Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook is Equipping K-8 Classrooms With Robot Sets To Boost Tech Diversity

Posted by msmash on from the further-push dept.

Long time reader theodp writes: Facebook last week announced the launch of CodeFWD, "a free online education program created in partnership with [robotic toy maker] Sphero to increase the amount of underrepresented and female students interested in studying computer science." Sphero and CodeFWD are offering a free Sphero BOLT Power Pack (a classroom set of 15 robots valued at $2,499) for a select number of accepted applicants through the program. So, what do you need to begin CodeFWD by Facebook? "No experience necessary. No experience preferred ," explains the website. However, that's not to say CodeFWD is for all. "CodeFWD is intended for educators who are credentialed K-12 teachers or 501(c)(3) non-profit staff members in the United States," the website makes clear, adding that "given the limited supply of robots, we will evaluate the information you've provided and prioritize those applications that help us achieve the goal of expanding access to computer programming opportunities." And Facebook, being Facebook, adds that it wants some data out of the deal: "Please note that Facebook will have access to aggregate, anonymous usage data from Sphero, but will not have access to user-identifiable data collected by Sphero."

34 of 63 comments (clear)

  1. Not sure I like by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not sure I like Facebook having ANY presence in the classroom even if it's trying to help.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Not sure I like by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure I like Facebook having ANY presence in the classroom even if it's trying to help.

      Sure, but it is unfair to blame Facebook for this. They are being pressured to "do something" about diversity, and this is "something".

    2. Re:Not sure I like by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Are they supplying robots with spatula attachments?

      Otherwise, just toys for the boys.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Not sure I like by nwf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure Facebook wants kids from all ages, genders and races to become mindless drones that give away their privacy for precious little in return.

      Soon, we'll be hearing stiff like this, "Teacher, your pupils have not been actively engaging with Facebook sufficiently to ensure timely deliveries of educational supplies. Please encourage your children to not be left behind."

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    4. Re:Not sure I like by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      It's Facebook's money. They can do with it what they want. If you're really concerned that much, take it up at the next share holder meeting if you own any stock. If you don't, why do you care what they do with their money?

    5. Re:Not sure I like by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure I like Facebook having ANY presence in the classroom even if it's trying to help.

      The Cambridge Analytica/Facebook conglomerate knows you have to get their data early and often.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Not sure I like by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It's Facebook's money. They can do with it what they want.

      So you are saying that school boards have no say in this?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re: Not sure I like by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      School boards are filled with people who have too much time on their hands. That typically means religious folk trying to shove more Jesus into the lessons or the new religious sort trying to shove more wokeness into lessons.

      And if Facebook is serious about targeting poorer communities, I doubt the school boards will complain about the extra opportunity whether it is truly beneficial or not.

    8. Re:Not sure I like by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      They are trying to make coding more fun, so more people will participate. Only one problem with that, what happens when they go to work, get shoved in a cubicle and code all day every day and not a toy robot to play with in kilometres.

      So diversity, stop people doing what they are naturally inclined to do as a result of genetics and get other people to do it regardless of their lack of inclination.

      So generally force people into careers they will hate, why because the people doing the forcing are a pack of control freak cunts, seems the most reasonable answer. You know the kind, you remember them from school, they knew how to do everything better than everyone else but when they actually tried to do it, they routinely failed but they never ever slowed them down from telling everyone how to do it properly.

      They seem to be pandering to them for political purposes. For all the world it seems they want males to vote Republican and females to vote democrat and keep the vote divide, whilst they run their corrupt cons.

      If you enjoy coding it is fun and if you do not, it is as fucking boring as fuck. Trying to make it fun when teaching it, will not make it one iota more fun when it becomes a job. Teaching should reflect the job, so children do not make poor career choices, you fucking morons, else you create unhappy poorly performing workers who must retrain.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re: Not sure I like by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      School boards are filled with people who have too much time on their hands. That typically means religious folk trying to shove more Jesus into the lessons or the new religious sort trying to shove more wokeness into lessons. And if Facebook is serious about targeting poorer communities, I doubt the school boards will complain about the extra opportunity whether it is truly beneficial or not.

