corporations and plutocrats that are destroying this country. we need to save this country from their corrupt predations. back to how it used to be

      end the legalized corruption that makes the corporations and plutocrats buy our congresscritters and use them to write rent seeking laws that siphon off a couple extra billion for no extra effort, while shafting everyone else. somehow they believe this is better for their bottom line than a growing and healthy middle class that actually buys their fucking products and would make them many many more billions rich than the rent seeking, middle class destroying laws. short sightedly stupid and corrupt

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    9. Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      =>You want their money? Gather up 1000 people, walk over to their house, and take it.

      ==>that's unjust and immoral

      LOL. It's "unjust and immoral" if you steal a person's money directly, but if you hold an election and appoint a few representatives to hire men with guns and send them to steal a person's money, it suddenly becomes "just and moral"?

    10. Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      that's called taxes, moron, which all people are required to pay to society to keep it running

      you can disagree with how your money is spent, that's fine. then vote for someone who will spend it in another way. but you don't get to make up on your own how much you owe according to your dimwitted uneducated "ideas"

      money doesn't magically get in your bank account, dependent only on you, as if you live in an island. in fact, money is nothing more than an abstract value of human society itself. money only exists in the context of a human society, and is directly valuable in reflection of how well run that society is. money for broken down societies where no one pays taxes is worthless, inflation ridden junk. by your thinking, that's what you want your money to be: junk. can you eat your money in an isolated cabin in the woods where you never go to town? but you want to keep your money for yourself, and not give a portion to keep the society running in which your money actually means anything. this is simply revealing how fucking stupid you are about this topic

      luckily, no one sane is going to let a stupid douchebag like yourself or the other puerile crackptos like you prevail on this notion, because we like being rich, and we don't morons like yourself making us poor

      again, remedial education: your income depends upon a well functioning society. if no one maintains that society, your income shrinks, along with everyone else's. therefore, you must contribute in order to keep society functioning. understand loser?

      and, indeed, if you're too stupid or selfish to understand this basic fact of your existence, then yes, men with guns should be sent to take from you what you owe, you freeloading asshole. and if you shoot back, drop your ignorant useless ass dead, please, and liquidate what you own to pay what you owe, the world a better place with one less stupid freeloading loser

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    11. Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      money doesn't magically get in your bank account, dependent only on you, as if you live in an island. in fact, money is nothing more than an abstract value of human society itself. money only exists in the context of a human society,

      - first of all you are a moron. Money is only a measure of wealth, wealth is production and it is up to individuals to produce. Without production there is nothing at all, including nothing to measure, which means production comes first as a matter of savings and applying those savings to create something. Money comes second as a way to save, exchange and measure wealth. Money may be a concept that is created by society, but wealth is the actual stuff created by individuals, you thieving crackpot.

      luckily, no one sane is going to let a stupid douchebag like yourself or the other puerile crackptos like you prevail on this notion, because we like being rich, and we don't morons like yourself making us poor

      - being rich in your mind comes from theft, you piece of shit. How about actually working for leaving, you waste of degenerate skin?

      again, remedial education: your income depends upon a well functioning society.

      - a well functioning society depends on individuals willing to produce. The only reason a piece of shit like you exists is because of individuals who allowed you to exist by producing enough that your degenerate ancestors were able to maintain your life by consuming the products created by the people a piece of intolerable shit like you have no business even looking at, never mind stealing from.

      and, indeed, if you're too stupid or selfish to understand this basic fact of your existence, then yes, men with guns should be sent to take from you what you owe, you freeloading asshole.

      - ha ha ha, you stinky bastard. Once your society dies by eating itself while losing the capacity for producing enough, you will become what your real call in life is: a crackhore, giving out blowjobs for crumbs under some bridge.

  32. Re:The beginning of the headline is a tad misleadi by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    This isn't a gift. It's an investment. Also, the fund is going to a single company called AltSchool.

    It is what is called a 'loss leader', giving away a product for future sales. Of course, It also looks like he may not be giving away $100M at all, but rather arbitrarily placing a high value on the software he is giving away. But he may also be paying people to build and implement the systems, in which case it would appear to be more than just giving away software.

  33. Re: Trickle Down? by kenh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many argue that public schools are failing our children, but few agree on the cause, so standardized tests have been rolled out to evaluate and quantify the various levels of achievement in the various school systems at both the state and federal level.

    That in and of itself isn't really a problem, the problem (IMHO) with standardized testing is that it has become the only way to evaluate career teachers since the teachers and their union groups have typically rejected every other form of teacher evaluation.

    For example, in one famous example a new superintendent walked into a major metropolitan school system and was confronted with the reality that some 60% of high school graduates failed to perform at an 8th grade level, yet some 90% of the teachers had peer-evaluated each other to be 'Excellent' teachers.

    The issue isn't standardized testing, it is the importance the test results have to the teachers that causes great stress in the children.

    --
    Ken
  34. Re: Trickle Down? by kenh · · Score: 1

    They possibly see a public good in this 'Khan Academy' model of education, but I'm put off at the for-profit motive.

    --
    Ken
  35. I'm confused... by Pollux · · Score: 1

    "We believe that every child should have access to an exceptional, personalized education that enables them to be happy and successful in an ever-changing world," reads AltSchool's mission statement.

    Then why have you set yourself up as a private school? If you want to reach every child, why not set yourself up as a public charter school and allow every student equal opportunity to apply? Currently, only children whose parents have $28,750 to spare have access to this "exceptional" education. That's not every child.

    Eventually, the plan is for the billionaire-bankrolled education magic to trickle down. AltSchool's pitch to investors, according to NPR, is that one day, charter schools or even regular public schools could outsource many basic functions to its software platform.

