June 29, 2006--Show Me the Evidence
Thus far, understandably, most of the stories about Warren Buffet’s incredible gift of $31 billion to the Gates Foundation have been about that--the immensity and generosity of the gift itself. There have also been some accounts of his reasons for giving away virtually all of his vast personal wealth—what do his children think about that?—and why did he give all that money to the Gates Foundation, after all, with $30 billion of its own assets, and more to come from the founder of Microsoft, why didn’t Buffet establish something in his own name? (See the International Herald Tribune story linked below for some of the flavor of the reporting.)
That too has been a part of the story—the fact that nothing will be named for him. By more than doubling the size of the Gates Foundation, one would have thought he would maybe have asked them to add his name to it, calling it the Gates-Buffet Foundation. Or at least put a plaque up on the wall. Something. But no, he has consistently said—I know how to make money; they know much better than me how to give it away.
I wonder.
The Gates Foundation has dwarfed the second largest, the Ford Foundation, for at least the past five years. Ford’s assets total about $11 billion, to give you a sense of just how large Gates is. In addition to being the largest, Gates has for some time also claimed that it gives away money in a different way than the older, more established foundation. Without naming names, Bill and Melinda Gates, their foundation’s principals and only trustees thus far (Buffet will soon make it a board of just three), have suggested that the other major funders are timid and ideological—they play favorites and have agenda beyond a commitment to solving some of the world’s most daunting problems. Gates is different—we identify problems, AIDS, Malaria, the failed American high school, and look objectively to fund only those who show evidence that they are contributing to the solution to these problems. Gates claims that they will be brutal in the evaluation of the work they fund, in effect their own funding strategies; and if things are not working (and since they will take risks, place “big bets,” in their language, they expect most things they back will fail), they will extract lessons from their failures and move on.
Sounds good; sounds dynamic. So what’s my problem and why am I wondering if Warren Buffet in fact made a wise decision to entrust most all of his assets with them?
I do not know anything about the quality or effectiveness of their global health grantmaking; but do know a good deal about their work with high schools in the U.S. Admittedly, they are low performing, especially in our poorest communities and need substantial reform. I’m with Gates thus far. But in the approach they have taken, and it is in truth a single, silver bullet approach, they have acted more as ideologues than entrepreneurs.
They see the problem to be attributable exclusively to the size of failed high schools, they are too large and impersonal and thus kids get lost in them. They have spent billions to break big ones up into more personal learning communities and to establish, from a blank slate, new, small, in effect, thematic charter secondary schools.
I say their approach has been ideological because, in spite of Gates’ rhetoric that they invest only in things that work, there was no real evidence, before they began funding them, that small high schools do better by low-income students than large ones. Common sense and belief would suggest the opposite; but the evidence is clear and the Gates Foundation folks ignored it.
And what have they found thus far in their own evidence gathering—though school districts can be seduced by the money to go along with the Gates high school ideology, who can turn down Gates’ money after all, on the ground, in the toughest places, there is no clear evidence that the Gates’ approach is working. Yes some of the newly created themed high schools are off to a good start but even with Gates’ vast resources only a relatively few can ever be sustained and they tend to unravel after the initial corps of educators move on.
So, Warren, if I had been you, I would have looked as carefully at the Gates Foundation’s actual record, the way you do when you take over a company, before writing such a large check.
That too has been a part of the story—the fact that nothing will be named for him. By more than doubling the size of the Gates Foundation, one would have thought he would maybe have asked them to add his name to it, calling it the Gates-Buffet Foundation. Or at least put a plaque up on the wall. Something. But no, he has consistently said—I know how to make money; they know much better than me how to give it away.
I wonder.
The Gates Foundation has dwarfed the second largest, the Ford Foundation, for at least the past five years. Ford’s assets total about $11 billion, to give you a sense of just how large Gates is. In addition to being the largest, Gates has for some time also claimed that it gives away money in a different way than the older, more established foundation. Without naming names, Bill and Melinda Gates, their foundation’s principals and only trustees thus far (Buffet will soon make it a board of just three), have suggested that the other major funders are timid and ideological—they play favorites and have agenda beyond a commitment to solving some of the world’s most daunting problems. Gates is different—we identify problems, AIDS, Malaria, the failed American high school, and look objectively to fund only those who show evidence that they are contributing to the solution to these problems. Gates claims that they will be brutal in the evaluation of the work they fund, in effect their own funding strategies; and if things are not working (and since they will take risks, place “big bets,” in their language, they expect most things they back will fail), they will extract lessons from their failures and move on.
Sounds good; sounds dynamic. So what’s my problem and why am I wondering if Warren Buffet in fact made a wise decision to entrust most all of his assets with them?
I do not know anything about the quality or effectiveness of their global health grantmaking; but do know a good deal about their work with high schools in the U.S. Admittedly, they are low performing, especially in our poorest communities and need substantial reform. I’m with Gates thus far. But in the approach they have taken, and it is in truth a single, silver bullet approach, they have acted more as ideologues than entrepreneurs.
They see the problem to be attributable exclusively to the size of failed high schools, they are too large and impersonal and thus kids get lost in them. They have spent billions to break big ones up into more personal learning communities and to establish, from a blank slate, new, small, in effect, thematic charter secondary schools.
I say their approach has been ideological because, in spite of Gates’ rhetoric that they invest only in things that work, there was no real evidence, before they began funding them, that small high schools do better by low-income students than large ones. Common sense and belief would suggest the opposite; but the evidence is clear and the Gates Foundation folks ignored it.
And what have they found thus far in their own evidence gathering—though school districts can be seduced by the money to go along with the Gates high school ideology, who can turn down Gates’ money after all, on the ground, in the toughest places, there is no clear evidence that the Gates’ approach is working. Yes some of the newly created themed high schools are off to a good start but even with Gates’ vast resources only a relatively few can ever be sustained and they tend to unravel after the initial corps of educators move on.
So, Warren, if I had been you, I would have looked as carefully at the Gates Foundation’s actual record, the way you do when you take over a company, before writing such a large check.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
1:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home