Slashdot Mirror


Harvard: Prospective CS50 AP Teachers Must cc:Microsoft On Training Applications

theodp writes: Did you know that Microsoft has supported Harvard in creating a new version [of its wildly-popular CS50 course] called CS50 AP, designed specifically for secondary school educators?" asks a Microsoft Born to Learn Blog post. "If you might like to teach CS50 AP (and, in turn, AP CS Principles) in your own classroom this year," Harvard informs prospective teachers, "you are cordially invited to join us at one of our teacher training workshops to be held in various locations around the country and the world!" But before applications can be successfully submitted, teachers are required to respond to the following statement, and Harvard won't take 'No' for an answer: "Our friends at Microsoft are helping us distribute the teacher support materials for this version of CS50 for secondary school teachers and students. By checking the box below, you acknowledge that we may share the data you submitted through this form with them as part of this planning process." Microsoft is certainly calling the K-12 CS education shots these days — heck, the White House even let Microsoft President Brad Smith brief reporters about plans to spend $4B in tax dollars on a new CS for All K-12 initiative before the President told taxpayers about it. By the way, the CS50 AP Wiki contains a CS50x/CS50 AP Authorization and Release form which, among other things, requires camera-shy CS50 AP students to agree to "sit in a 'no-film' zone" if they do not want photos or videos of themselves used by Harvard to promote the Microsoft-supported course." From the agreement: "I understand that my teacher will take reasonable steps, with my cooperation, to avoid including identifiable images of me in the Recordings. I understand that I am free to opt out of the Recordings in this way, and that doing so will not affect my grade or my ability to participate in course activities. Unless I opt out of the Recordings as described above and take the steps that will be outlined by the instructor to avoid being filmed, I authorize Harvard and its designees to use the Recordings. I understand and agree that the Recordings may include my image, name, and voice. I also understand and agree that, even if I opt out of the Recordings, my spoken name and voice may be picked up by microphones outside any "no-film" zone and may be included in the Recordings.

2 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. Why are we tolerating this? by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Would people be okay with the idea of Exxon helping to design AP Environmental Science curriculum? Should criminal justice coursework be overseen by Smith and Wesson? Corporate sponsors don't belong in these roles but for some reason everyone throws caution to the wind when they hear "computer."

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:Why are we tolerating this? by Zak3056 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Would people be okay with the idea of Exxon helping to design AP Environmental Science curriculum?

      No, because they have a vested interest obfuscating the issue, and a history of doing so in the past. Designing a curriculum in geology, or mineral extraction? Why not, they probably have quite a bit to offer, here.

      Should criminal justice coursework be overseen by Smith and Wesson?

      No, because they're a manufacturer of precision machined products, and have no core competency in law. I'm sure, though,they their engineers and machinists would do a hell of a job in educating those on the vo/tech side of the high school educational path.

      Should Microsoft be able to contribute to CSCI educational coursework? (I'm putting words in your mouth, for the sake of argument)

      Yes, yes, they should. Apple, Google, Cisco, HP or whatever they're calling themselves these days, etc, yes, they can absolutely play an important role, here.

      Corporate sponsors don't belong in these roles

      Now we come to the crux of the issue. Despite my statements above, the idea that Microsoft should be interesting themselves in the AP process to the point where they must be included on all correspondence is absolutely ridiculous and should NOT be allowed. "Giving back" by devoting some of the talent an experience these companies have at their disposal? Yes, absolutely. Being part of the "process?" Fuck no.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?