    Good luck with that. At $28,750, you cost way more money than what every state in the nation pays to educate a child. And all those lucky kids still get a teacher in the room! You better have a really, -really- good return on investment for that kind of money!

  36. Bad headline by cyocum · · Score: 1

    The headline should read "Led By Zuckerberg, Billionaires Give $100M To Entrench Their Elite Status For Their Children".

  37. Re: Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    usa and eu already impose artificial trade barriers, ie tariffs on chinese things.

  38. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. Re: Trickle Down? by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, tricke down is working so well that the income inequality between rich and poor is getting wider and wider each generation.

  41. Girls only again ? :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are Zuckerberg and the other sexists shites excluding young people with penises again, or have they finally realised discrimination is wrong ?

  42. "Invest" implies an expected return by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is your new government, folks. Schools run by the world's largest corporations with a curriculum designed to benefit the top tier preferred shareholders and provide a stream of cheap labor.

  43. Vaccinations? by grub · · Score: 1, Troll

    I hope they enforce all vaccinations for entry, other than those with legitimate medical exemptions.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  44. You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    Let us say there is this H Ardworker who does everything right and starts her career at the 99th percentile of entry level professional job, anything lawyer, dentist, accountant, any good job that would put her at cusp of 99th percentile. Stays there all through her career, at the cut-off of 99th percentile. Still she would NOT not save enough to be in the top 1% by networth. It was possible to reach that 1% by net worth till about year 2000. Again that was because of savings done at the very early stage of the career and investments. Starting 2000, your surgeons, lawyers, sales executives, CPAs are no longer making it to top 1% by the time they retire. Citation provided.

    But let us say H Ardworker has a classmate in college, R Ichkid, a trust fund baby, who inherits enough to make it to top 1% by net worth. Let R Ichkid draw from the inheritance the same salary H Ardwoker earned, without contributing anything more. Just simply live off the trust fund. R Ichkid would still be in the top 1% by networth, or become even richer. Most trust fund babies do not limit themselves to just the top 1% salary and run down their inheritance and fall off. So the ranking of R Ichkid is likely to improve.

    The changes to the tax code done starting from the 1980s is the root cause. The lower capital gains tax rate, higher rates for earned income, the ability to defer income by making it capital gains, etc allows people already rich to stay there without doing much. It has been made impossible for the unwashed masses and people who have to work for a living to join the Rich class by earned income alone. Extremely lucky few who make it to the upper management with stock options, or hit venture capital jackpot, or been extremely lucky to win lottery or hit a lucky home run in investment ... only they are able to join the 1% by net worth club.

    Most slashdotters will not make it. It is not a matter of how hard your work, or how smart you are or both. We are back in the 19th century England. Rich families will be rich. Professionals will make the next rung but not be rich. Then unwashed masses below.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      The stats on wealth don't bear that out, let alone people following the advice of Mr. Money Mustache.

      If you work in software design or are a professional of any kind and don't get caught up in consumerism, its not that hard to get in the top 1% of wealth in the USA thanks to the magic of compounding. That 1% is either 1.5 million (according to the IRS) or ~9million according to most other sources.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    2. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by danbob999 · · Score: 0

      First, being part of the top 1% is not a right, and neither, by definition, a possibility for everyone.
      Next, the typical US surgeon or lawyer is in the top 1%. You only need about $780k in net worth to be in the top 1%. source: http://www.globalrichlist.com/...

      Any professional with a good job will save more than that through his lifetime. Remember this number includes real estate value.

    3. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      IRS estimate of top 1% net worth fell to a very low number like 3 million (not 1.5 million) USD following the crash of 2008/2009. It has recovered since to a value near 5 million. Federal Reserve estimates the top 1% net worth cut off at some 12 million + or - 3 million.

      Also there is a fundamental difference between top 1% cut off and top 0.5% cut off. The top 0.5% is nearly impossible for any working stiff to reach without luck. All the hard work and good life skills will at best get you to top 1%. Only inheritance (which is a form of luck) and luck can get you over that limit.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      That is the world list. Includes all 7 billion odd people. If you have a bank account, you are in the top 7%. 93% of the world do not have bank accounts. But within USA, top 1% by net worth means 5 million USA according to IRS or 12 million according to Federal Reserve. By income, IRS has the best stat, 340K AGI puts you in the top 1% by income.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    5. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by danbob999 · · Score: 2

      I know. I just find it ironic to see people ranting against the top 1% (of their country) while they are themselves in the top 1% of the world. Especially since the same arguments can be used to rant against both of these groups. It's only a matter of perspective.
      That being said, I am pretty sure a surgeon can save 5M$ through his lifetime in the US. But then again it depends how much he spends.

    6. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      So what? Were you expecting to have less than 99% chances of not making it to the top 1%?
      You speak as if being part of the top 1% was a right for any hard working person. A lot of hard working persons won't even make it to the top 20%.
      You also speak as if inheriting was he only way. You are forgetting that you can start a business and be successful. Of course this is hard, otherwise everybody would be doing it.
      There is no fundamental difference between the top 1% and the top 5% or the top 0.1%. There is no gap. It's a continuous spectrum of wealth.

    7. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      The following webpage, which is admittedly is a few years old shows the calculations related to the numbers I presented.

      http://www.joshuakennon.com/ho...

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    8. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Buddy, I am not talking about everybody. I am talking about someone who earned at the top 1% of the income spectrum all his/her career. Even such a successful person won't accumulate enough to be in the top 1% by wealth after a life time of earning. That shows how we have distorted the returns on earned income and investment income.

      Anyone can start a business and become insanely successful, as in anyone can win the mega jackpot lottery. Only a few lucky business owners who start without seed money from inheritance actually make their share of the business grow to above 5 million dollars. The family owned stores have large number of partners. Law and medical practices too have so many partners, the share of each partner would be less than two or three million.

