The name Bill Gates has become synonymous with philanthropy. Like Carnegie before him, Gates is devoting his time and fortune to improving America's education system through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. As Gates' annual giving is substantial - an estimated $3 Billion in 2009, $935,753,175 of that just for education according to the Foundation Directory Online - the Gates Foundation is poised to make a huge impact on America's education system.
However, the Gates Foundation's latest charity to education is receiving criticism from a number of sources. In a recent article in the Washington Post by Nick Anderson, Tom Loveless states, "whether you're talking about the federal, state or local levels of government, schools, the press, politicians or think tanks. Their motives could be 100 percent pure. But any time you have one big player that is influencing all of these groups, it is cause for concern."
Another criticism, this one a recent post on Eduflack suggests that Gates forget about working on the current system and create a newer system:
Gates needs to get in the business of empire building. Instead of investing in urban school districts and trying to overcome decades of problems that have become ingrained on the schools' DNA, Gates needs to begin building alternative school districts. That's right. Forget charter schools, we need charter districts. If the current model is broken, as Gates claims, the answer is not to fix. The true answer is to create a better one.
Here's the deal: Education needs to change. In a time when "a third or more of students fail to graduate from high school on time [and t]hose who earn a diploma are often ill equipped for college", Anderson notes, it is clear that someone needs to drastically change the system. Why not the richest man in America?
What do you think? Is there a danger when a singular person/entity takes on a system as important as education? Or are you of the opinion that the means don't matter as much as the ends?
