Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Businesses Google Government The Almighty Buck

Is Google's Non-Tax Based Public School Funding Cause For Celebration? 88

Posted by timothy from the more-the-merrier dept.
theodp (442580) writes "Google's "flash-funding" of teachers' projects via DonorsChoose continues to draw kudos from grateful mayors of the nation's largest cities. The latest comes from Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto (fresh from a Google-paid stay at the Google Zeitgeist resort), who joined Google officials at Taylor Allderdice HS, where Google announced it was 'flash funding' all Pittsburgh area teachers' crowd-funding campaigns on DonorsChoose.org. DonorsChoose reports that Google spent $64,657 to fund projects for 10,924 Pittsburgh kids. While the not-quite-$6-a-student is nice, it does pale by comparison to the $56,742 Google is ponying up to send one L.A. teacher's 34 students to London and Paris and the $35,858 it's spending to take another L.A. teacher's 52 kids to NYC, Gettysburg, and DC. So, is Google's non-tax based public school funding — which includes gender-based funding as well as "begfunding" — cause for celebration?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Google's Non-Tax Based Public School Funding Cause For Celebration? More

Is Google's Non-Tax Based Public School Funding Cause For Celebration?

Comments Filter:

  • gender-based funding (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20, 2014 @03:20PM (#47955363)

    Is that the newspeak for golddigging?

    • its called sexism only exists in one direction.

      Somehow women are for this even though it basically implies they aren't equally capable and without special programs to help them get by they'll fail..

    • It's called reverse discrimination [wikipedia.org], and it's wrong.

      Doing so in education teaches by action (and thus re-affirms) that somehow women can't compete. And yet, the majority of people graduating degree programs are women.

      You can't reduce gender bias by introducing even more gender bias. And since we're talking about education, what better place to practice / teach non-bias?

  • I bet if you rewrote this summary, you could probably stuff a few more link$ in there. You know, because that's what we prefer ... clicking to some random site rather than reading the content here.

  • Yes, it is cause for celebration. Even if there are inconsistencies in its funding practices, we should always celebrate any positive actions. By this we encourage others to do likewise.

    • Marketing (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Thank you, Google, for your public works. Spending a tiny percentage of the amount tax that you save by screwing countries over using the Double Irish Arrangement with a Dutch Sandwich is really a great marketing ploy.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
      http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/to-reduce-its-tax-burden-google-expands-use-of-the-double-irish/
      http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/silicon-valley-attempts-to-slow-new-global-tax-avoidance-reform-proposals/

      Now you get to join th

      • not just does it reduce the amount of money the government has to spent by taxes, since its dirrectly giving to schools, it starts to assume the role of the government and will be able to dictate policy, such as schools will conform to google's vision to attract funding.

    • Yes, it is cause for celebration.

      It is also cause for celebration because Google will make better decisions about resource allocation than the education bureaucracy. The bureaucrats tend to spend most additional money on increasing administrative staff.

      • Yes, it is cause for celebration.

        It is also cause for celebration because Google will make better decisions about resource allocation than the education bureaucracy. The bureaucrats tend to spend most additional money on increasing administrative staff.

        And all will be puppydogs and unicorns until Google changes CEO's or has a bad year.

        Some times we can take the free market is pure and benevolent vs the evil stupid government thing to a stupid end.. This is one of those times

  • Project A: Project to help anyone learn a certain skill set and better themselves
    Project B: Project to help men transition into primarily female dominated career paths
    Project C: Project to help women transition into primarily male dominated feidls

    Here's how this plays out:

    Project A: gets lots of applications from all walks of life and helps everyone interested until they run out of funding.
    Project B: gets many male applicants, project goes smoothly, a female applicant is denied, then launches a law

  • Non Tax Based?!? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Saturday September 20, 2014 @04:10PM (#47955625) Homepage

    So, is Google's non-tax based public school funding

    They pay billions in profits to an empty office in the Carribbean so they don't have to pay taxes, and give a small portion of that money back through school funding, and take that as a tax deduction.

    In the process, they get enormous influence over the educational agenda. It is largely in a direction Slashdotters can agree with, but imagine it was a church doing this.

    Like Al Capone giving some of his money to the Chicago slums, it may be better than if they weren't doing it, but it hardly gets Google out of the crooked, lobbying megacorp set.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Charity by it's very definition is undemocratic. Ironically made obvious by the name of this very charity "Donors Choose".

      You could very well make the argument that taxes for social programs are just a different spin on the same beast... i.e. "bureaucrats choose", but at least there is an attempt being made there to make it a democratic system.

      Regardless though, taxes are high on the middles class, low on the wealthy, and income disparity is growing. Thus the reality is that both rich people and bureaucra

    • Non Tax Based?!? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yeah, I'd rather that Google paid the taxes that it owes to the US government. That would end up putting more money into the schools than $40K here and $60K there for one-off trips.

      • It may be argued to have a moral duty to pay them, but 'owe' implies a legal obligation. The reality is that corporate lobbyists have created some loop holes that the corporations are legally using to avoid paying what they don't have to pay. However unless you forgo ALL the tax claw backs you are eligible for, it is questionable if you have a right to criticise Google.

        • However unless you forgo ALL the tax claw backs you are eligible for, it is questionable if you have a right to criticise Google.