      Stock options, lucky breaks in venture capital funded start ups, luck in business (buy a rundown subway franchise and then suddenly a casino opens next door kind of luck), luck in birth are the only way to top 1% by wealth. This is a fundamental shift from the era of 1950 to 2000 when earned income without luck placed a person at the top 1%. We are basically going back to early 1900s. The gilded age. Rich folks have a rich life. And working folks are scrapping by. Professionals are thankful for not being in the working class and stay in their station.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    9. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      The stats on wealth don't bear that out, let alone people following the advice of Mr. Money Mustache.

      You mean the guy who claims to be retired while his wife works and he has a part time contracting job?

    10. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Maybe everyone can't be in the top 1% but why does the top 1% have to have such a portion of the wealth?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    11. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      I agree with this guy somewhat, remember reading this way back then, he too quotes "who rules America". Well, I don't own 3 Dunkin Donut franchises, but I skip with a song on my lips to my VPN connection to hack code out at every opportunity. So I guess I am a wild success.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    12. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      He works by choice as I recall as his expenses are around 25k a year and he has more than 25k a year in investment income.

      Either way, it does not negate the fact that by living under your means you can enter the 1% if you have an professional level income.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    13. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      Why don't people invest more? Chinese peasants traditionally saved 50% of their income until consumerism took over in recent years,

      Why don't people fix their own stuff (or pay more for higher quality that lasts longer)? Changing brake pads, various filters and fluids or oil on a car is not hard and requires less than a $100 investment in tools, even on cars with all sorts of fancy computers and sensors. Same is true for plumbing and electrical repairs on a house.

      Why do people pay for cable, cell phone packages, large trucks and other stuff they don't need?

      The average american home has increased more than 25% since the 50's. People have more cars and toys and eat out far more often than they did back then.

      If you went back to a 1950's like lifestyle but on a 2015 income, you would be able to save a lot more money via frugality.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    14. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Either way, it does not negate the fact that by living under your means you can enter the 1% if you have an professional level income.

      Not unless your definition of "professional" is restricted to specialist doctors, wall street investment bankers and lawyers who graduated from a top five school. Comfortable or well off, certainly, top 1% by wealth, no.

    15. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      Buddy, I am not talking about everybody. I am talking about someone who earned at the top 1% of the income spectrum all his/her career. Even such a successful person won't accumulate enough to be in the top 1% by wealth after a life time of earning.

      It depends on how much that person saves.

      luck in birth are the only way to top 1% by wealth. This is a fundamental shift from the era of 1950 to 2000 when earned income without luck placed a person at the top 1%

      Nothing changed. Luck in birth (as being born in a rich country) is still the most determining factor in one's standards of living. Whether a professional worker is part of the top 5% of his country instead of the top 1% is pretty much irrelevant noise in the global picture.

    16. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. In fact the US is a special case among developed nations.
      But the real 99% (I am talking world-wide) are asking the same question about you and I, and the rest of the upper middle class of developed countries making the global 1%.

    17. Re:You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      Anyone can start a business and become insanely successful, as in anyone can win the mega jackpot lottery. Only a few lucky business owners who start without seed money from inheritance actually make their share of the business grow to above 5 million dollars.

      Only a few as in... 1 out of 100?

      The family owned stores have large number of partners. Law and medical practices too have so many partners, the share of each partner would be less than two or three million.

      And on top of that, they will have a fully paid house and other savings by 65.

  45. Alt Title #404 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Zuckerberg invests $100M to insure racial and economic segregation until 2040.

  46. Government should be run like a venture cap firm. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 0
    Socialism will not work. Government should be run like a private company. A venture capital company to be precise.

    Just like a venture capitalist does not know which of the many companies he/she is funding is going to be a super success, government does not know which of citizens are going to be a super star performer. So it should invest on ALL the citizens. Provide all the citizens with education, opportunity and a shot at making it big.

    A large portion of this investment will not pay off and those citizens will take from the government, never pay anything back. Just write them off as a loss and focus on the rest like any venture capitalist would

    Most of the citizens will end up as moderate success, they will make average salary and pay back some modest return on investment. They would also provide the basic frame work infrastructure for super stars to perform greatly. Google and Apple need HVAC mechanics, janitors, accountants, electricians too, right?

    Some of them will hit it out of the park. They are the ones the venture capitalists drool over. They will provide outsize returns on the investment.

    A venture capitalist would call the return profits. Government would call it taxes. This is the justification for taxing the superhit super millionaires at a high percentage compared to average working folks. This is the justification to writing off as losses the citizens who do not contribute enough returns. That is ok, that is how venture capitalism works.

    So, to reiterate, let us discard all the old fashioned Marxist, socialistic, communistic, collectivistic ideas and throw them in the dust heap of history.

    Let us run the government as a Capitalist enterprise, as a Venture Capitailistic enterprise. With very deep pockets, with very long investment horizons.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  47. Re: Trickle Down? by BVis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What exactly constitutes "passive welfare"? Since welfare was reformed under that reactionary libertarian President Clinton, everyone that receives cash assistance is required to either work or attend job training 30 hours a week, or lose their benefits. Which is awesome on paper if you want to fix the "problem" of welfare queens (which have not been proven to exist in significant numbers), but in reality it creates more problems, one of which is what to do with your kids while you're working or going to job training. Not everyone has a spouse or family that can watch the kids while you're off at your dead-end McJob making minimum wage.

