The Melting of Mark Zuckerberg’s $100MM Donation to Newark Schools

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/business/dealbook/the-melting-of-mark-zuckerbergs-donation-to-newark-schools.html?smid=tw-share

by obilgic • 11 years ago

56 88 11 years ago

nytimes.com

hahamrfunnyguy• 11 years ago

tldr: The money was wasted.

Did we really expect any different?

giaour2• 11 years ago

I remember the hype around this announcement, and yes, everyone expected it to turn out differently.

merpnderp2• 11 years ago

Why? Money and education results don't correlate. Every single factor in education is overwhelmed by parental involvement.

So maybe that $100 million should of been used to pay parents to participate in their children's education.

mikeash• 11 years ago

I seem to recall seeing a lot of people predicting it would be a massive waste.

fatjokes• 11 years ago

Really? I feel the consensus around the time was that it coincided with the release of The Social Network movie and that Zuckerberg was basically trying to buy some good press to offset how he was portrayed in the movie.

RodericDay• 11 years ago

I don't understand why if a financier or businessman says they're gonna "pull their business" if higher taxes or minimum wage is enacted, this is seen as a very important thing to take into account.

Meanwhile, if a teacher or a nurse says the same thing, you get:

The union boss, Joe Del Grosso, demanded a ransom of $31 million to compensate for what he felt members should have received in previous years — before agreeing to discuss any labor reforms.

Why isn't this "ransom" language used when businesspeople threaten to move their business elsewhere, fire people, etc.?

larrik• 11 years ago

I really don't see the similarity here. Threatening to leave a locale is completely different from asking for a specific amount of money up front.

fweespeech5• 11 years ago

....no, not really.

"If you do not do X, I will do Y" is very much the ransom formula regardless.

adventured• 11 years ago

Businesses get vilified all the time for that behavior.

Tesla got attacked a lot for their attempts to leverage the best deal possible when pursuing a location for the gigafactory. Articles are still being written about it. I must have read two dozen negative articles against the company regarding that one thing alone. A few of which were on HN's front page. And in that case it wasn't even Tesla threatening to pull existing business from a location.

Why is it seen as an important thing? Ask California how much they've enjoyed Texas pulling business from the state. Of course it's an important consideration, the states compete with each other in most things including where businesses choose to locate facilities.

andreasklinger• 11 years ago

I think the main question here is balance.

We could have the same argument with pretty much everything - not only companies / unions.

In the end each party is motivated to use its own power to optimize for their end.

Systems like markets only seek equilibrium if there is a balance in power between parties.

Balance needs to be a neutral position that's still beneficial (read fair) for all sides.

dopamean• 11 years ago

That's such nonsense though. The gigfactory didn't exist and they were looking for a place to build it. That is not quite the same as threatening to move an existing business that presumably employs a lot of people in the area.

trhway• 11 years ago

Meanwhile, if a teacher or a nurse says the same thing, you get:
> The union boss, Joe Del Grosso,

non-sequitur. Del Grosso isn't a teacher or a nurse. Unions in New Jersey is a pretty specific kind of entrepreneural activity and well covered in many famous literature and TV works.

The superintendent, Cami Anderson, demanded accountability from schools but set her own performance goals only after the academic year was largely over and relied on expensive consultants — whose total bill ultimately exceeded $20 million

having grown in USSR/Russia, my first instinctive calculation produces $15M kickback such situation must involve ... of course here things are completely different and expensive consultants is just an expensive and necessary cost of teaching math and reading to schoolchildren :)

thebmax• 11 years ago

Business people who move jurisdictions due to tax hikes are not 'ransoming' anyone - its their own private property and they can move where ever they want.

Politicians who are too stupid to realize that raising taxes causes capital flight deserve to lose businesses from their city/state.