      Knowing what I know about facebook, letting them around your children is about as safe as letting Jerry Sandusky babysit yout 10 year old son. Not for the same reason, but just imagine what Disney would pay for children's data.

      I'd pull my kid and put him in a different school.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re: Not sure I like by houghi · · Score: 1

      Replace gacebook with company and I agree. If you day "... but the state ..." it means you think the democratic process in your country does not work.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    11. Re:Not sure I like by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You know the kind, you remember them from school, they knew how to do everything better than everyone else but when they actually tried to do it, they routinely failed but they never ever slowed them down from telling everyone how to do it properly.

      At my school, we called them "teacher".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Men need to take the hint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Delete your Facebook accounts. Facebook doesn't want your kind.

  3. Holy hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would be happy if I could live the rest of my life and never hear or read the word "diversity" ever again.

    1. Re:Holy hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      perpetual victim detected

    2. Re:Holy hell by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I once worked for a very well-intentioned liberal white man who once gleefully toted up all the minorities he had hired; I was his Asian. The thing was, except for me every one there came out of the same graduate school program he founded, and I think every last one of them, even his black females, had wealthy lawyers as parents; his latino's father was some kind of government minister in Mexico. I was the only one there with a working class, inner city background, and believe me, I felt it. Certainly having him identify me as a his token Asian didn't make me feel valued, as an Asian or anything else.

      Actually diversity *is* valuable to organizations as a counterpoint to another thing organizations need: cohesion. Cohesion without diversity equals group think; it leads to blind spots. That's how you get some outrageously tone-deaf PR campaigns, like Nivea's "White is Purity" campaign, or Pepsi's infamous Kendall Jenner campaign.

      Now my coworkers at this place were smart, cultured, and genuinely good people, but they were just *outrageously* condescending, and they couldn't see it because they were constantly reinforcing their own shared world views. Now I'm very liberal myself, but when some wealthy white woman talks about "privilege" it can set my teeth on edge. I understand the point she's trying to make, and it's not that she's wrong, but that's just a horribly tone deaf piece of jargon. Can you imagine how that sounds to a middle aged man who just lost his job at the mill? Lack of economic diversity means you can use that kind of jargon and never see the downside, like Nivea's "White is Purity" campaign.

      I think my take away from that job is that a spot check of skin color, gender, and ethnicity can tell you if you *lack* diversity. But it can't tell you that you *have* diversity. The whole point of diversity in an organization is to provide situational awareness and flexibility in thinking.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Holy hell by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      I think my take away from that job is that a spot check of skin color, gender, and ethnicity can tell you if you *lack* diversity.

      I suppose it can if you think diversity is skin deep. However, I don't believe that your assumption is true.

      The same group that insists that women are no different than men can't also argue that a lack of women would indicate a lack of diversity. If women are truly no different than men, why would you ever need any women (or for that matter men if you want to look at it from the other side) to be diverse since they are no different from men.

      Diversity is only valuable to an organization when it moves past those superficial aspects. Even though I do believe that biological differences in men and women make certain tendencies in values, etc. more likely, I don't feel as though there's any human trait that is the exclusive property of one sex, one ethnicity, etc. The reality of the world might make it less likely for you find certain groups as represented as they might otherwise be due to sociological conditions (e.g. a lower rate of Latino students studying computer science due to that demographic being less well off and less likely to be able to afford early access to computers during the formative years of those students) or other external factors. What might make a person diverse in an organization is not inherent to their sex, skin color, or culture.

      That non superficial diversity is hard to find, which I think is the reason that so many people stop at the skin, and trying to focus on that too intently is only going to create problems. It's much like the dog breeders who bred their animals to enhance certain characteristics while failing to pay attention to the overall effects. Their dogs might have the preferred ear shape or style of tail, but they also unknowingly selected for dogs with deformed skeletal systems or greater propensity for various health maladies.