    Everyone who is able-bodied should work, in an ideal situation. In the real world, you can't always get a job when you need one, and if you have to pay for day care, sometimes having a job means you have LESS money to work with than if you were sitting at home on the couch like everyone on the right thinks welfare recipients do. Lots of people think the poor should be punished for being so, so the situation continues. There's a school of thought that providing cash benefits perpetuates a cycle of poverty, that it encourages dependence instead of personal responsibility. The truth is that most people on cash assistance are trying desperately to get a job so they can stop collecting benefits, and forcing an arbitrary work requirement on them does nothing more than 1) make the situation worse for the recipients and their children, and 2) provide Big Biz with a captive audience of low-wage workers who can't quit when you treat them like dogshit. When you factor in the low wages, lack of access to health insurance (as even under the ACA a lot of people have to make a sizable payment each month for even the lowest level of coverage), and cultural stigma (which, ironically, makes it HARDER to get a job due to the perception of welfare recipients being goldbricking leeches), welfare DOES make people dependent by perpetuating the vicious cycle of trapping low-wage workers in their jobs, not because they're lazy. The solution is not to end welfare, but to increase wages enough to shift the burden from public assistance to private wages. This is one reason why people want the minimum wage increased; a living wage gets people off welfare. But, since that eats into the profits (which are still at record highs), Big Biz just instructs their wholly owned "elected" representatives to perpetuate the myth of the lazy welfare recipient who leeches off taxpayers' hard work. After all, it's much better for the CEO to buy his third summer home with his six-figure bonus for keeping salaries low than for the workers at his business who do actual work to have enough money to live on.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  48. Re:Trickle Down? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    One size does not have to fit all. That's a key problem with the sclerotic public school system we have today.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  49. Re: Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am sure that $100 mln going to a private school for rich kids and not going to public schools has nothing to do with it. If you add the other donors, we could have had a public school system like Germany... top 5 globally.. Our current public elementary school education system will doubtfully compete with any European nation or 10+ non-european ones for that fact. US kids cannot compete any longer.

  50. Re:Trickle Down? by operagost · · Score: 1

    No good deed goes uncriticized, right?

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  51. Generation FoX by Catbeller · · Score: 0

    Corporatization of the public schools. The final blow to public America.

    No businessman does this for the sheer joy of giving. They want something, and they will take it. They want properly trained corporate citizens, with skill sets that are widespread and therefore cheap to rent. Amongst other things, depending on the billionaire. Zuck just wants kids that don't care about privacy and love to give him money. Other billionaires want Jesus, dead commies and Muslims, and lots of power.

    I've been fuming for months now that the rollup of public schools into private hands, now accepted as a natural process that no one should stop, will be a setup for the next step. Koch brothers-type billionaires will start buying all the little education ompanies and mom-and-pop schools that everyone thought were so charming and a Good Idea. That certainty was reinforced when the Koch brothers themselves started saying, a few months back, that they were intending to forward a new, American-correct, proper view of history that should be installed in classrooms - corporate friendly, pro-Jesus, anti-science, Ayn Randian horse manure. Not to mention Rupert Murdoch's little empire is now stating a school chain in the US - think of it as Fox Schools.

    We deserve it. They're going for the kids, now, when no one is looking. Next up, in ten years: Generation FoX.

  52. Re:Government should be run like a venture cap fir by Catbeller · · Score: 2

    Government is not a business, cannot be run like a business, and has different goals than a business.

    Government RUNS business. Corporations are government critters - they are circumscribed and defined by nothing else but laws. Corporations are our toys.

    Government is/was run by academics, who are interested in good governance, rather than getting rich. Lying is considered bad form in academica, and leads to bad results. That's why science works; fibbers get weeded out, rather than kicking out the people who annoy the powerful, or eliminating those who don't make money for the powerful.

    Business is run by self-involved, well, thieves is a good word - well-regulated thieves and liars. They admit no principle but the Win. They have no morals, no conscience, and no limits. They are in it for the sheer joy of kicking the ass of people who get in their way. They are absolutely lousy at compromise and when installed in any capacity in interacting with other countries, go into full guns-and-bribery mode. Look at what the W. admin did to us and Iraq for that yummy oil. And they did it on our credit card, and let laughing.

    Government for the Corporations, by the Corporations, will be hell on Earth, a permanent feudal power structure that will be damned unkillable. It is the ultimate nullification of the age of enlightenment, the death of science as we know it, and makes fascism look like a kid playing with toy soldiers.

  53. Huh? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    ..."We believe that every child should have access to an exceptional, personalized education that enables them to be happy and successful in an ever-changing world," reads AltSchool's mission statement. For $28,750-a-year, your kid can be one of them...

    So for more money per year than a significant portion of the US families bring home in a year, a family can send one child to school.

  54. Re: Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Facebook, website builds you!

  55. Re: Trickle Down? by Catbeller · · Score: 2

    Welfare cut to the able bodied happened a quarter century ago. Two years max is all you get. You can't cut much more. It simply is not a factor in school failure; poverty is, race is, the flight to the suburbs is. The failure is schools in California was due to Proposition 13, btw, the tax freeze. California had the finest schools in the country before prop 13. Almost free universities, too. They were tax-cut to death. It would do well to remember that. This is a long game to basically kill control over corporate power.

  56. If you can afford... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    If you can afford tuition of $28,750/yr for elementary school, then you don't need a charity to subsidize the cost for you. This is nothing more than the 1% helping the other 1%. The promise of trickle down is merely a teaser for the other 99%.

    1. Re:If you can afford... by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      More like the 0.00000001% helping the 0.01%. Regular 1%er don't send their kids to $28,750/year schools.

  57. There goes their liberal street-cred by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Funding PRIVATE SCHOOLS!?!?! OMG, it's the end of the world as we know it! Surely, they know that not everyone can attend a PRIVATE school!

  58. Schools should not be privatized by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    Education is a fundamental public good and no public resources should ever go to a private company to run schools. By doing that, you take away resources from the public schools and further damage them.

