Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday June 29 2018, @12:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the what's-next? dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

In a corner of SpaceX's headquarters in Hawthorne, California, a small, secretive group called Ad Astra is hard at work. These are not the company's usual rocket scientists. At the direction of Elon Musk, they are tackling ambitious projects involving flamethrowers, robots, nuclear politics, and defeating evil AIs.

Those at Ad Astra still find time for a quick game of dodgeball at lunch, however, because the average age within this group is just 10 years old.

Ad Astra encompasses students, not employees. For the past four years, this experimental non-profit school has been quietly educating Musk's sons, the children of select SpaceX employees, and a few high-achievers from nearby Los Angeles. It started back in 2014, when Musk pulled his five young sons out of one of Los Angeles' most prestigious private schools for gifted children. Hiring one of his sons' teachers, the CEO founded Ad Astra to "exceed traditional school metrics on all relevant subject matter through unique project-based learning experiences," according to a previously unreported document filed with the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

"I just didn't see that the regular schools were doing the things that I thought should be done," he told a Chinese TV station in 2015. "So I thought, well let's see what we can do. Maybe creating a school will be better."

In an atmosphere closer to a venture capital incubator than a traditional school, today's Ad Astra students undertake challenging technical projects, trade using their own currency, and can opt out of subjects they don't enjoy. Children from 7 to 14 years old work together in teams, with few formal assessments and no grades handed out.

Ad Astra's principal hopes that the school will revolutionize education in the same way Tesla has disrupted transportation, and SpaceX the rocket industry. But as Musk's sons near graduation age, the future of Ad Astra is unclear. Will Musk maintain interest in the school once his children move on? And even if he does, can a school of fewer than 40 students ever be anything more than a high-tech crèche for already-privileged children?

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29 2018, @02:47PM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29 2018, @02:47PM (#700238)

    ... When will this morph into the children of your elite ruling class masters have their own education that prepares them to take over the dynasty and be your lords and masters of the next generation, while meanwhile your kids who are consigned to the public school system will be destined to flip burgers or dig ditches for life.

    If we're not there already.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29 2018, @03:20PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29 2018, @03:20PM (#700250)

    while meanwhile your kids who are consigned to the public school system will be destined to flip burgers or dig ditches

    I was literally standing next to my grade school principal as three groups of parents were screaming they were going to sue him for not letting their kids graduate because the kid had flunked the 8th grade, couldn't read, multiply 3 numbers, know the state capital or who was vice president of the US. Parents got what they wanted, kids graduated now the high school's problem. That was 1982 and is one of the clearest and most vivid memories I have. Sleep in the bed you make.

    • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday June 29 2018, @10:39PM (1 child)

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday June 29 2018, @10:39PM (#700421) Homepage Journal

      I love the poorly educated!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 30 2018, @01:50AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 30 2018, @01:50AM (#700491)

        So do many parents. Or more accurately, love their kids independent of their education while holding the belief that an education = a piece if paper that says you are educated.

        It is a cargo cult worship of education rater than a true understanding of being educated.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29 2018, @03:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29 2018, @03:26PM (#700253)

    We've been there for centuries now in the US. Most of the early schools were for that purpose. It's just that there were more recent time periods where it wasn't as big of a difference.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday June 29 2018, @04:42PM (9 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday June 29 2018, @04:42PM (#700279) Journal

    ... When will this morph into the children of your elite ruling class masters have their own education that prepares them to take over the dynasty and be your lords and masters of the next generation, while meanwhile your kids who are consigned to the public school system will be destined to flip burgers or dig ditches for life.

