Microsoft High School

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I thought this (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ptech/09/07/school.of.future.ap/index.html) was a very cool concept and a glimpse into what the future could hold if we could let go of our antiquated approach to how school works. As I read about some of the things being implemented, I couldn't help but wonder why many of these things aren't already being used across the country.

We have all of this marvelous informational technology available to us and yet, we seem to be far more interested in easily accessible high-definition porn than we are in improving the learning environment of our childred. Glad to see Microsoft suggesting a different approach and I'm interested in seeing what the results are.

Just a few of the concepts being tried:

Students -- who are called "learners" -- use smart cards to register attendance, open their digital lockers and track calories they consume. They carry laptops, not books, and the entire campus has wireless Internet access.

Teachers, or "educators," rather than using blackboards, have interactive "smart boards" that allow teachers to zoom in and out, write or draw, and even link to the Internet.

There's no library, but an "interactive learning center" where information is all digital and a "multimedia specialist" will help out students.

Instead of a cafeteria, there's a food court with restaurant-style seating. The performance center -- where two sections rotate close to create a smaller space -- replaces the typical auditorium.

-snip-

Students have scheduled appointments with teachers, typed into their online calendars, instead of being limited to structured times for classes. Their laptops carry software that assesses how quickly they're learning the lesson. If they get it, they'll dive deeper into the subject. If not, they get remedial help.

Lessons will have more incorporation of current events to teach subjects. For instance, a question of whether Philadelphia is safe from the avian flu will teach students about geography, science and history.

"Learning is not just going to school," said Shirley Grover, the school's energetic principal who came from the American School in Milan, Italy. "Learning is equal to life."

In addition, students at the school must apply to college to get a diploma.

[Moonliner]

I saw that article.

Interesting. I'm sure the students will do better than average but I expect it will be more the result of all the extra attention (ie smaller class size) than the technology.

Watch this (40min) clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA) for a very good review of what's wrong with public schools. It's not lack of money or technology.

[RStar]

That sounds cool! :snap:

I've been wondering how technology could change our culture in the future, and this could be one way. But those in the higher up positions in the school disctricts are usually to "Old School" (yes, pun intended:rolleyes: ) to change so dramatically that it will be a long time comming.

[Alex]

The high school I went to tried similar changes (not so much focused on technology but on the self-directed, free-form aspects of it) and put about half the students into the program.

For students with a strong personal drive to learn it was great. For students without one it made it even easier to mask minimal effort and defer what should be done now to what will be done later. My youngest sister made it through two years of high school with just 1.5 credits (as opposed to the 18 she should have had) before just dropping out. The program only lasted three years before parents pretty much stopped allowing their children to participate and it died on the vine.

I'm not saying that is necessarily the case in all such systems but I do start out with a bit of a raised brow. The problem as I see it is that most teenagers don't really have any interest in their education and if they aren't ridden pretty hard would happily sidestep it for all the things that seem more important when you're 15. The people who thrive under this approach tend, in my view, to be people who would have done pretty well anyway under strongly structured systems.

Also, the final sentence of that story highlights something I don't like about how we've come to view K-12. I think all public education should be, at core, vocational and for a lot of people that means it should have a different focus than simply being college preparedness. By forcing everybody into that box I think a lot of people don't see any purpose in what they are doing in high school.

[katiesue]

Also, the final sentence of that story highlights something I don't like about how we've come to view K-12. I think all public education should be, at core, vocational and for a lot of people that means it should have a different focus than simply being college preparedness. By forcing everybody into that box I think a lot of people don't see any purpose in what they are doing in high school.

I totally agree with this. College isn't for everyone. My 10 year old is already tellling me which college she wants to go to, Cambridge is high on her list. I think it sets very un-realistic expectations for a lot of kids causing them to crash and burn later.

Employers aren't helping either. Do you really need a four year degree to be a receptionist? No but at least in LA all the ads required one. I'm an Executive Assistant, all the job listings will say four year degree required and some even want graduate work. Umm for what? Unless college will teach you to make coffee, travel arrangements, be polite on the phone, put up with unreasonable bosses and so on experience is really the key.