          Great. Let's answer that question. The answer is yes, yes you do. A person is not the same thing as a corporation. For one thing, a person is real, and a corporation is a legal fiction which was created by government and which does not exist without its protection. Government is meant to serve the citizenry (hahaha) and corporations thus must also serve the citizenry (HAHAHA) or they should not be permitted to exist. Indeed, one of the tests for granting of a corporate charter used to be public interest, bu

          • Because people have the right, under law, to create corporations and benefit from them, they inherit much the same right to act in the interest of those people as those people have. [Yes, this has probably been over-extended in the Supreme Court case that lets them do political donations to their hearts' content]. However the core idea in the organisation of a society is that laws lock in rights and expectations; if I set up an organisation with certain rights, then I have to right to expect to see those ri

            • Specifically if I invest money in a corporation with certain rights, I have the right to expect to see those rights not tampered with.

              Nonsense. Laws are changed all the time. There's no constitutional guarantee to any of those rights, and many of them are based on deliberate misinterpretation of existing laws in any case.

              • In extremis. Of course you are right that laws change all the time, but at some level the constitutional principle has some significance. Certainly whole scale expropriation without compensation of things owned by corporations would be illegitimate. The issue is where to draw the line; the challenge is to resist being totally dogmatic in both directions!

                • Certainly whole scale expropriation without compensation of things owned by corporations would be illegitimate.

                  You mean nationalization? It's legal if you pass a law that says it is.

                  • Expropriation is the theft of a company by the state with no compensation - or as a result of a court order in connection with something else. Nationalisation is the state taking ownership but paying the owners a fair price for the assets. There is obviously a spectrum here; many Asian owned businesses in East Africa in the 60s and 70s were 'nationalised', but the price was paid in government bonds in an non-convertible currency that promptly inflated to zero value.

                    In the Western context, the process of

    • So, is Google's non-tax based public school funding

      They pay billions in profits to an empty office in the Carribbean so they don't have to pay taxes, and give a small portion of that money back through school funding, and take that as a tax deduction.

      In the process, they get enormous influence over the educational agenda. It is largely in a direction Slashdotters can agree with, but imagine it was a church doing this.

      Like Al Capone giving some of his money to the Chicago slums, it may be better than if they weren't doing it, but it hardly gets Google out of the crooked, lobbying megacorp set.

      Google always throws out the bait and then two years later, after everyone has bitten it, pulls in the line. What they do today is for something they plan in two years time. Beware the gods bearing gifts.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dywolf ( 2673597 )

      bingo.
      it's purely a PR move.

      teachers, nay anyone, cannot rely on the beneficent feelings of mega corps or rich donors.

      1) most of them wont get the funding they need. which is why we have taxes to ensure that those things get funded that need it (in theory...idiots who think teachers SHOULD be funded by bake sales not withstanding)

      2) those who do will feel a lot of pressure to...adjust...their curriculum to continue recieving the funding. And as Chief Justice Roberts recently stated, that's "not corruption".

  • Immoral (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This further dilutes the ideal of free public education for all Americans. Rich benefactors are great, but they should not be deciding where the funds are directed.

    We have a real and very visible problem with public education. Google is simply using it to promote their brand.

  • This is a bad thing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by davydagger ( 2566757 ) on Saturday September 20, 2014 @07:43PM (#47956379)
    So basicly good has financial control over public education. Even without making demands, it is now understood that google is a player than you pander to for funding. So Administrators will adjust coursework, perhaps disciplinary actions, etc... not only to cater to what google wants done, but perhaps might even start censoring negtive opinions about google in the classroom.

    Then, it becomes very possible that google can use financial incentives, penalties, and other more "active" measures to ensure compliance with their goals.

    Many of google's goals in the short term seem noble, and I am thankful for this, but its a really bad dangerous trend towards privitization that can take a really nasty turn down the road if it ever takes hold. It also sets precident and opens the door for other companies to do the same.

    What we are going to have in 25 years, is a return to feudalism, where various companies control all matters of public life in various diffrent spaces, and their users will be made to fight against eachother for the sake of the company.

    We see this beginning with Apple vs Google vs Microsoft. They have entire continuums of space where you are expected to use the entire range of company products, and socially identify with the company, and your fellow users.

  • Democratic regression. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by manu0601 ( 2221348 ) on Saturday September 20, 2014 @08:47PM (#47956657)

    First they fight like hell to dodge taxes, then they spend money in public goods in place of taxpayer money.

    The difference is that taxpayer money is spent under democratic control (or at least it should be, your mileage may vary depending on how much your political system is kinked). And Google will probably spend depending on its own interest instead of on the general interest.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nbauman ( 624611 )

      The other problem is that, in addition to spending things that are in their own interest, they can spend things on sheer whim.

      Bill Gates listened to a few glib educational theorists and bought the idea of destroying the public education system and replacing them with private charter schools.

      He and his billionaire friends funded a movement that is wrecking the educational system, and running everything by high-stakes testing that has never been validated and has been proven to be invalid. They're lowering te

  • In a working democracy it would not be (Score:3)

    by Casandro ( 751346 ) on Sunday September 21, 2014 @12:32AM (#47957349)

    In a working democracy the public would be able to decide what to do with the tax money. However since in the US the democratic system is severely broken, it's not surprising parallel systems are starting to come up.

  • All the money mentioned by the OP that was directly spent by Google is about the salary, resource, and insurance costs for ONE veteran software engineer.

    Here's what happened: A handful of directors got together in some enclave of the overgrown dorm-scape that is Google's HQ, and one of them stood up and said "I'm sick of managing coders all day, I wanna fix the educational system instead!"

    And they got a new position created with this very charter, with funding pulled from some other less-protected project,

  • My wife is a teacher and her school has been very successful with DonersChoose. It is kind of amazing actually. The various classrooms have added/upgraded/replaced technology in just about every classroom. The teachers get exactly what they want and it typically takes less than two weeks from the time the teacher writes up the request until the product is in the classroom. The parents this year have already bought new tablets for the class--right at 10 days total time from asking until the devices were

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close