They have an incentive to appease the elected officers who put them in that position
No, they don’t. They only have an incentive not to screw up so greatly as to get fired. You overestimate the influence that elected officials have over civil servants.
Not terribly strong incentives
More importantly, you can just look at the outcomes. They are… not great.
What incentives does a billionaire without accountably to the users of the school system have?
Legacy.
And if by “users of the school system” you mean the kids or the parents, no one is accountable to them. Their only effective choice of influencing the system is Exit.
No, they don’t. They only have an incentive not to screw up so greatly as to get fired. You overestimate the influence that elected officials have over civil servants.
Why would people hired by Mark Zuckerberg to fix the school system do any better? It’s not like they are making him any money. Their incentive is just to spend the money allocated to them while pretending to be doing something useful. Civil servants have similar incentives, but at least civil servants need to please elected official who in turn answer to the populace, while Zuckerberg’s employees only need to please their employer who answers to no one.
More importantly, you can just look at the outcomes. They are… not great.
As opposed to the outcomes of charity-funded school systems?
And if by “users of the school system” you mean the kids or the parents, no one is accountable to them. Their only effective choice of influencing the system is Exit.
Why would people hired by Mark Zuckerberg to fix the school system be any better
Because he, presumably, would select them by different criteria and because he can fire them much much easier than a politician can fire a union-entrenched educrat.
while Zuckerberg’s employees only need to please their employer
This is precisely what creates an opportunity for him to be effective.
As opposed to the outcomes of charity-funded school systems?
No, they don’t. They only have an incentive not to screw up so greatly as to get fired. You overestimate the influence that elected officials have over civil servants.
More importantly, you can just look at the outcomes. They are… not great.
Legacy.
And if by “users of the school system” you mean the kids or the parents, no one is accountable to them. Their only effective choice of influencing the system is Exit.
Why would people hired by Mark Zuckerberg to fix the school system do any better? It’s not like they are making him any money.
Their incentive is just to spend the money allocated to them while pretending to be doing something useful. Civil servants have similar incentives, but at least civil servants need to please elected official who in turn answer to the populace, while Zuckerberg’s employees only need to please their employer who answers to no one.
As opposed to the outcomes of charity-funded school systems?
Aren’t school boards elective in the US?
Because he, presumably, would select them by different criteria and because he can fire them much much easier than a politician can fire a union-entrenched educrat.
This is precisely what creates an opportunity for him to be effective.
So do tell, what do you think is the problem?