Your idea is against the whole notion of private property. "Work like sheep for the government all you business owners and if you move or close it down we're going to arrest you"

kevin_thibedeau• 11 years ago

It doesn't work that way in professional sports where team owners raking in guaranteed profits hold their host cities ransom every 20 years looking for a new public subsidized stadium. One that could be paid for out of pocket by investing a portion of the profit made over those 20 years.

rayiner2• 11 years ago

Fananciers and businessmen don't base their calls to raise their salaries at the public expense on the premise that it'll be good for children.

threatofrain4• 11 years ago

I do think the author of the NYT article used an unfairly mischaracterizing word. The better replacement would be "tough negotiation". From what I've read, the union leader was not threatening a strike, but merely refusing to engage in talks.

mratzloff2• 11 years ago

"I'm not even willing to listen to your position until you pay me" may not be ransom, but it is an extremely unproductive relationship.

lutorm• 11 years ago

This seems a bit analogous to people winning the lottery. In other words, a one time windfall without structures in place to handle it isn't likely to make a lasting difference.

tdees404• 11 years ago

Money is irrelevant to the problems of Newark schools. The problem that plagues Newark's schools is old-fashioned segregation [1]. The whole district is segregated, but individual schools are worse. Here's a school I literally just randomly chose: it's 2% non-Hispanic white [2]. If Brown v. Board disappeared tomorrow, no one in Newark would notice.

[1] http://www.nps.k12.nj.us/district/info/ [2] http://www.zillow.com/newark-nj/schools/louise-a-spencer-ele...

johnbenwoo• 11 years ago

There is a great two-part story from This American Life [1] about this type of thing - it's a problem much bigger than Newark.

[1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/t...

ttcbj• 11 years ago

I agree the This American Life stories were pretty good. They were based on a pro-publica story which has background statistics that make the picture more interesting:

http://www.propublica.org/article/ferguson-school-segregatio...

There was also recently this long article in the Tampa Bay times that I found at least as insightful, and with more perspective:

http://www.tampabay.com/projects/2015/investigations/pinella...

My concerns with this coverage is that they oversimplify the problems in their desire to find a solution (especially TAL). I'd also recommend the book 'Our Kids':

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Kids-American-Dream-Crisis/dp/1476...

Which is far more comprehensive but spectacularly depressing.

giaour2• 11 years ago

In theory, some of the money could have been used for desegregation. It really is a tragedy that there was no big purpose to which this money was put.

tdees404• 11 years ago

Desegregating Newark schools means integrating the schools in the surrounding suburbs, and the parents will fight it. They simply don't want their children educated alongside minorities.

thisjustinm• 11 years ago

For more on segregation and the effect it has on school performance see these two recent This American Life episodes[1][2].

[1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/t...

[2] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/563/t...

pbreit7• 11 years ago

The TAL episodes don't touch at all on the impact to the schools and other students. Except for a few clips of non-PC parent comments.

pbreit7• 11 years ago

I don't think artificial integration is the solution. It certainly didn't work very well in San Francisco. Kids should go to school in their neighborhoods. Families should get involved. People need to start taking some responsibility for making things better. I know that sounds right-wing but I really think that's what needs to happen. And obviously it can. Just need humans to get together and decide to change.

tdees404• 11 years ago

So your position is "separate schools should make themselves more equal"?

bluthru• 11 years ago

We have data that shows that desegregation is very effective. However, people seem to stop there and not question why it's so effective. It's not nice to think about, but isn't desegregation just "diluting the problem until it no longer creates a poisonous learning environment"?

I agree that I don't get the impression that some communities aren't doing all that they can to improve education irrespective of funding.

ap22213• 11 years ago

It doesn't sound all that right wing to me (I'm left wing). I think you're just highlighting one of the primary underlying issues: parents, likely because of personal and economic factors, don't have the time or energy to be involved in their children's education.

I looked up some stats on Newark schools. $1B in expenditures for 43,000 students. Or: a relatively high $23,000 per student.

Increasing an already sufficient budget by 20%, when the district arguably can't effectively use its current funds seems like a mistake. It probably would have been more effective just to pay the families of the students $4600 as incentive to be more involved.

VLM2• 11 years ago

Interesting observation from link 1, is one full time employee per 6 students, but

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/nj_schools_struggle...

Claims that boots on the ground, the average math class size is 26 students. With 35K students that implies 1350 or so classroom teachers, and 4250 non-classroom instructor employees. Obviously not all four thousand are deadwood, somebody needs to empty the trash cans and somebody needs to be in charge, but "more or less" most of the 4000 deadwood could be fired with no negative impact to the students. That's a heck of an administrative load!

