
Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free - ohmyiv
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2015/1024/Inside-Mark-Zuckerberg-s-new-school-Private-but-free
======
datashovel
Perhaps I'm initially too cynical about what appears at face value to be
selfless philanthropy, but I won't consider these efforts to be anything but
self-serving unless they're willing to share data about their successes /
failures with other educational institutions and governments.

~~~
ageek123
How is this self-serving? How does it directly benefit Zuckerberg?

~~~
datashovel
$77.4 billion for the Department of Education across the entire US.

The article mentions that this $1 billion investment will go toward "free
education and free healthcare for low-income students in the Palo Alto area".

So comparing the two it's obvious that the investment is going into an
unsustainable model. The way I'm thinking about this, that could be for one of
a few reasons.

1) They want to pour a lot of money into research and development to figure
out how to improve education. Concentrate a bunch of money into one place to
figure out how to improve the overall model.

2) They want to show how they can do better than public education system.

If they're after #1 I can see no reason why they wouldn't try to give back by
sharing data from their research.

If they're after #2 then it's obvious they're simply creating a facade (an
unsustainable "model" implementation of what primary education should look
like). Depending on the results they'd be looking to sway public opinion that
private sector can do better than government.

Needless to say, #1 is constructive, and #2 IMO is highly destructive.

------
cowsandmilk
The Milton Hershey model?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Hershey_School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Hershey_School)

(In case you don't notice, Milton Hershey's endowment is larger than that of
most universities)

------
pbreit
One-off private schools are never going to move the needle. Even Alt School
only caters to folks who don't really need it. Is it really not possible for
private industry to address public education? Perhaps "for profit" is just
never going to work in education? Kipp?

~~~
ageek123
> Perhaps "for profit" is just never going to work in education?

Well, government-run certainly isn't working, at least in the US. Charter
schools (like Kipp) seem to be doing a lot better.

~~~
zo1
Unfortunately, when it comes to "state-run" institutions and policies, you're
arguing against an ideal, rather than an implementation. I.e. You could argue
it is some form of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Additionally, there is a very prevalent and saturated belief in the current
society that views anything with 'for profit' motives as somehow bad/greedy.
Consequently, everything that is "non-profit" (including the state) regularly
gets undeserved moral brownie points.

------
swampthinker
[http://www.theprimaryschool.org/](http://www.theprimaryschool.org/) Didn't
see a link in the article.

------
vezzy-fnord
So what model is this, I can't seem to tell exactly? Montessori, Sudbury,
democratic, anarchistic free? Or just a traditional school with integrated
daycare?

~~~
rory096
It seems to be a bit more structured than a free school model, more focused on
personalization of lesson plans than total student choice. Someone on the New
York Tech Meetup mailing list gave a pretty extensive answer:

>Hi everyone, I wanted to address because I think there's some confusion
around the term "self-directed" learning as well as Altschobol's mission.

>Altschool is a network of microschools, founded by Max Ventilla - who worked
on personalization at google. Through personalizing the learning process,
Ventilla hopes to use technology to make the learning process cater to
individual student's learning style and interests. They also have a
sophisticated method of tracking student process.

>For example, a student who loves basketball might have the opportunity to
learn about algebra as it relates to basketball. Personalized learning is
quite different than "self-directed learning" where a student has autonomy
over what subject they want to learn next.

>A "free school" which is what some of you seem to be referring to is
generally a democratic school where students have complete control and
autonomy over their own learning process. Far from being without structure,
their is a complex set of rules and systems that are invented by the students
themselves. Rather than reading "at level" the child has the opportunity to
learn if and when they want to. Many boys do not learn to read until age 10,
but they do eventually learn to read. Some children go on to college - others
pursue different routes. Good examples are Sumerhill in the UK and Brooklyn
Free School in Brooklyn. Direct observation and long-term studies have shown
that this model can be incredibly successful if started at an early age- but
when students enter a "Free school" as teens after being subjected to years of
their willpower being squashed by authority figures, the change is too drastic
and they flail around and often don't know how to negotiate their new found
freedom. This is not the case, of course with every child.

>In the 21st century, the teacher's role as "purveyor of knowledge" is no
longer necessary. Instead, the teacher is becoming a facilitator of knowledge.
The knowledge is there and leaders like Sugata Mitra with his hole in the wall
experiment and Sal Khan have demonstrated how far a child's natural curiosity
can take them.

>Back to Altschool.

>Alt school was developed on the premise of three aspects being essential to
productive learning 1) great teachers 2) individualized instruction 3) parent
and community involvement in the learning process.

>Far from ignoring the indispensable role parents play in the learning
process, Altschool hopes to use technology to breach the gap between what goes
on at home and in the classroom. Furthermore, by 2016 they are planning on
launching their first charter schools in an effort to redesign the entire
public school system to be more agile, affordable, personalized and keep track
of each student to prepare them to live happy, meaningful lives that make a
contribution to the larger community.

>As a disclaimer, I am not affiliated with Altschool and do not know if they
will be successful in their mission. However, I think it is a mistake to
dismiss self-directed learning and free schools without fully looking into
their unique advantages.

> Manisha, [http://cottageclass.com](http://cottageclass.com)

------
kristopolous
That's a lot of money for something that ostensibly already exists. This
terribly busy website has a bit better content as to why they are doing this:
[http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-
news/ci_29007119/faceboo...](http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-
news/ci_29007119/facebooks-zuckerberg-wife-chan-start-private-east-palo)

------
markdown
Why is "Primary School" in quotes? Are you suggesting it isn't a primary
school?