    Umm... that was a lot of the impulse behind the founding of the widespread compulsory American public school system -- i.e., to create docile workers with standard skills. Yes, there were public schools around for the first century or so of the U.S., and many of them had a more egalitarian purpose. But the drive for compulsory public schooling (which began in the late 19th century) was definitely related in part to factory bosses complaining about uneducated workers without basic skills. Thus, you saw the factory model begin to take over various aspects of public schools in the late 1800s and early 1900s -- authoritarian, hierarchical systems in larger schools (rather than the "one-room school" model with a single teacher), bells to signal the beginning and end of work on a particular subject (something directly borrowed from factories, trying to indoctrinate young kids into the practice so they'd respond appropriately to signals, rather than showing actual investment or creativity in giving a task the amount of time it needs for learning), the introduction of standardized testing for basic skills, etc., etc. The goal was to produce workers with just enough basic skills (like reading and basic math); creativity and individual initiative was mostly only encouraged when it furthered the school or class. Classes were standardized. Students were broken up into very regimented groups based on age, rather than ability -- the arbitrariness in some ways was part of the design of the system, which was about socializing kids into the idea that they had to follow specific tasks in specific order, and their individual interests didn't matter.

    Eventually, the high school movement in the early 1900s was about getting dangerous "radical" teenagers off the streets and to "train" them to be obedient workers. I don't mean to exaggerate: there were plenty of reformers with other more positive goals too. But there were many "darker" agendas behind the idea of first forcing kids into public schools at the primary level and then expanding their time in factory-like school environments. (Note that it's not a coincidence that the high-school movement really took off just around the time that child labor laws became more restrictive and more protective of young people. So if you could no longer make that 14-year-old work long hours, you had better put him somewhere to keep training him for his expected career as an obedient worker. If he doesn't want to go... force him.)

    Meanwhile, thoughout this period, you see a different model for the rich and wealthy. The late 1800s saw the divergence of the so-called "academy" model and the "high-school" model. You'll note that many old private schools (which still send a disproportionate number of kids to the Ivy League, etc.) still maintain that term "academy" in their name. The "academies" trained their students in what they needed to become the leaders of the next generation, while the "high schools" were expanded to keep the blue-collar riff-raff off the streets until they could join the factory workforce.

    This has basically been the model for a long time now. (And there's more to the story -- about tertiary education, the mixed effects of the GI bill, etc., etc.) But we basically have a system where the elite send their kids to schools that feed into the best colleges. And only the truly talented and brightest students with their own initiative that isn't beaten down by boredom in public schools will break out of that system.

    Again, I don't want to exaggerate. The militant homeschooling fans and the "unschooling" movement will claim this is the WHOLE story, which is NOT true. There were plenty of reformers with positive agendas who really wanted to improve education too. Unfortunately, some of the "factory-like" elements became preserved and still exist to a large degree in public schools.

    (Note: I say all of this as an educator who attended to public school and has taught in both public and private schools.)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29 2018, @05:05PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29 2018, @05:05PM (#700282)

      This is true.

      The factory aspect has been an issue ever since the 19th century when increasing numbers of students made it hard to maintain the previous methods of education. It periodically gets worse for varying reasons, sometimes it's just the massive influx of students and other times it's trying to keep the costs down so that the rich don't have to pay taxes.

      But, there's also the issue of standards. There are thousands of colleges and far more middle and high schools that all have to be able to deal with transfers. There's going to be a certain degree of factory education going on in order to keep the system from imploding.

      The best practices are the ones that allow teachers to still individualize things a bit, without screwing the students over if they have to transfer between schools or districts.

      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday June 29 2018, @06:57PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday June 29 2018, @06:57PM (#700313) Journal

        But, there's also the issue of standards. There are thousands of colleges and far more middle and high schools that all have to be able to deal with transfers. There's going to be a certain degree of factory education going on in order to keep the system from imploding.

        Begging the question. (Or, for those unfamiliar with the tradition use, circular reasoning.) We have a factory system that functions within standards, therefore we need standards to be similar enough between schools to allow transfers. If we don't have factory education to begin with (with its sometimes arbitrary sequences and sets of standards), because we prioritize the education of individuals, this becomes a non-problem.