    I know everyone loves to point to charter schools and what a wonderful job they're doing, but there are two things people conveniently ignore:
    - Behind that charter school is a company/person getting insanely rich off of public funds and/or using their unique position to maximize profit.
    - All the other schools in the area get hurt because resources get funneled away from them.
    - You're basically corporatizing education -- I'm guessing Zuckerberg and Company will be influencing the curriculum to turn out a new generation of web code monkeys.

    Everyone loves to bash teachers and teachers' unions, but that's not what we should be doing. Teaching needs to be a profession people want to go into, and people need to respect educators. Giving up and just selling the school system to the lowest bidder won't fix the long-standing problems a school district has. Nothing will -- there are always going to be poor kids with horrible home lives. Unless you go after that, education won't improve significantly in bad neighborhoods.

    1. Re:Schools should not be privatized by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Education is a fundamental public good and no public resources should ever go to a private company to run schools.

      Under the current system no. There are alternative systems where it would work just fine. For example, all schools are privatized, everyone gets an education voucher, any school that takes vouchers must have a voucher only program that meets the minimum education standards that we already expect. Any area that has no private voucher only programs gets a publicly run one until a private group moves into that area. Instant competition and accountability while still maintaining access for all.

    2. Re:Schools should not be privatized by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "Education is a fundamental public good and no public resources should ever go to a private company to run schools."

      Good call. Get government out of the education business entirely. It would solve a myriad of problems.

  59. I hear there will be one in Brooklyn, too by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

    Is there an echo in here?

  60. Re: Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many argue that public schools are failing our children, but few agree on the cause, so standardized tests have been rolled out to evaluate and quantify the various levels of achievement in the various school systems at both the state and federal level.

    That in and of itself isn't really a problem, the problem (IMHO) with standardized testing is that it has become the only way to evaluate career teachers since the teachers and their union groups have typically rejected every other form of teacher evaluation.

    For example, in one famous example a new superintendent walked into a major metropolitan school system and was confronted with the reality that some 60% of high school graduates failed to perform at an 8th grade level, yet some 90% of the teachers had peer-evaluated each other to be 'Excellent' teachers.

    The issue isn't standardized testing, it is the importance the test results have to the teachers that causes great stress in the children.

    The solution is to ban private schools and homeschooling.

    The net effect will be that money driven assholes working to undermine the public school system, because they send their children to private schools and don't want to pay for public schools, will have to get involved in the school system and fix it rather than destroy it.

  61. CLINTON FOUNDATION STAY OUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as that dirty, rotten, illegal, immoral, unethical, criminal Clinton Foundation stays away from this I am okay with it.

    Who is that foundation run by again?

  62. Led By Zuckerberg by koan · · Score: 1

    Usually an indication of problems to come, wonder if that's true this time.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  63. Not about education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to be clear, this effort is meant to eventually replace public schools with privately owned schools entirely. Once education becomes a service that a business sells, it will no longer be accessible to all segments of the population. Only those with sufficient money will be able to get educated.

    It is very scary when you look at who funds these initiatives -- the same companies clamoring for more visas, claiming the American workforce doesn't have the right skills, and claiming that public education doesn't work when there is zero evidence of that. In reality they need a dumbed-down, uneducated workforce because that makes them either easy to exploit, or easy to justify the exploitation of foreign workers. It's a win-win for business.

    And guess what would make the single biggest improvement to American education? Donating that 100 billion to our existing education system. Just imagine what we could do with that:

    - Buy complete class sets of books for children so they can actually follow the literature they're reading.
    - Have supplies such as pens, pencils, paper in classrooms so students don't have to go without these basic necessities.
    - Have computers and school networks that are _maintained_. (it's easy to give a school 100 new computers, it's impossible to keep them maintained and running)
    - Be able to offer the electives students desperately want but can't get (metal shop, wood shop, music, art, any kind of vocational training)
    - Keep school campuses clean, functional, and graffiti-free.
    - Actually pay teachers for their incredibly difficult job.

    Be wary of these initiatives. They are about triggering a change that shifts education into a business, where profit is the only thing that matters and the quality of education has no consideration. And most importantly they are about limiting the accessibility of education.

    For example the "Smarter Balanced" testing system is supported by these tech companies and it consists of a system that has no input from any real educators, places unreasonable demands on schools in terms of the computer systems they _must_ upgrade to in order to run the test, and has virtually no educational value. But boy, is there money to be made from it. That is what this is all about.

    Ask yourself if any education system that is designed to be profit-first and deliberately unavailable to the poor is a good idea.

    1. Re:Not about education by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "claiming that public education doesn't work when there is zero evidence of that."

      No evidence? The only subject where USA students excel is in "self esteem". There's plenty of evidence that public schools are failing. If they were doing well, we wouldn't continuously be talking about how to fix them.

      "Donating that 100 billion to our existing education system"

      LOL Right, because the problem with public schools is lack of funding.

      " ... a change that shifts education into a business, where profit is the only thing that matters and the quality of education has no consideration."

      You think there is a negative correlation between quality and profits? Quite the opposite. The person or business which figures out how to provide a quality education at an affordable cost will reap the profits With "quality" being in the eyes of the parents and students, not some government bureaucrat.

      Nor is a profit-driven education system some malicious conspiracy against the poor. If absolutely necessary, you can take a small fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in public schools and create an "education stamps" program.

      The top-down, big government, cookie-cutter approach to education is a failure. Time to unleash the power and creativity of the free market. Give people real choices and let people who want to be in education an opportunity to figure out what works.

      Wal Mart or McDonalds could run the public school system better than the government and at lower cost.

    2. Re:Not about education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wal Mart or McDonalds could run the public school system better than the government and at lower cost.

