Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's High School Opens in PA
Joopndufus writes to mention a CNN article about a Microsoft-planned high school, newly opened in the Philadelphia area. Funded entirely by that city's school system, Microsoft offered its management skills and personnel to design every aspect of the high-tech setting. From the article: "After three years of planning, the Microsoft Corp.-designed 'School of the Future' opened its doors Thursday, a gleaming white modern facility looking out of place amid rows of ramshackle homes in a working-class West Philadelphia neighborhood. The school is being touted as unlike any in the world, with not only a high-tech building -- students have digital lockers and teachers use interactive 'smart boards' -- but also a learning process modeled on Microsoft's management techniques."
that open-source is banned in that school?
"Say, that's a nice school we helped build... wouldn't want any open-source in there, that would mean bad things, and we don't want bad things to happen, right?"
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
$63 million
Supporting 170 students
$370,588 per student right now.
That's a lot of resources thrown at very few students.
I think this will have loots of trolling...
Anyway, hwo much of you really wouldn't want to study at the school which is run by the world's biggest (I think it is) software company, which's products are used on 95% of computers?
Seriously. MS is trying to work in the ideas that made one of the largest most successful companies in the history of business. Sounds like there may be some carryover since making a good company is all about maintaining smart, happy employees. What have you done for education lately, besides complained about it? I applaud their effort, in the face of government and other big orgs who see 'business as usual' a fine mantra as our education system goes straight down the crapper.
Do they have deadlines on assignments?
Zing!
Read the article. The library does not have books. It's all "digital".
That right there would be enough for me to avoid it.
Microsoft is great at MARKETING their products. They do not write great software.
And there is nothing to indicate that they know ANYTHING about education.
I'm not trying to be a troll but with the way Vista has been handled, hasn't MS shown that their management techniques aren't exactly very good?
Exactly what I was thinking. When I read "[Microsoft] didn't pay the $63 million cost -- that was borne by the Philadelphia School District -- but shared its personnel and management skills" in TFA, my reaction was: it would have been better for them to just donate a big stack of cash and keep their 'skills' to themselves. Money is something Microsoft have more than enough of; 'management skills' - doubtful at best.
And even if they did have 'management skills' - they have no idea of how to teach those skills to children. All their experience is with hiring already-skilled adults.
Had I heard "Microsoft donates $1 billion to the Philadelpha public school system", I would have applauded Microsoft for their generosity (despite everything I have against them). But this project just sounds like a bad idea to me.
What you're saying isn't entirely meritless, but
The current school systems are already being pumped cash, but still show horrible results. Especially when compared to private schools.
No, public school children show horrible results compared to private school children. The children of typically wealthy parents that care enough about their child's education to go to the effort of putting them in a private school perform better in school. Public schools could obviously be run better in many cases, but you sure as heck can't do a one-to-one comparison. Although I'm all for a test case, privatizing an existing, poorly-performing public school and forbidding an increase in expulsions (if you're going to do it on a large scale, you can't just send the less-exceptional kds off to public school to pad your "look how great the students that are still here do" numbers) and seeing how well things go. I'd absolutely love to see that data, 'cause I want there to be an easy fix. I just doubt there is one.
Students are rarely taught a solid foundation that they can grasp
Sure they are. They're taught until their teachers are blue in the face. But other than the 10% that are going to grow up to be the important people, the students just generally don't give a damn. You can't teach an interest in learning.
But you're right that Microsoft's stuff won't help much.
Throwing technology at a non-technical problem won't fix it. I like some ideas including more self directed study and the new class times (though I'd worry about traffic if this was done across an entire city). And as much crap as MS will get for this, I don't think they have evil motives at heart.
However, the real problem with schools is the insistence upon including everyone and teaching to the lowest common denominator. The more we can get the high achievers into more advanced programs where they spend time around other high achievers, the better. The entrance requirements for this school shouldn't have been a lottery, but a skills test and teacher recommendations. The best colleges in the country don't use a lottery for admission, and neither should the best schools.
I'm sure there are a long list of other things that could be done. For example, we need ways to find and reward teachers that engage students and truly educate them. I have a hard time remembering the teachers that taught from a book, but the ones that brought in dry ice and had us build model rockets are at the top of my list. The first management technique that MS should have brought to the table was the proper identification of what the problems are and how they can find and implement the best solutions. Sadly, this was more about money and publicity than it was about fixing a problem.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
The children of typically wealthy parents that care enough about their child's education to go to the effort of putting them in a private school perform better in school.