~~~
tzs
It looks like the submitter (or a mod?) rewrote the title to try to make it
clearer, and botched it. The actual title of the article is: "Inside Mark
Zuckerberg's new school: Private, but free".

The name of the new school is "The Primary School". It looks like the title
rewriter decided to try to put the name in the title, but left out the "The",
resulting in the confusing title we now have.

A better rewrite, if the name must be incorporated, would have been "Inside
Mark Zuckerber's new 'The Primary School': Private, but free" or "Inside Mark
Zuckerber's 'The Primary School': Private, but free".

~~~
ohmyiv
Clarification: It was a mod change. I left the title close to the original
except I left out "Mark".

------
jonlucc
Interesting that the logo for The Primary School is nearly identical to that
used by artist and printmaker Gustave Baumann[1]. I was just at a lecture
about him today, and the speaker said it was probably taken from the
International Order of Oddfellows who had some saying along the lines of "what
you do with your hands, you should do with your heart".

[1] [http://grainger-arts-and-crafts-studio.com/wp-
content/upload...](http://grainger-arts-and-crafts-studio.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/GB-Seal.jpg)

------
andreyf
If this works, can it be used as an example for better public schools? Even if
it's more expensive, one can argue that the increased productivity of well
educated kids outweighs the cost of their education.

~~~
dogma1138
Well if a single primary school needs 1 bln or anything close to it to operate
that won't be scale able.

The question now would be how much improvement would there be due to actual
new methods in delivering the education vs just pouring money onto the problem
and cherry picking your students.

They did seem to open the school in a place that could benefit from it as far
as the silicon valley area goes, EPO didn't receive as much benefit from the
valley as some other areas, Belle Haven is a mixed bag with it being quite
popular with silicon valley folks that are looking to find a big enough house
for a family but can't afford more sought after locations.

The only grief I really have with this program is that they did not publish
their acceptance policy online which doesn't bode well for transparency in
that aspect, so cherry picking and gating might be a problem here as well.

Their management team and staff has more accreditations than some school
districts combine probably, they have a huge capital investment, so the school
should do rather well, but I'm really not sure how much impact it can have in
the long term.

~~~
lacksconfidence

      Well if a single primary school needs 1 bln or anything close to it to
      operate that won't be scale able.
    

Just to clarify, Zuckerburg has spent over a billion on education related
grants and other gifts since 2010, but no one knows what he has spent on this
one school. I can't see how he could have spent anywhere close to a billion
dollars. Unfortunately the writing is fairly poor so I'm not even sure how
many students this school will serve from which to guesstimate a cost.

FTA:

    
    
      Chan did not tell the Mercury News how much she and her husband are contributing
      to The Primary School, but when it is fully built, it will serve 50 students 
      in 14 grades (pre-K through 12) plus the families of their 700 students.

------
seibelj
Anything any rich person wants to do to improve education, I'm for it. The
system is so broken for so many people that I welcome any attempt at reform.
And the rich have the best chance of fighting the entrenched interests that
prohibit improvements to education.

------
cptmeister
That's great for the community, but in a larger sense we should question what
the point is of amassing huge concentrated wealth and then giving a small part
(or even a large part) back to make isolated positive impacts. Wouldn't it be
better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first
place? Then the token donations would not be necessary. This is not supposed
to be a cynical post, but this pattern is indicative of a general problem with
the system.

~~~
josephagoss
> Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of
> wealth in the first place?

Just curious, but that would deny many millionaires and billionaires the
chance to change the world. For sure, SpaceX and Tesla probably would not
exist [1].

I'm surprised that this sentiment is growing among many people that somehow
they believe the Government is going to be better at experimenting and
managing these types of far out projects rather than the free market.

SpaceX has probably the most advanced rockets in the world, far surpassing
that of all other countries.

I am not sure I want the future of our species solely in the hands of
politicians and not giving private enterprise a chance to rise up and have a
shot.

If I misunderstood the gist of your post, I do apologise.