      Yes, because when one thinks of "Wal Mart and McDonalds" there is an association of "quality products".

      Go watch the old "Pump Up the Volume" Christian Slater movie. A teen flick covered the public vs private school exclusion issue better than anything since.

  64. Re:Government should be run like a venture cap fir by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Please re-read my posting. I am claiming socialism is venture capitalism.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  65. Education professionals? Bad, bad idea... by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    " let educational professionals decide how best to invest that money"

    That's a bad idea if there ever was one. The quality of schools in the US has been steadily declining ever since the federal government started sticking its nose in. More and more bureaucracy, regulations and administration. Less and less effective teaching.

    You know, if federal control of schools were any good at all, the schools in Washington D.C. would shine. Instead, despite their huge budget (second highest in the country), D.C> schools are the worst in the country.

    Send all of the "educational professionals" to flip hamburgers. Return schools to state and local control. Hire teachers who hold degrees in the subjects, instead of in education (this might be important). Some places will be disasters (but they already are). Others will finally be able to do something about fixing their schools. Without all the federal regulation, it'll probably cost a lot less, too...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re: Education professionals? Bad, bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then you learn that the schools that the leaders of the Federal government use for their kids are just fine. Excellent even.

      The DC schools are run by the civic government of the district. Not the US Department of Education. It is a municipal system, not federal. Congress merely chooses to interfere when it sees fit.

      If you want federal schools, try State for its Overseas Diplomatic Service, Defense for similar, and Indian Affairs. The latter is the bad one, and that could be blamed on a lot of factors, but not too much professionalism by far. The other two? Have you heard any real complaints? Sure, there was an incident in Yokohama, but that was an isolated affair.

  66. Re: Trickle Down? by rgbscan · · Score: 2

    Well, that depends on what you call "able bodied". Let me give you an example. I know a guy who's 36. In the prime of his life. He's got Bi-Polar disorder. It's a real thing, and he has real symptoms. If he goes unmedicated, about twice a year he'll go all "Charlie Sheen" on us and get a little crazy, sometimes even suicidal.

    So he needs meds. When he's on meds he's a completely normal dude who goes years without a bi-polar episode. He found himself out of work and applied for SSDI. After all, when he's off his meds he truly is disabled and can't live a normal life. Being on meds though, makes him a completely normal guy who is able bodied and more than able to hold down a job.

    So SSDI approved him as disabled, so he could get his meds for free from the government - which he needs. So now he's on meds and completely normal. But if he gets a job, he loses his disability qualification and loses his meds. So instead, he gets a SSDI check every month, gets a govenrment provided phone, got free furniture from a non-profit, gets public housing, gets SNAP, and gets state cash assistance. He basically lives the life of a college kid playing xbox and drinking beer all day in his apartment on the taxpayers dime. He's in a catch 22, if he works he may or may not find a job that covers his expensive medication. If he doesn't have meds he's a crazy threat to himself. But if he stays "disabled" he gets free meds and free everything. It's not a life of luxury, but it's a lot like living the college life in perpetuity. And he's going to get this free ride the rest of his life. He retired from the workforce at age 32! Perfectly able bodied when on his meds, but the system isn't setup for this situation, so us taxpayers get to support him. It's pretty messed up.

  67. Re: Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Again, how does this not create a caste system?

  68. Re:Trickle Down? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    Actually he's right because it's all about the budget. This school has a limitless budget whereas every public school has a limit. You can do amazing things with a blank check. Call me when you do it on a budget.

  69. Re:Trickle Down? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Assuming it's the research and the software creation that costs the most, then once the software's created, it's no big deal.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  70. Some naming ideas for AltSchool by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    AltSchool is clearly a working title, maybe they could call it Elysium High or The Eternal Gardens School.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  71. Re:Government should be run like a venture cap fir by blue9steel · · Score: 1

    Socialism will not work. Government should be run like a private company.

    You realize this would mean they would attempt to maximize profits right? That means raising taxes and cutting services. I'm not sure I see how that's a useful behavior set.

  72. Re: Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use trickle down to fuel my car.

    Everyone says I'm crazy, but I believe the best way to get fuel to the engine is to spray it at the top of the hood and let it find its own way to the tank.

  73. Indoctrination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inhale my funky Zuckersnatch

  74. Re: Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow... You must not live very close to poverty. Passive welfare and generational welfare do exist and are a huge drain on the economies of states like West Virginia and Mississippi. There is no required job training and the system is abused. For example, somebe my ex girlfriend went to high school with came into her work and literally asked "why do you work? If you have a kid the government will pay for everything.". My ex naturally replied that her taxes are whay pay for that girl's lifestyle, but that attitude is quite common in that area.

  75. Re: Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A government provided job would do more for a poor person's morale and sense of pride than a hand out. Hand outs breed people with no sense of worth and no shame. Need more money? Have another kid! And then teach them to game the system too.

  76. Re:Trickle Down? by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

    Education is very complex.

    It is important to separate the issue of 'funding' from 'delivery'

    I do agree with the idea that all children should have enough funding to get a decent education.

    What the delivery model is really depends (public, private, voucher, charter...)

    Sweden is going through an interesting case right now.
    They have a full voucher system where you can either go to a public school or take your voucher to a private school.

    I think this is really fair as if the public school does not suit you, you are free to go to a private school and you get equal funding.

    The same is true in Canada in places like BC, Alberta. What's interesting is how this does not 'collapse' the public system. In most of these places, it is normally around 20% of kids enroll in these alternative schools.

    How this gets twisted to mean against the poor baffles me. It empowers the poor to send their kids to alternate schools.

    Technology is another big thing. I am a qualified teacher and technology can be a big changer. Lesson plans for example are normally shared by teachers ,but also held tightly. Really grade 9 math is going to be teaching the same thing in most areas under the same curriculum. Is there a reason for teachers to build their own lesson plans?