They key phrase there being "parents that care" regardless of what studies show the problem has nothing to do with public vs private schools or teachers not performing the problem is with parents.
All of my cousins (34 or so of them my grandfather couldn't keep his pants zipped) went to big time private schools in NYC, I went to one of the largest and most poorly run public schools in NYS my entire life and I did better than all of my cousins in HS and in college. Why? Because my parents cared about my education just as much as theirs did and my parents desire to see me get the best education possible under the circumstances drove me to succeed as well. In elementary school when other children were watching TV or playing Nintendo during the summers my father handed me an algebra book and had my struggle to teach myself the material with no outside help. In HS when other children were out socializing on weekends my parents drove me to Stonybrook to take college courses (that were free because of some great programs StonyBrook has for underpriviledged kids) and at the time I absolutely hated every single minute of it but thank god my parents cared enough to force me into it. I am not here to boast about what I accomplished despite my past situation I am simply showing you that a parent that shows a high level of commitment to their childrens education will have a child who succeeds regardless of the school they go to.
Which brings me back to the question of why children in private schools perform better than children in public schools, in general? Easy, because the majority of parents who send their children to private schools care about their childrens education. To spend anywhere from 8K to 30K a year on private schools you have to care about your childrens education, despite what a lot of people think many parents of children who go to private schools aren't filthy rich they simply care enough to spend a very large percentage of their salary on their childrens future. Parents are the key to better performance in ALL schools not money, not teachers, not private schools, not microsoft. When there are studies done on children with parents who show equal levels of commitment to their childrens education in private vs pubic schools then I'll start listening.
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
Education in this country is broken, and this is a great attempt by a very successful software company to change the tide. It's sad that the bulk of the replies to this article are coming from MS haters who have nothing more to contribute than stale jokes about reboots, BSOD, etc. Why don't you catch up with reality? I haven't had a BSOD since I started using XP, and I only had BSODs under 2k when caused by lame ass drivers from third party hardware vendors. That is reality, whether you like it or not. Personally, I use FreeBSD on all of my personal machines and run Windows XP on the laptop provided by my employer, so keep that in mind when you come at me with the "he's drinking the MS kool-aid" rhetoric.
You LINUX sheep are so typical in your responses. Why can't you just love your distribution of choice and stop hating MS? There is nothing that MS can do that you can see in any other light than negative (at best) or illegal and malevolent (at worst). For all of your bitching about how horrible MS is, you likely haven't spent near as much time helping your local alma mater better their education processes. Typical armchair quarterbacks.
So, maybe this new antiseptic, all-digital approach isn't right, but who are any of us to sit here and say that it is worse than the status quo for education in this country? Do you have a better idea? I hear some say "just give the money to the school system, we don't need your management style", and I think that is about the most ignorant thing they could do. There is no shortage of money in the education system, though it is disproportionately focused on administration and not on the educators. Pumping more cash into the system will not help one iota, just as throwing money at any situation without a focused plan to use that money, and a way to make those in charge of those disbursements _ACCOUNTABLE_FOR_THE_USE_OF_THE_MONEY_, is a terrible way to manage any process, business, or endeavor in general.
I am excited to see some change in the education system in this country, and if it fails then at least they tried, hopefully learned a lot from the experience, and aren't too discouraged to not try again with an improved approach.
Mike O, KT2T
Ok, you asked for it...
Having taken an interest in school systems and their results, I take exception to the fact that incredible amounts of money is being spent, but that this money is not finding its way into the education. As you say, you may end up with an $800.00 budget for science experiments. Yet a school might invest hundreds of thousand to millions into a new football field or sports equipment.
I don't think it's that simple. I think if we want our kids to have good schools educators, we need that money flowing into their educations. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen as long as extra-curicular activities are seen as more important than the curicular activities.
However, I feel compelled to point out that a large number of high schools teachers manage to do quite well despite the shortfall of funds. Like yourself, the teachers look to pass on as much science and technology as they can. The problem is, if the kids are missing a good elementary education, they tend to take less interest in a higher education.
Which brings us back around to...