And thats how $100M disappears. (edited to add thats only $25K per deadwood)

emodendroket5• 11 years ago

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's irrelevant but you are making a very good point.

hkmurakami• 11 years ago

Socioeconomic discrimination is the great divide of our time.

wuliwong2• 11 years ago

How would having a more racial diverse demographic in Newark schools alleviate their problems?

sliverstorm3• 11 years ago

My understanding of the most common argument is racially diverse =~ class-diverse and therefore a racially diverse group of schools all have similar tax bases. Unlike segregated schools which might have a lower class tax base for one school and an upper class tax base for the other.

But that probably isn't what your parent is invoking since they said money isn't the issue.

tdees404• 11 years ago

http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication...

eanzenberg3• 11 years ago

Show me the list of affluent parents who are willing to send their children to schools in crime-ridden areas. It has nothing to do with race but with the violent culture these areas breed.

mratzloff2• 11 years ago

Of course it has to do with race. You yourself are using code words of "affluent" for white and "crime-ridden" and "violent culture" for non-white, which is the same coded language parents themselves might even use to justify their prejudices. However, just because a neighborhood is mixed-race does not imply it is "crime-ridden".

Spending part of this money on desegregation busing programs would have been a step in the right direction.

threatofrain4• 11 years ago

I don't think segregation is the model, but merely a subfactor. Segregation can be insidious, but it can't explain why getting a huge cash infusion doesn't work, especially since segregation arguments are often about unfair funding differences. But $200M ($100M from Zuckerberg) is a shit-ton of money to get. It's like saying if there were more white and Asian kids there, then money would be spent more wisely.

Given the information from the article, I think power play between major actors better explains how so much money vaporized. I mean, how did consultants get $20M? Because of racial distribution? I think it's because of power play dynamics.

I think tax revenue will be better spent because the flow is predictable, but when you get a sudden cash infusion with no plan, then you won't spend it as well as well-budgeted tax revenue. Perhaps it is also partially Zuckerberg's fault, because he should've realized the political fighting and released the money incrementally.

drdaniel• 11 years ago

Any news on his second donation to Bay Area schools? Was anything learned or just another well-intentioned boon for useless consultants?

kqr2• 11 years ago

In retrospect, what would have been the best way for Mark Zuckerberg's donation to have a meaningful impact on the Newark Schools?

blumkvist• 11 years ago

Him overseeing spending personally.

pbreit7• 11 years ago

But since that's not feasible, surely he could appoint someone in his network who should be able to tease out better results?

wehadfun• 11 years ago

Used his power and influence to replace incompetent and corrupt officials and bring in some low skilled job to improve the socioeconomic status of the population.

There is a much better article [0] of what went wrong here.

[0]http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/19/schooled

pbreit7• 11 years ago

Can't he designate one person to make sure that a $100 million investment works out better?

detaro• 11 years ago

Sort of too late now... but could probably have been done by not donating the lump sum, but setting up a "trust fund" that would give out money (or not) for specific projects. This probably would have been met with more resistance and more discussions, because it easily looks like someone external enforcing a specific way, so everybody who is unhappy complains about that. And Zuckerberg probably gives a good enemy figure for many in that regard.

Also, the structural issues would remain and even more impossible to tackle, so I think a fund mostly could have slowed the process and probably would have redirected the money to more small-scale issues (because these are easier to get through). Which probably would have been the better alternative with what we know now...

pbreit7• 11 years ago

Yeah, dropping in $100 million at once without seemingly much of a vision doesn't seem exceedingly prudent.

devindotcom• 11 years ago

How depressing. A colossal windfall for an ailing public resource desperately in need of reform, and it's squandered in vendettas and hidden interests.

Even more depressing is that we didn't expect better.

Perhaps gifts like this should come with conditions like "75 cents out of every dollar must be spent on in-classroom improvements" or "40 million reserved for teacher requests." Second $100 million contingent on the first being spent properly or something.

