Prior to graduate school, I worked as an undergraduate admission officer at Stanford, and was struck by the parallels between the elite admission and philanthropy worlds.
At a billion-dollar bet level, however, are apps the best solution for philanthropists to pursue in early childhood education?
A new wave has hit education reform: hacker philanthropy. As Sean Parker describes it, it's "a desire to 'hack' complex problems using elegant technological and social solutions." But is it the best way to conduct education philanthropy?
I truly believe that most people in education truly are committed to equity, to fairness, to expanding opportunities for all children. The problem is that it is challenging to figure out what these values mean in practice, in various contexts.
In the case of school closure disputes, we need to ask: which claims of injustice, by whom, require response?
In many under-resourced schools serving struggling students and families, it can be a time for agonizing decisions about whom to graduate and whom to retain that seem to admit no good practical or ethical answer. What would you do in this situation?
Which of Donald Trump's outrageous statements, if any, should teachers teach their students to reject outright as a matter of principle, and which should they encourage students to treat as legitimately controversial?
Educators are afraid to admit to others that they are unsure about the moral dimensions of their work, and as a result, ethical uncertainty is hidden away, unexamined as an opportunity for collective learning.
Long term, this type of competitive pressure built by ESAs has the potential to boost productivity by incentivizing providers to offer the best services at the lowest cost.
I'm certain there are many other great resources and groups that could be partnering with schools, but the public school sector isn't incentivized to build these collaborations and current funding models aren't primed for any kind of significant expansion of such partnerships.