    Theory: You build individual lesson plans for each class and tailor for different students.

    Reality: most teachers don't do this. They just use general lesson plans and maybe if there is a special needs child, they will create an alternate lesson.

    We could dramatically improve education by hiring more teaching assistants, using standard lesson plans, reducing teachers pay (IMHO).

    For example, Instead of hiring one teacher at 90k, have one teacher at 60k, and one teaching assistant at 30k. This is just an example, the ratios can be whatever.

    But of course this is the beauty of allowing alternate schools. They can experiment with these models. I really don't know if this will be better. In my opinion it would be.

    Right now, it is just not tried as the public sector and teachers unions have a big say.

    Even the common arguments in favor of public school tend to fall flat on their face. The main one being that it increases diversity as kids from all backgrounds go to the same school. This is ridiculous as parents now move entire neighborhoods to get their kids into a 'good school'. I think its an equally valid argument to suggest public schools INCREASE SEGREGATION. If you had school choice, maybe parents would stay in the same community knowing they could send their kids to a 'good school'.

  77. Today's lessons, children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elementary psychopathy
    Control fraud for beginners
    Front running - the basics
    You data? My data!
    How to identify dogs on car roofs.
    Killing for fun and profit.

  78. It worked well for Universities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so lets try to get them even earlier.

  79. Re:Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This history lesson is brought to you by BRAWNDO! MUTLILATE YOUR THIIIIRST!

  80. Re: Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be fair, teachers aren't for gang members in their classes or a large amount of truancy caused by bad parenting. The more involved parents seem to favor school vouchers so they can pull their children out of that environment (I can't blame them when faced with that environment). But that also ends up hurting the original schools even more since their few well-performing students are leaving.

  81. Re: Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bleh, give him a rifle and send him to Iraq. Let him go crazy over there.

  82. Re:Trickle Down? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    No, a good deed would see this money used for fixing the public school system...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  83. Re:Trickle Down? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Sweden is going through an interesting case right now. They have a full voucher system where you can either go to a public school or take your voucher to a private school.

    How does that work out for them?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  84. Not about propaganda by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    The education "industry" potentially is into the trillions which has a captive customer base; almost as captive as the healthcare industry has.

    The potential profits from just a small slice of this developing new "marketplace" is staggering. No bigger gold rush exists outside of managing social security.

    Regardless of intentions, the appeal here is extreme. Prisons were/are only a starting point and those have less growth potential (despite the heavy lobbying already present to keep numbers up.)

    Sure corporate interests will be protected and some people do want their own little factories of goosestepping consumers but there is more than just that going on here.

  85. Re:Government should be run like a venture cap fir by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    It justifies progressive taxation and social services from a capitalistic point of view. Without invoking socialism or appealing to better human nature. It also forces the ultra right winger who argue all taxation is theft by government to account for the investment made on them by other tax payers. This argument is useful upto that extent, not too different from Elizabeth Warren's, "we built the roads and educated your workers, you built it, you keep a good chunk of the profits, we contributed too, so give us our fair share to create more successful people like you for the next generation". But of course you could not carry it to the extreme.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  86. Re:Trickle Down? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    but I'm not sure a school system that works in downtown San Francisco will have the same needs as one in, say, downtown Detroit. I

    Which is exactly why we need to remove the dept of fed from the education system and let the local schools decide whats best for them

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  87. Re: Trickle Down? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    you do know that going to private school you still pay local school taxes right???

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  88. Quality Walmart McEducation? by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Quality McDonald's Food you can raise your child on... now as... education!
    Quality Walmart products and service with a highly desirable clientele that you feel perfectly comfortable with allowing your children to visit on their own.... now as.... education .... and "super" walmart have free daycare!!

    Low low prices...

  89. Mod parent up. by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Spot on except that Fascism is Italian and it IS government by the corporations.

    Government is captive already; the end game is still being setup the huge fight to reclaim it has not even begun and possibly will not until it is too late.

    End game: between "1984" for intellectuals and "Brave New World" for the sheeple.

  90. Re: Trickle Down? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    you are being modded down for not understand that this isnt trickle down economics, but trickle down technology. Remember when flatscreens cost 10 grand??? now you can get one for a few hundred bucks.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  91. Re:Trickle Down? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    so doing a good deed in one place is somehow NOT doing a good deed because it doesnt mesh with YOUR ideals????

    great to know you get to decide what other people do with their money....

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  92. Re:Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure a school system that works in downtown San Francisco will have the same needs as one in, say, downtown Detroit.

    Yes, it's much better to have a system that works equally well everywhere - and by "equally well," I mean, "equally badly."

    The idea behind AltSchool is that the lesson plan for each student is tailored to their learning style - which suggests that the people building these systems are much more sensitive to the idea that "each student has different needs, abilities, and learning patterns," than you're giving them credit for.

  93. Re:Trickle Down? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    This is not a 'good' deed. It is a typical investment in a company that sells software, which sounds more like snake oil. Any 'good' coming from it for education in general will be entirely ancillary, a matter of luck. They are perfectly welcome to use their money as they wish, but save the bullshit for the believers.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  94. Re:Government should be run like a venture cap fir by blue9steel · · Score: 1

    It justifies progressive taxation and social services from a capitalistic point of view.

    If you mean that they should attempt to maximize the social value created for each dollar spent then I'd agree, though the difficulty of measuring social value (or even agreeing on what that is) would make it pretty much impossible to do on any sort of quantitative basis. People can't even agree on what the goals are let alone the best way to get there.

  95. How to level the playing field by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want everyone to become more equal, help all disadvantaged people equally. This will work because it will automatically balance things out: those who have been disproportionately disadvantaged will be disproportionately helped.