        I assume the counterclaim would be, "But, but -- too many students! We'd need an army of educators!" No, that's really not quite the problem. I've personally seen Montessori style elementary and preschools that don't have a ridiculously high teacher:student ratio and still manage to prioritize individual education and do it effectively. Yes, you might need to increase staff a bit over a typical public elementary to do it well. But part of the problem is the stereotypical authoritarian presentation in most classrooms, where everything is teacher-directed and students are mostly passive learners.

        I've seen a Montessori preschool classroom with 25 kids, 1 main teacher, and 1 assistant -- and most of these kids (3, 4, and 5 year olds) were doing individual activities, working independently or in small groups, all respecting each other's space... it was AMAZING. I wouldn't think such a thing would be possible with such small children until I saw it.

        Guess what happens when you take kids raised in that environment of personal responsibility for their own learning and put them in an elementary school that's organized with similar principles? They have already learned independence. They get periodic guidance from teachers, but they're much more capable than the typical kid for independent work. So you don't need as many extra teachers anymore, once the kids know the system. I've visited an elementary school that did this similarly. You also see kids take on learner/teacher roles with peers regularly, thereby freeing up the teacher to help the kids who truly need guidance at that moment. (This sort of thing used to take place back in the one-room schoolrooms of yore, too.)

        I'm not saying Montessori methods in particular are perfect -- they're a little too structured for my taste (particularly among the zealous adherents). But the general concept of fostering independence can work with a lot of kids. Yes, there are some kids who don't adapt well to such situations, though peer pressure from kids who already "get to know the system" usually helps to keep most in line. (There is still plenty of "structure," but mostly around basic rules that allow everyone to work well independently and respect each other, rather than designed around keeping all at the same pace studying the same stuff.) Those few who don't function well in such an environment can go into a more traditional model class.

        Anyhow, once you have that in place, transfers are expected to have slightly different skillsets. Teachers have to take a little time to discover each student's level and knowledge (though good teachers in such programs often take copious notes, which they can pass on if helpful).

        Also, I should say -- the elementary school I visited was a public school. It was required to take state standardized tests, and the students overall did exceptionally well on them, despite the lack of "teaching to the test."

        The hardest part of such things is finding and training teachers to do this well. It gets even harder at the secondary level. Right now, particularly for secondary educators in STEM fields, the majority of people who go into teaching are the absolute worst people in their fields... because the more talented can earn a more money doing other things with a STEM degree compared to teaching.

        Secondary school is also a bit harder because of the specializations of individual classes and teachers in the traditional system. Unless you have polymath educators who can be flexible with subject matter (probably not reasonable), there has to be some greater division and specialization. Still, the problems aren't insurmountable, and there are plenty of ways to achieve a minimal level of "standard knowledge" but also allow greater individualization and in-depth exploration at higher levels.

        Yes, it might require paying teachers more and finding more teachers (or at least classroom assistants to help manage). But probably nowhere near Elon Musk levels of investment.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 29 2018, @05:27PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 29 2018, @05:27PM (#700288)

      if you could no longer make that 14-year-old work long hours, you had better put him somewhere to keep training him for his expected career as an obedient worker. If he doesn't want to go... force him.

      And even if the 14yo is a worthless lout, you at least need to keep them out of trouble while their parents are working.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Friday June 29 2018, @07:23PM (5 children)

      by suburbanitemediocrity (6844) on Friday June 29 2018, @07:23PM (#700320)

      I attended a school for the rich and wealthy (on scholarship, I was "poor"). The educational model was not different from the public schools that I attended other than the rigor and discipline expected.

      People from grade school that I knew graduated from high school without having to read a single book whereas I was required to read a novel a week and write a paper on it. By junior year we were reading many of the ancient greek plays in English class while simultaneously Democracy in America and The Federalist and The Anti-Federalist Papers for history class. I saw what kids were doing at the same time in public schools and it was a fucking joke. And the school was very anti-PC.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29 2018, @07:58PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29 2018, @07:58PM (#700329)

        The interesting question is, on average, how do you and your school peers compare to the ones that went through public education? Did all that rigor and paper writing make significant differences between the two, or does it all just work towards regression to the mean like many other things do?

