Charity with a Difference

David Leiner and Claudia Barbosa, the founders and visionaries behind Starfish School have a unique view on what charity is and should be. It even borders on being slightly controversial, but when you think about it, its starts to make a lot of sense.

The best way to explain their view is to extend the Starfish metaphor slightly (see home page if you haven’t read about the Starfish story yet).

If there are thousands of starfish washed on the beach and you throw as many as you can a little way back into the ocean, what will happen? In all likeliness with such a small gesture they will get washed back onto the beach with the next wave. Sadly you achieved very little despite your best efforts and intentions. But what if you took less starfish and you flung them a long way into the ocean. Now you have achieved something! Now you have made a difference, you’ve given a real chance to those ones.

Why is this controversial? Well it ultimately means that with a finite amount of resource you end up helping fewer, but you do so to the best of your ability. Sadly that means you cannot help everyone. But even in its original form, the starfish story teaches us that as individuals we cannot help everyone. However if other people copy our actions, then of course its a different story. Then enormous change can be made worldwide – this is the extension of the starfish metaphor.

How do David and Claudia implement this vision within their school? Simple. They take kids in at the age of 3 and they educate them all the way to the point where they could start university if they wish. They do not provide one year of quality education only to return them to the usual chaos – that would achieve little. Once they are in, these kids are looked after, nurtured and given a quality education in a safe and stable environment. It’s a grand vision and it seems to be working. Taking kids at 3 and educating them all the way through is the total parallel of taking less starfish and throwing them much further into the ocean. The intention being that these kids will really have a chance to break the cycle.

In fact David is quite vocal about how some other charities function. In his eyes, some large charities sadly propagate the status quo, despite their objective to help. They provide a bare minimum education or level of assistance to the point where the people they help can in many cases obtain a menial or simple job. According to David, “…These people then survive to the point where they can breed, and the cycle repeats”. Nothing will change. In short, they threw many starfish a few feet into the ocean. I realise this is in some ways quite radical thinking, but I think it’s certainly worth pondering over. I personally can think of aid organisations and programs that do in some ways seem like they will be there forever – I start to wonder what these organisations are really doing to address the problem. It’s a complex issue that touches on morality, humanity, ethics and survival.

David calls this state of affairs “Subsistence Charity”.

David even goes one step further – he believes Charity and Aid organisations should exist to the extent of fixing a problem. Once that problem is fixed, the aid or charity is no longer needed. This may have a utopian flavour to it, but it also has sound logic behind it. Aid agencies that don’t really solve problems will be asking for donations and funding essentially forever. Surely charities have a responsibility to try and break the cycle and implement change? How far into the ocean does the average aid organisation throw starfish back into the sea? Some obviously do a good job, but I think David is right there are others whose motives are possibly misguided. That is certainly an issue I had never really contemplated before. But seeing how the Starfish School functions I see a much brighter chance of hope if this model can be replicated.

So, if Starfish School helps relatively few, how can it possibly help to break the cycle? And what about all the other starfish on the beach? As always, David and Claudia have thought this through. Their answer is two-fold. Firstly they wish to grow the current school from its size of 150 to around 500. The main reason is that at that size they will then be taken seriously by other schools around Brazil and by Brazilian educators and government bodies. At the moment, despite the amazing achievements, the school is seen as something of a “project school” from the outside, i.e. “interesting idea but it only works because it’s so small“. If it could reach 500 and be successful, then others would take notice that it was a school which could be followed or replicated. Template schools could then appear around the country using a similar approach. In that way, the reach of the starfish philosophy can be wide even though on the surface it appears to be helping only a small number.

The second way is more subtle but equally important – it’s the multiplier effect. Because Starfish school has many fantastic human values programs, and instills in these kids a sense of charity and social responsibility (like nothing I had in my “quality” education I might add), the hope is that if these kids become doctors or have other positions of responsibility in society, they will continue to embody the values they have learned; maybe they will offer 1/2 a day a week treating poor people for free, or offering something back to their local community. I believe this is a very important attitude to instill into children, and its a further illustration of how little step by little step, the cycle can be broken and one day these communities can be self-sufficient, with a well defined sense of charity and giving.

So, in these two ways, David and Claudia’s vision to ultimately help all children can be achieved. It’s a long road and requires enormous commitment and dedication, but is the alternative to turn our back on the beach saying “This problem is too big, I can do nothing”. Perhaps that attitude explains many of the problems we have in the world today.