  96. Re: Trickle Down? by ranton · · Score: 1

    The solution is to ban private schools and homeschooling.

    The net effect will be that money driven assholes working to undermine the public school system, because they send their children to private schools and don't want to pay for public schools, will have to get involved in the school system and fix it rather than destroy it.

    That won't help, as the wealthy live in a type of walled garden where their kids would all go to the same schools even if they were public schools. I live in a school district with arguably the 4th best high school in my state, private schools included (#1-3 are private). This is accomplished by making sure the average price of a home in my school district is about $600k in a county where the average home price is closer to $200k. We effectively have a private school that is paid for with public tax money.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  97. Re: Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unions push for teacher evil based on tech scores? What planet are you from?

  98. Re: Trickle Down? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    They possibly see a public good in this 'Khan Academy' model of education, but I'm put off at the for-profit motive.

    In general, I wouldn't say "for-profit" is necessary a motive per se. In part, it's a function of the market philosophy and ideology -- if the system generates profits, it can fund itself, therefore it is sustainable. This view denies the idea that "infrastructure" shouldn't fund itself (see also rural broadband or lack thereof).

    The other half of the equation needs consideration that true corruption can only affect people with good intentions. Every charity executives remuneration scandal starts with executives who really believe in the work of the charity, and therefore believe they're personally doing good work. The next logical step is for them to conclude that they deserve a reward for their good work, so they give it to themselves.

    So the people putting money into this believe that it has to be a self-sustaining business, and that it therefore needs to be built on VC money, so the VCs are doing good work (even if that's not their primary goal) and therefore they deserve to be rewarded (which is the VCs primary goal). But then the logic of corruption kicks in: the VCs aren't doing it for the public good, so the guys who are doing it for the public good are clearly better and more deserving of reward than the VCs, so of course they too should be rewarded. But they're still doing it "for the kids".

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  99. Re:Trickle Down? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    No good deed goes uncriticized, right?

    Setting up a company to cash in on private education sounds like a business plan, not a good deed.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  100. Re:Trickle Down? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    *dept of ed

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  101. Re:Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This history lesson is brought to you by BRAWNDO! MUTLILATE YOUR THIIIIRST!

    I see you were brought up under this hellish educational model. My condolences.

  102. Re: Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone who is able-bodied should work, in an ideal situation. In the real world, you can't always get a job when you need one, and if you have to pay for day care, sometimes having a job means you have LESS money to work with than if you were sitting at home on the couch like everyone on the right thinks welfare recipients do.

    There is a name for this phenomenon. It is called the cliff effect.

    There's a school of thought that providing cash benefits perpetuates a cycle of poverty, that it encourages dependence instead of personal responsibility. The truth is that most people on cash assistance are trying desperately to get a job so they can stop collecting benefits, and forcing an arbitrary work requirement on them does nothing more than 1) make the situation worse for the recipients and their children, and 2) provide Big Biz with a captive audience of low-wage workers who can't quit when you treat them like dogshit.

    Indeed. I know one guy who is trying to get off public assistance. He finds it humiliating. He told me he is looking forward to the day when he can proudly say he is contributing to society by paying his taxes.

    The solution is not to end welfare, but to increase wages enough to shift the burden from public assistance to private wages.

    While increasing the minimum wage would certainly help, the real solution is to take care of the cliff effect I cited in the link above. From my experience as a volunteer over the last year or two trying to help people get off public assistance, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that our country's current welfare system is not so much a safety net but a vortex: it sucks people in but it is not so willing to let them go again.

  103. Re: Trickle Down? by BVis · · Score: 1

    In Virginia at least, if you have a child more than 10 months after you begin receiving benefits, that child is not eligible for additional benefits. Having a kid does not increase how much you get under TANF. Please stop spreading bullshit about welfare recipients. We can't solve the problems involved if people ignore the reality of the situation by demonizing recipients as goldbricking baby factories.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  104. Re: Trickle Down? by BVis · · Score: 1

    The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 sets a cap on benefits of no more than 2 consecutive years at a stretch and 5 years total over someone's lifetime. "Generational" welfare would involve longer time-frames. Please get your facts right if you're going to criticize.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  105. Re: Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you do know that going to private school you still pay local school taxes right???

    That is why they are sabotaging the public schools; they don't want to pay that tax money.

  106. Re: Trickle Down? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Most liberal fascist try to hide it. I complement you on your honesty.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  107. Re: Trickle Down? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    And sense it passed social security disability rolls have been growing by more than 1 million people per year.

    Do you really think there are a million more disabled people this year vs. last? They just moved to a new scam.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  108. Re: Trickle Down? by volmtech · · Score: 1

    Disability is a hard thing to prove. If after walking down to the mailbox I collapse in front yard how can you prove I'm not faking?

    I remember in the 50's sometimes the workers picking up potatoes in my father's field would bring their children with them. There was usually a teen girl watching the babies. Modern farming methods eliminated millions of jobs.

    As productivity has increased the need for workers has greatly diminished. Securing the border and bringing manufacturing back will still not supply enough jobs. There is no simple solution. Supposedly the oil is going to run out and the economy crash so no one will be worrying about welfare or disability.

  109. Re: Trickle Down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure why you're attributing that to trickle down economics instead of the welfare state.

    Also, trickle down does work on a global level. People in underdeveloped countries are seeing their standard of living go up a lot due to the investments made there by large businesses. It just doesn't work very well for the poor people in the US.

  110. Students with Disabilites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about students with disabilities and all the pending litigation over accessibility of technology? Will those people who are by law guaranteed and individualized education suitable to their needs and consistent with the education received by students without disabilities receive the same individualized education and at who's expense? Or are Zuckerberg and other's trying to keep up with the Gates'.