There are many careers that pay well but don't require a college education. Specialized training yes, but college no. My cousin puts up sheet rock and makes more than I do.

Other countries have vocational programs instead of college so there are many more options for people. It seems to me here in the US the attitude is if you don't go to college (and you should go to an well known college as well) you're a complete looser.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I wrote out my future school concept when I was in 6th grade. It involved personal computers, logging in and out, being able to work on your own time and alone if you so desire, everything monitored electronically to make sure you were logging your time.

I just really hated teachers and classmates.

I know this concept would work well for certain students but not for others - and I would have been one of the students overjoyed by it. The old classroom environment was not for me.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Oh and BTW - blackboards aren't really used anymore. Nearly all schools got whiteboards long ago.

[Matterhorn Fan]

And I'd rather have the chalk back.

[tracilicious]

I'm not saying that is necessarily the case in all such systems but I do start out with a bit of a raised brow. The problem as I see it is that most teenagers don't really have any interest in their education and if they aren't ridden pretty hard would happily sidestep it for all the things that seem more important when you're 15. The people who thrive under this approach tend, in my view, to be people who would have done pretty well anyway under strongly structured systems.


Then perhaps we should start focusing more on elementary schools, where the desire to learn is first driven out of kids.

I liked that they had a software keeping track of what they are learning. Perhaps this is the first step towards getting rid of ridiculous grades and standardized tests.

I think there are some improvements made with a school like this, but it is far from ideal. They didn't mention anything about arts programs and the like. I wonder if those are included?

[Strangler Lewis]

A pseudo-scientific corporate experiment using poor black people? Oh computers are involved, so it's okay.

And ya gotta love Philly. Usually you hear about companies donating equipment to schools as advertising under color of improving learning, which it doesn't. But Philly's paying $63 million for the privilege. Good thing they didn't spend that money on things like teaching poor kids to read.

[Strangler Lewis]

Employers aren't helping either. Do you really need a four year degree to be a receptionist? No but at least in LA all the ads required one. I'm an Executive Assistant, all the job listings will say four year degree required and some even want graduate work. Umm for what? Unless college will teach you to make coffee, travel arrangements, be polite on the phone, put up with unreasonable bosses and so on experience is really the key.


It seems to me here in the US the attitude is if you don't go to college (and you should go to an well known college as well) you're a complete looser.

I would suspect that "college degree required" in LA is code for "No Mexicans need apply."

I think the only people who think that the working class are losers are people who go to college with a "liberal arts ideal" and come out unable to earn a living--as I did. I remember having a work study job at the career services office at Berkely and watching all the kids line up to interview with, e.g., Big 8 (at the time) accounting firms. Resumes? How did they get those? However, college was a "track," and even after four years of temping and collecting short story rejection slips, I was still able to get into a top 20 (at the time) law school.

I would be very leery if a kid of mine didn't want to go to college unless he had garnered some significant work experience in a trade during high school. Even then, I would probably insist because education is valuable, and you can always decide to do what you want to do later. In high school, there were definitely the smoking area and auto shop types that we felt inhabited a different world from us, but I was never convinced that it was because they were not cut out for academics, college, etc. or simply were not encouraged to try.

[Boss Radio]

If the idea catches on, perhaps the McDonald's corporation will create a similar experiment for rich white kids that offers outdated textbooks, underqualified teachers, am radio, candy and soda vending machines, and substandard cafeteria food.

And they shall call it public school.

[Strangler Lewis]

Believe me, the soft bigotry of low expectations is alive and well in the suburbs.

[tracilicious]

I would be very leery if a kid of mine didn't want to go to college unless he had garnered some significant work experience in a trade during high school. Even then, I would probably insist because education is valuable, and you can always decide to do what you want to do later. In high school, there were definitely the smoking area and auto shop types that we felt inhabited a different world from us, but I was never convinced that it was because they were not cut out for academics, college, etc. or simply were not encouraged to try.


I agree. It's cool with me if my kids want to be artists, or garbage men, or construction workers, or gymnastics coaches, or any number of jobs that don't have a degree. Yet I will still strongly encourage them to go to college. Extra knowledge and education can only benefit you. It will be much easier for them to acquire it early in life, rather than after they are already bogged down with careers.