      A spot check of skin color, gender, etc. might allow you to assign a higher probability to whether or not you lack diversity, but it can't tell you that for certain. As society progresses and more people are lifted out of poverty and as the world's cultures collide and meld, I think it eventually becomes useless as the various correlations (the stereotypes) dissipate and become small to non-existent. If we are all to truly become equal, then those physical traits are just spurious markers. Insistence that those things matter is just heading down the wrong path.

    4. Re:Holy hell by hey! · · Score: 1

      As long as skin color is important to society, then skin color is going to be one genuine axis of diversity, among many.

      Race is scientifically speaking bullshit, but that doesn't mean that the race you're perceived to have makes no difference in your life.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  4. Not necessarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm picturing something more like this:

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/update-kindergarten-teacher-denies-legos-to-boys-in-name-of-gender-equity

  5. Is it underreprented or female or both? by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    I only read the summary.

    Because it should be an OR, unless bookface wants to glean data from both and doesn't care about non-female underrepresented students.

    Also, what does underrepresented actually mean? Amish kids?

  6. FWD? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    For World Domination?

    Yup, that's Facebook alright.

  7. Re:What the fuck is this bullshit? by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    The cynic (or maybe the realist) in me just assumes that they drive page views (and therefore advertising) as opposed to anything more sinister. The social justice agenda doesn't go down terribly well around here and these articles seems unlikely to win anyone over. I think it just comes down the fact that anyone can have an opinion on political issues, and will argue in the comments endless, whereas if you run a story about some niche technology, there are fewer people with the knowledge or expertise to comment.

  8. Re:Is it underreprented or female or both? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Also, what does underrepresented actually mean?

    It means under represented in tech compared to their presence in the general population.

    So anything except a white or Asian male.

    Black, Hispanic, Native American, or female of any race is under represented.

    I spent several years working in after school programs for robots, coding, and GATE (Gifted And Talented Education). I can see some sense in "girl-only" instruction, since boys can get overly enthusiastic about tech, so the girls often pull back and just sit and watch. But this can be addressed by allowing girls to self-segregate into girl-only workgroups.

    For race it make NO SENSE. Black kids do better when intermixed, and kids learn a lot from their peers.

  9. Meanwhile in Appalachia... by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some poor little white boy, who lives with his methhead parents in a run-down trailer with no running water, is asking his teacher if he can have a robot too.

    "Sorry kid. These are just for the under-privileged."

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Meanwhile in Appalachia... by Dusanyu · · Score: 1

      Some poor little white boy, who lives with his methhead parents in a run-down trailer with no running water, is asking his teacher if he can have a robot too.

      "Sorry kid. These are just for the under-privileged."

      Funny thing is if a teacher is even close to worth there salt they will let any student have access to said robot, not to mention the legal ramifications if this were to be challenged in court under "Equal access to education" "Over represented" or "underrepresented" who gives a .... thee interests of any child should be fostered. Funny how people who scream about racism and sexism are the first to apply it, than try to change the definition of the word.

    2. Re:Meanwhile in Appalachia... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      ...then he forces that robot onto some hapless girl who doesn't give a shit about it and could well become the next Nobel prize laureate in medicine because that's what she'd actually be interested in, but she MUST be pushed into STEM.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Meanwhile in Appalachia... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Maybe you want to look up the meaning of the word "including" before making assumptions like that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. Let's get real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What Facebook really means is they want to make sure that the robots don't help any white boys. Not unless they can prove their gay that is. People fail to see how this is itself blatantly sexist and racist. How about we focus on things that aren't identity politics?

  11. Re:Is it underreprented or female or both? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Also, what does underrepresented actually mean?

    It means under represented in tech compared to their presence in the general population.

    So anything except a white or Asian male.