        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday June 29 2018, @10:02PM

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday June 29 2018, @10:02PM (#700395) Journal

          Did all that rigor and paper writing make significant differences between the two, or does it all just work towards regression to the mean like many other things do?

          I'll just note my experience as a teacher in both public and private schools. (I should also mention I taught for one year in a high school that was mostly minority in a community that had a lot of social problems and low expectations for students. I also taught in one of the best public high schools in the region I lived at during that time, before moving to an elite private school.)

          I can't say for certain what happened to those kids 10+ years after they graduated, but the difference was astounding in their cognitive abilities in high school. Even the "low achievers" at the elite private school were creative and thoughtful. And they were rewarded in their college applications for it -- roughly 30% of the graduating class went to Ivies and other top elite colleges (MIT, Stanford, Chicago, etc.). In comparison, in my public high school over the 6 years I know of stats for, something like 0.2% went to such elite colleges. Granted, the elite private school only admitted ~25% of students who applied there, so they were selective to begin with. Still -- both my subjective impression of the students and where they ended up after high school is that there's a pretty crazy level of difference that isn't accounted for merely by the selectivity for getting into the school in the first place.

        • (Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Friday June 29 2018, @10:06PM

          by suburbanitemediocrity (6844) on Friday June 29 2018, @10:06PM (#700398)

          Academically, I think it made a huge difference. I had to sit through probably hundreds of hours of college classes that had been already taught in high school. The structure and content was identical to any school....Bell ring, come in sit down, teacher takes quick attendance, talks for 50 minutes, assigns mountain of homework, bell ring, proceed to next class. Repeat 6x / day. The only classes that were not structured like that was a freshman speech and debate class. In that regard, classes were identical.

          As far as post academic, I think the severe emphasis on English and writing helped considerably. We were constantly being assigned written a oral reports on everything (in all subjects) and grading was also brutal as in one grade deduction (a, a-,b+, etc) for a misspelled word (this was pre word processors and most things post freshman year were typed on ibm Selectric typewriters). As far as equipment, nice classes, books, most things we had were very antiquated. But that did not matter, most learning was done with a library book on the way home on the bus. It would not take more money to assign more homework. I don't think we had it any worse than non-US based schools (and was told this countless times by foreign college students who had similar backgrounds). And yeah, I had after school jobs and most days worked from 5am until midnight...to be 16 again.

      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday June 29 2018, @09:39PM (1 child)

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday June 29 2018, @09:39PM (#700380) Journal

        I attended a school for the rich and wealthy (on scholarship, I was "poor"). The educational model was not different from the public schools that I attended other than the rigor and discipline expected.

        Yeah, a large portion of it is expectations and standards -- and a sort of peer pressure that goes along with it to keep up those standards.

        But my experience with elite private schools is that the different community and standards inherently changes the educational process a lot of places. Even if superficially it's basically like the "standard" model for primary/secondary school, the calibre of discussion, the expectations in such discussions, the peer interactions, etc. are so much more enriching when you're in that community with a bunch of other students who are working toward those higher standards too.

        • (Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Friday June 29 2018, @10:16PM

          by suburbanitemediocrity (6844) on Friday June 29 2018, @10:16PM (#700409)

          Yeah, the peer pressure was the biggest difference (by far), but out of scope of what the school can provide. As one of my college professors told me, the education you get from MIT (she had an undergrad and phd from MIT) is the same as you can get almost anywhere. Physics is the same everywhere and hasn't changed a lot in 100 years (as far as what you're going to learn with and undergraduate degree). It's all on you as to how much you want to learn. You can go to BumfuckU and study 16 hours a day or you can go to MIT and pay $60k year to study 16 hours/day andyou will learn the same. Or you can go home alone at MIT and drink everyday or out to party at BFU and again learn the same thing.