What the NPR story explains, that Frank usefully brought to our
attention, is that Microsoft contributed planning personnel time. The
School District was going to build the bricks anyway -- some bricks,
somewhere -- and Microsoft pitched in that planning.
Planning costs money. People cost money. So it was a genuine
contribution. But it was not a contribution of bricks, deliberately so.
In the long run, most school buildings across the land must be funded by
the tax base of the land. Instead, Microsoft wanted to help plan an
educational experiment that involved how school bricks should be used.
The School District liked the idea. It was done.
Have any other UC-list readers been in the School of the Future? Like
the Penn Alexander School, the building is very nice, very flattering
and empowering to the students.
If a building like this can be built on a standard School District
budget, Microsoft deserves a thank-you from Philadelphians for steering
them in that direction. Take a look at some of the other high-school
buildings around and compare.
-- Tony West
Glenn wrote:
Thanks Andy,
I had heard things like Microsoft is giving us a school. I guess the
marketing spin to sell people had forgotten to stress that the people
of Philadelphia were paying the entire 65 million. We bought a
microsoft brand high school.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