Which comes back to what I was saying. You've got a two-fold problem with elementary education:
1. The parents don't care enough about their kids education, and treat it as daycare.
2. The teachers are trained to normalize the children rather than recognize individual achievement and ability, lest the school be accused by the parents of making Johnny feel unimportant or underachieving. Never mind that part of growing up is to learn that you can't be the best at everything, and that each person has their own talents and abilities.
Simply increasing funding will not solve these problems. These are socio-economic issues that go beyond simple greenbacks. The sooner the public is made aware that the problem is elementary (my dear Watson... sorry.
So I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to NOT disagree with you, but just point out that we're in full agreement, but that the situation is complex and fraught with a large number of competing issues.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
No, but, the govt. regulations and bureaucracy imposed on the public versions of schools is what curses them. Political correctness, teachers unions, regulations....and lack of discipline kill all versions of the public model.
In private schools...they can at the very least discipline you, and kick your ass out if you act up.
Perhaps we need to change the public school model some...why not make education a privilige rather than a 'right' in the traditional sense. Maybe a 3 strikes and your out thing? If you can't cut it in regular school, we send you to a vo-tech type school to at least try to train your for a trade....at least till they're 18.
Not everyone has the mentality nor the interest in regular education, but, why not remove those who distract and bring down the 'common denominator' from those students who do have the proclivity to learn.
Not everyone is a rocket scientist....and the world does need its ditch diggers.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Microsoft didn't spend anything, the state payed everything, yet Microsoft get to shape the school how they want it to be.
The state used a really really huge amount of money which is overkill. Yes, lucky students who go there, it probably is a good environment there, but it was way crazy expensive.
The whole infrastructure will be dependent on proprietary Microsoft software that they will have to be dependent on and rely on, and upgrade from time to time and Microsoft will get money.
The kids who goto the school, will be learned proprietary software and will grow up in vendor lock-in. They will be teached that open source is bad. All the programmers will be using Visual Basic and be locked down to only be able to develop software for one operating system. The kids will only be teached a single operating system, namely Windows.
I never could figure out why they make kids get up at the crack of dawn to go to school. You don't have to be a genius to realize people learn better when they're awake.
It's like some kind of holdover from farm days or something.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
>You can't teach an interest in learning.
You don't have to! Watch a kid sometime. No unopened box is safe from them. Their talk is an endless stream of "Why does ___?" and "How does that work?". Ever tried learning a second language? Hard work, right? Kids learn a first language quickly and fluently without anyone coercing them into "language school". They watch every move that adults make and try it out for themselves.
You can stop them from learning, by keeping them so hungry or abused that higher brain functions shut down. You can communicate that some places are not for learning, by turning those places into Lord of the Flies. But fundamentally "interest in learning" is something hardwired into all mammals and especially humans.
> You can't teach an interest in learning.
Excuse me, but IMHO, you most certainly *can*. Teachers rarely can, but that bit isn't up to them, anyway. It's up to the parents.
Children are naturally curious and eager to learn. If you are a parent, you can encourage your child to ask questions, you can answer the questions, you can capture your child's interest, you can teach your child to use its mind. You can do all sorts of stuff to teach your children that learning can be fun and rewarding very early on.
The sad fact, however, is that many parents today don't tend to do that - they'd rather leave their children to be raised mainly by the franchises of the media and big corporation - Disney, Barbie, the X-Box, Britney Spears, you just name it. By the time these parents' children get to school, it's already too late.
(PS: I'm not advocating trying to push your children to success as hard as possible. It's been time and time again before that putting too much pressure on them is very likely to backfire. I'm not about pushing children, I'm on about teaching them to follow their natural curiosity and nurturing their natural instinct for learning.)
Basilisk Digital
And who picks the textbooks the teachers will use? Government.
Yeah. Go read a textbook. Any textbook. Assloads of information, most of it useful, I promise. Some better than others, but almost all good. Hardly any switch to Chinese in the middle, and those ones don't get picked very often, even with the evil, evil government doing the work.
Most of this is done locally rather than at the federal level
The local school board is trying to keep people dumb so they won't question invasions? I think you've landed on Occam's bad side.
But local governments can fubar things just as badly - look at the influence that Texas has over textbooks, or Kansas for example.
A large number of people being stupid does not always indicate a conspiracy. Stupid people are quite capable of creating complex results by acting stupidly alone.
It's hardly an unreasonable stance to suggest that adequate funding for all of the schools is better than underfunding the majority and overfunding a minority.