[1] I know they both have taken Government money, but both Tesla and SpaceX
could not have been started by a Government politician or employee.

~~~
noobermin
Let's see, going to the moon, the internet, the atomic bomb, the space
shuttle...I think the government has proven to be effect in the past. Not that
the free market hasn't been effective too, but one might make the mistake of
serious selection bias to really believe that the government can't perform
"far out projects" well, especially when the will to perform them doesn't
exist in the free market yet.

~~~
josephagoss
I'm not saying that Government can't do great things, but it should never be
the only player in town when it comes to innovation on a large scale. Denying
private citizens the ability to have great wealth basically gives the
Government a large scale monopoly on far out projects.

These are the types of projects where a single billionaires great wealth can
inspire other investors to come along. If Musk couldn't pour millions into his
ventures, it's unlikely the average investor would have followed him into
space.

In addition, the USA invested in the internet, space and atomic weapons solely
for the purpose of war, even the hubble is based on military technologies. I
am again concerned that people are arguing for a future that's dependent on
the needs of politicians or the military.

Even China was smart enough to see value in the capitalism model. Allow for
the ability of great wealth, allow the private citizen to decide how to deploy
the fruits of their work and something good might come out it.

Also, the Government has taken over a billion dollars in tax from Mark
Zuckerberg, so the Government has plenty to play with. Remember, it's always
easier to play with other people's money, hence the inefficiency regarding the
use of tax dollars.

~~~
noobermin
I have to agree with your sentiment about there being no check for the
government, especially when there are things the government can't do. Still,
on one hand, you have Zuckerberg trying to revolutionize education, while on
the other hand, you have Soros and the Koch brothers inverting democracy for
their personal interests. At least when the government is corrupt, you can
vote them out or at worst, have violent revolution. An individual? Ask them
kindly to stop? Kill them?

I think I'd feel more comfortable with corporation(s) competing with the
government, because then, you could "vote against them with your dollar."
Another thing which is done in government labs in the US is having
labs/universities compete with each other for funding (although whether this
yields good incentives for research is another story, and we're trying to find
avenues for innovation that are difficult for the government, and ostensibly,
difficult for govt labs too).

Finally, if we do accept this form of oligarchy (where one oligarch is the
government we vote for), no doubt will we have entities which disagree with
each other, say, Soros or the Koch brothers. Now, then, the rest of us just
become the grass at the feet of fighting elephants[0], and I hell don't know
how anyone would feel comfortable with that. I suppose the only option you
have then for having a voice is to become the next elephant, and while I love
hacking/disruption as the next guy, I know statistics too, and I won't delude
myself I will become Zuckerberg or even four orders of magnitude near him.

[0] [http://www.afriprov.org/african-proverb-of-the-
month/27-2001...](http://www.afriprov.org/african-proverb-of-the-
month/27-2001proverbs/172-nov2001.html)

------
mtgx
Speaking of Facebook, does anyone know if this is true?

[https://www.youbetrayedus.org/facebook/](https://www.youbetrayedus.org/facebook/)

~~~
SFLemonade
I wouldn't be surprised at all. Zuckerberg worries me in a very ominous and
looming way. He has access to a lot of data and his company is a massive
source of public influence. And he's repeatedly abused that power with little
to no public knowledge or blowback. Initiatives like his free limited internet
and the primary school seem like attempts to control information and future
generations, disguised as philanthropy. Couple that with his radical political
views / connections and you've got yourself a recipe for a kind of war and
oppression that we've never really faced before: a war on information.

~~~
marincounty
He doesn't scare me. I just thought people would get tired of his site by now.
I can't figure out the appeal anymore, unless you come from a third world
country, or are under a dictatorship, or you in you twenties, married, or with
kids.

Don't get wrong, I don't hate his site. I just don't get the appeal anymore,
but it might be me. I'm older and I can take only so much of the social
posturing, 5000 friends, photos that are so self-aware--I cringe, the constant
positive affirmations about a person's looks, the crying out for a attention,
and praise, the nosey algorithms, etc.

I have one question, and it's geared towards Americans, "What are you getting
out of Facebook these days. I'm not trying to be cute, or clever. I'm just
curious.

Maybe it's my fault. I have used Facebook in order to look up old friends. I
have found that so many people seemed to have caved into social pressures, and
become politically correct conformists(which is fine), and I understand why
they need to protect their online identity. It just depressing looking at
people who raised their hands in class, tried to fight certain aspects of the
system just settled, and went along with the Villagers. I'm not even bothered
by that--it's the phonyness, or I hope phonyness?

Has anyone over thirty, gone on Facebook and looked up someone you used to
know, maybe that women/man that was different than the rest; and viewed their
profile, and said, "I must get in touch with that person!". I have found
complete opposite effect.

I'll admit it's probally just me, or I'm being too negative, or my experiences
on Facebook is not typical.

