Do you think that an official in the department of eduction get’s promotions based on whether what he’s doing is prefered by congress? It’s likely much more problematic to cross the teachers unions.
Aren’t school boards elected at a local level in the US?
Anyway, you seem to objection is overly general. Yes, the principal-agent problem exists in the government, but unless Zuckerberg is planning to personally oversee each individual grant given to each individual school or teacher, then he is going to hire some bureaucrats to do it, and he the principal-agent problem will occur again, with the difference that elected officials have some accountability to their constituents who substantially overlap with the users of the school system, while Zuckerberg is accountable only to himself.
I think civil society is an important part of functioning democracy. That means it’s good when there are indepent well-founded players who aren’t maximizing their profits.
I think that making public services such as education dependent on the benevolence of rich people with significant political interests is a step towards aristocracy and away from liberal democracy, but whatever floats your boat.
Mark has an incentive that when Max is old enough to read the letter himself
herself
critcally evualte it, he doesn’t think his father is an asshole. Legacy is important.
Legacy is warm fuzzies. And politicians seek it too, in fact even more than billionaires, since they lack billion dollars to leave to their children.
Aren’t school boards elected at a local level in the US?
I don’t see how that’s supposed to argument for the department of education being well-funded. The department of education does happen to be a federal agency.
but unless Zuckerberg is planning to personally oversee each individual grant given to each individual school or teacher,
I think that sentence illustrates a core bias of the current system. The current system will try to fund schools or teachers while bringing the field forward might also need a lot of investment into elearning.
I think that making public services such as education dependent on the benevolence of rich people with significant political interests
I’m not saying that there should be no government spending in eduction. I’m advocating plurality. Some spending by the government and some by private hands.
Legacy is warm fuzzies. And politicians seek it too, in fact even more than billionaire
Politicians also seek legacy but they are heavily constrained by realpolitik. Mark can give out money to optimize for leaving a legacy in a way that politicians can’t.
Masters in education have been shown to be worthless when it comes to teacher performance.
Performance metrics on the other hand seem to work.
Currently due to the power of teachers unions people with a masters in eduction get unfairly payed more money. Most schools don’t pay well performing teacher more. If you leave it to the department of education that likely won’t change.
When Mark however gives out grants he’s quite free to finance performance-based teacher pay.
Aren’t school boards elected at a local level in the US?
Anyway, you seem to objection is overly general. Yes, the principal-agent problem exists in the government, but unless Zuckerberg is planning to personally oversee each individual grant given to each individual school or teacher, then he is going to hire some bureaucrats to do it, and he the principal-agent problem will occur again, with the difference that elected officials have some accountability to their constituents who substantially overlap with the users of the school system, while Zuckerberg is accountable only to himself.
I think that making public services such as education dependent on the benevolence of rich people with significant political interests is a step towards aristocracy and away from liberal democracy, but whatever floats your boat.
herself
Legacy is warm fuzzies. And politicians seek it too, in fact even more than billionaires, since they lack billion dollars to leave to their children.
I don’t see how that’s supposed to argument for the department of education being well-funded. The department of education does happen to be a federal agency.
I think that sentence illustrates a core bias of the current system. The current system will try to fund schools or teachers while bringing the field forward might also need a lot of investment into elearning.
I’m not saying that there should be no government spending in eduction. I’m advocating plurality. Some spending by the government and some by private hands.
Politicians also seek legacy but they are heavily constrained by realpolitik. Mark can give out money to optimize for leaving a legacy in a way that politicians can’t.
Masters in education have been shown to be worthless when it comes to teacher performance. Performance metrics on the other hand seem to work.
Currently due to the power of teachers unions people with a masters in eduction get unfairly payed more money. Most schools don’t pay well performing teacher more. If you leave it to the department of education that likely won’t change. When Mark however gives out grants he’s quite free to finance performance-based teacher pay.