What a waste — not that, as many point out, Newark's school system can be sorted out with a cash infusion. But $200 million buys a lot of band-aids.

emodendroket5• 11 years ago

I appreciate the sentiment but I don't think allowing Mark Zuckerberg to direct exactly how the money is to be spent is really the best solution to the problem.

wuliwong2• 11 years ago

Sounds like it could hardly be worse?

moron4hire• 11 years ago

Is it better than what actually happened? You're going to wait a long time if you're waiting for the "best" solution to your problems.

tankm0de2• 11 years ago

There was long-form about this awhile back. Interestingly the blame for waste seemed to lay with both teacher's union and pro-reform consultants demanding a big piece of the action. When teacher's union didn't get what they wanted they manipulated the community of parents against the deal, which also ensured the politicians/bureaucrats would not be held accountable for the squandered opportunities and wasted money.

In short, it seems like places like Newark have bad schools because of bad governance and rent-seeking behavior running rampant at the local level. The state should be more firmly involved to police these issues.

emodendroket5• 11 years ago

What makes you think the state would do so much better?

ch4s3• 11 years ago

More people are watching NJ than Newark. State elections have higher turnout than local elections as well.

tankm0de2• 11 years ago

The state is not perfect either but typically a larger organization has more (professional) eyes on it, thus making it harder to mismanage or corrupt for a special interest. Same rational as why Michigan steps in to run Detroit as it was going bankrupt.

merpnderp2• 11 years ago

Every single factor in education is overwhelmed by parental involvement. If Mr. Zuckerberg wanted his $100 million to have an impact, he should have payed parents to participate in their children's education.

sanderjd• 11 years ago

I think teaching parents how to effectively participate in their younger children's education would be a fantastic initiative. I know there is a subset of parents who just aren't interested in participating, but I suspect there's a larger subset who are interested but don't really know what to do. Would be interested if anybody know of any initiatives like that!

threatofrain4• 11 years ago

Consultants worth $20M? My god.

rayiner2• 11 years ago

The union boss, Joe Del Grosso, demanded a ransom of $31 million to compensate for what he felt members should have received in previous years — before agreeing to discuss any labor reforms.

Zuckerberg's relatively hands-off approach to the donation seemed curious to me. He's a savvy guy. Would he invest $100 million in a failing company without replacing the existing leadership?

The problem in places like Newark isn't money. Newark City and Camden spend $24-25k per student per year, just a couple of thousand less than expensive suburbs like Monmouth County, and double the national average. When a system that has plenty of money is that dysfunctional, there's a underlying reason, and pumping money into it won't fix the problem.

cpursley2• 11 years ago

I don't understand the "schools need more money". My wife teaches in a Title 1 school housed in a brand new facility. It's not about the facilities or even teachers as much as it is the student's family situation. The common trend with her students is those who's parents who are involved perform better. The focus should be how to create more of that.

sliverstorm3• 11 years ago

Maybe "more" isn't the operative problem, but when underpaid teachers pay out of their own pockets to supply & decorate their classrooms, there would appear to be a money problem.

There's also the general observation that if we want to empower teachers & attract good candidates, it needs to be a reputable job and $32k salaries are a major obstacle to that.

cpursley2• 11 years ago

I think you're missing my point. If the student does not have the basic understanding of why an education is good for them and a parent who stays on top of them, it does not matter how much money you throw at teacher salaries or school facilities. There's case study after case study confirming that it's not about funding. No doubt my wife would like a higher salary, but that is not going to motivate an unmotivated student. It's the whole lead a horse to water thing...

Bamafan• 11 years ago

"But it is downright chilling to watch the leadership team throw around buzz phrases from business best-sellers with minimal focus on the nuanced requirements of applying these principles to the education ecosystem generally"

Replace "education" with software and still applies. :)

ellebee213• 11 years ago

Sad and frustrating. Not only will this deter future donations but it once again highlights adults behaving badly. Given Newark's track record, the money should have been: -given to a foundation to manage -restrictions should have been placed on how the money could have been utilized -Newark as a whole or individual schools or community partnerships should have been required to submit spending plans -A grant writer could have been hired to leverage this gift far beyond the $200 million as there are probably any number of federal, state and private grants that could have been pursued to - some measurement of the impact of the various initiatives that were funded from the gift should also have been tied to funding What Newark can not do is cry poor mouth again.

The Melting of Mark Zuckerberg’s $100MM Donation to Newark Schools

Related Stories