Mark Zuckerberg and his wife to donate $120M to needy Bay Area schools

So, someone is allowed to say "maybe they could spare a few million for the children".

But when I point out that the federal government is already spending $67.3 billion, that's not enough of a counter-argument. That's "common knowledge", so I needed to provide extensive additional information to refute his statement?

I think we'll have to "agree to disagree" about this one.

It's easy. The money, whether it is for defense or for education is, by and large, squandered.

Here's an example of excessive education spending in Oregon [1]:

   A guy was a college professor in Oregon for 16 years

   His final salary was $62,000 per year

   He currently gets a pension of $214,000 per year

How is that possible? Simple. He was, among other things guaranteed an 8% a year return in his retirement account. All courtesy of the Oregon taxpayer.

This kind of thing is endemic to public spending, whether it is in Oregon or in California or at the Federal level. Education or Defense, it doesn't matter. The billions simply disappear.

That's why, fundamentally, "a few million for the children" won't make a difference. At all.

[1] http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/03/oregon_...

I've once gave a lecture about one aspect of Hegels philosophy of law (inside his political philosophy). Hegel died in 1830.

No matter how do you evaluate Hegels work, his ideals etc., it is absolutely stunning to see on which level he and others discussed this matter. And the "others" where especially important, because the role of the state and a nation where discussed not only in the ivory tower but also in broader public.

Fast forward to now. We made huge progress in applied science and technology, but how do we discuss and think about things like our freedom today? Compared to 200 years ago a cnn/fox/whatever discussion is nothing more then the mumbling of a patient in his terminal stage in dementia.

How did we loose all that? Why the degression?

The person who declared and showed how to destroy the state, the establishment and burn everything down was Hitler. His first target was to destroy the political apparatus, and he did.

After the war most european countries where politicaly weakened. So the U.S. was left with basically one true opponent, the soviet union. But this system was more of a dictatorship so it wasnt really a competion between states, but more a (cold) war led by nuclear threat.

So in the end, America won and showed an groth rate in global economical power unparalleled in history. And where money is there is power. So in the end the role of the state was very much diminished, and this laid the groundwork for Reagan.

And lot of the things the U.S. struggle today are the result of Reagans tax revolution.

This is a lot of money when it's yours. Karma points to the Zuckerbergs.

In terms of running a school district, it would be nice. Sprinkled across a region...well it's rounding error. If the total cost (compensation, benefits, administration, facilities and transportation) per year of a teacher in the classroom is assumed to be $100,000/year [probably very very low for the Bay Area], then the total package represents 1200 teacher years - or 120 teachers for 10 years. And that's like one teacher per school district.

If it were used to bring new facilities online - it's about new high school with furnishings and equipment and no new staff. However, the money isn't going to fund new schools or keep teachers in classrooms (or get children to and from school, or provide Head Start, or after school programs for needy children whose parents and guardians work, or any of the really pressing needs of individual children and families in poverty). Nevermind, thinking about how the housing situation effects their lives - to get a sense of scale, maybe that's how to think about the numbers...moving a few hundred of the region's homeless families off the street and into owner occupied housing?

No. the money isn't going for anything that long term.

It's going to 'technology' - a category where five years of use is a really long time = where staff salaries are a multiple of what teachers earn...and somebody has to select, install and maintain all those gadgets. It's a consultant gravy train.

The person who offers money in exchange for people doing what whatever they say is the served, not the serving. And with private individuals, unlike a government, the serving have no say whatsoever. This isn't a partnership. Zuckerberg isn't asking the districts what they need and seeing which of their needs he can meet. He's come up with a solution without the hard work of prioritizing the possibilities. That's unfortunate.

While I honestly admire the generosity, winning access to Exeter Academy and Harvard in the fast swimming semen sweepstakes doesn't make a person an expert in education at the scale of a school district, let alone a region. Even if one worked really really hard building a technology company.

This is my point. That line was in a satirical tone. I see the american education system doesn't cover that.

Throwing money at a few schools will just mask the fundamental underlying organisational, logistical and philosophical failings of the system.