    Black, Hispanic, Native American, or female of any race is under represented.

    I spent several years working in after school programs for robots, coding, and GATE (Gifted And Talented Education). I can see some sense in "girl-only" instruction, since boys can get overly enthusiastic about tech, so the girls often pull back and just sit and watch. But this can be addressed by allowing girls to self-segregate into girl-only workgroups.

    For race it make NO SENSE. Black kids do better when intermixed, and kids learn a lot from their peers.

    What about Black girls only classes, or transgender only.

    Gender apartheid is rapidly becomeing a liberal touchstone.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  12. Good, I suppose... by Stolovaya · · Score: 1

    I don't really understand how this specifically will target girls and other underrepresenteds? Will white boys not be able to use these? I wouldn't imagine so. It seems like the target should probably be class rather than race or gender. While I give FB kudos for helping spread technology skills around the youth, it feels like they're using race and gender as the "look what we're doing!" since that seems to generate more emotion than poor people.

    So...sure, cool on them for doing this, but the wording is cringey, and it feels like the bragging about something that they're only doing tangentially.

  13. Re:Is it underreprented or female or both? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    Also, what does underrepresented actually mean?

    It means under represented in tech compared to their presence in the general population.

    So anything except a white or Asian male.

    Black, Hispanic, Native American, or female of any race is under represented.

    I spent several years working in after school programs for robots, coding, and GATE (Gifted And Talented Education). I can see some sense in "girl-only" instruction, since boys can get overly enthusiastic about tech, so the girls often pull back and just sit and watch. But this can be addressed by allowing girls to self-segregate into girl-only workgroups.

    For race it make NO SENSE. Black kids do better when intermixed, and kids learn a lot from their peers.

    What about Black girls only classes, or transgender only.

    Gender apartheid is rapidly becomeing a liberal touchstone.

    Asking questions is not flame bait slash dotters. Asking questions is looking for answers.

    And modding my post flamebait is merely showing that you know that you don't want to answer the question. Why not?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  14. Re:What the fuck is this bullshit? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    What? SJW and climate stories get more eyeballs than some lame, on-topic, tech-related story.

    The editors know who their masters are and sing their songs, the system works.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. huh by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    "No experience necessary. No experience preferred ,"

    So, you're an adult, you have the resources and culture to be a certified teacher, you have an aptitude and interest for tech, but you have NO tech experience? Really?

    This is really code for saying we'd prefer you have no aptitude for this. Bizarre.

    "First, we have to make sure you have no aptitude for this."

    Oh brave new world, that has such people in it!

  16. Re:Is it underreprented or female or both? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Asking questions is not flame bait ... modding my post flamebait is merely showing that you know that you don't want to answer the question.

    Given that your "question" in response to the statement: "I can see some sense in "girl-only" instruction ... For race it make NO SENSE" ran "[w]hat about Black (sic) girls only classes ..." what would you prefer the reasonable reader take away? That your reading comprehension or reasoning ability is impaired, or that your "question" was never meant honestly to engage with the previous comment (and therefore demanded no answer)?

    Personally, I would rather be taken to be flaming than to pose publicly as being intellectually challenged. YMMV.

    More questions you ask? Why sure! Uncle Olsoc loves that you ask!

    The question of utmost importance is to ask : Is the goal to have all (career X) to represent the racial and sexual and gender characteristics of society at large?

    Now if the answer is yes, then you must ask "How do I bring this about? If it is decided that girls are intimidated by males and will ofherwise drop out of a career that they had a passion to go into, then yes - you must have girls only classes where they are not discouraged by males. Inclusivity and gender ratio demand it

    Now we might get into why other underrepresented groups are avoiding these careers. If girls only classes succeed in the needed 50.8 to 49.2 distributinon of female to male that is deemed critical to success, then you must ask - can this segregation of women from men help to increase the number of women of dark pigmentation? If so, why would you not have classes that exclude others?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.