Led By Zuckerberg, Billionaires Give $100M To Fund Private Elementary Schools 227
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Trickle Down? (Score:5, Interesting)
You could have figured this out, but he's saying that if their school is successful, other schools will start using it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: Trickle Down? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (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?
Re: Trickle Down? (Score:2)
They possibly see a public good in this 'Khan Academy' model of education, but I'm put off at the for-profit motive.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Trickle Down? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 cor
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, tricke down is working so well that the income inequality [wikipedia.org] between rich and poor is getting wider and wider each generation.
trickle down economics (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:trickle down economics (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!
Re: trickle down economics (Score:2)
It's for profit.
Re:trickle down economics (Score:5, 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.
Re: trickle down economics (Score:4, Insightful)
They are - education is mandatory in every state of the Union.
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.)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 lo
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
lots and lots of money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And what are they supposed to do with that extra minute?
Educational software (Score:5, Insightful)
As in, I've never seen any educational software that is good, and it only gets worse as the scope increases.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 l
Re: (Score:2)
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 n
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The beginning of the headline is a tad misleading (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.
Re:The beginning of the headline is a tad misleadi (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Facebook could help shools more.... (Score:3)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Facebook could help shools more.... (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I know a better headline I'd like to see ... (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).
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Isn't that what taxation is for? (Score:4, Insightful)
Education professionals? Bad, bad idea... (Score:2)
" 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) [governing.com], D.C> sch
Re: (Score:2)
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.
mold young minds via an elite-centric curriculum (Score:2)
Name (Score:2)
What a waste (Score:2)
How about they give 100 million to local public schools to eliminate funding shortfalls instead?
for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 gov
Re: (Score:2)
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, Clevela
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused... (Score:2)
"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 e
Vaccinations? (Score:2, Troll)
You are not likely to make the cut to top 1% (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 in
Re: (Score:2)
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... [joshuakennon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 packa
Huh? (Score:2)
..."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.
If you can afford... (Score:2)
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%.
Re: (Score:2)
There goes their liberal street-cred (Score:2)
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!
Schools should not be privatized (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
I hear there will be one in Brooklyn, too (Score:2)
Some naming ideas for AltSchool (Score:2)
AltSchool is clearly a working title, maybe they could call it Elysium High or The Eternal Gardens School.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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 on