On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Edward Cherlin
<address@hidden> wrote:
That's my post you're quoting. I am not "they".
Edward, I apologize for not including your name on the post, I overlooked it and only
realized later that your name is at the bottom along with the tags.
"Computer literacy" is the fraud you have been fighting. Imagine a
school with a room full of books, pencils, and paper, where students
were allowed in for an hour a week, but couldn't use any of these
resources in class or for homework. How much literacy do you imagine
would result?
But this is my point, is the purpose of the project just to teach children to
use the computer and get them acquainted with technology?
A computer is just a tool, much like a saw or a hammer and just knowing
how to use the saw and hammer is not enough to call yourself a carpenter.
I was under the impression that the project was about raising the quality of
education and to make children better students.
I suggest that you read up on Plain Ceibal in Uruguay, or talk to the
people at University of Education, Winneba (Ghana) who are planning
the teacher training for their national rollout.
I have read up on "Plan Ceibal" and watched the videos, Spanish is my
native language I have yet to read up on an education reform that would raise
the bar on the current school system, I have read however how they train
teachers on how to become computer users and how to teach the children
to become computer users.
Children are incredibly good at understanding the mechanics of abstraction
and recursion, that is why they promptly become quite adept at using the
computer. I think it would be best to teach them more than just wikipedia,
turtle and google.
>There is an urgent need
>for someone to manage technology in schools so it is put to better use.
Talk to Bryan Berry at Open Learning Exchange (OLE) Nepal.
This is indeed a good start, is this the same approach that is being taken
on Plan Ceibal?
> Fact 1 - The usable life span of a desktop is far greater than a
> laptop/netbook almost 4 times as long.
12 years? LOL
I was under the impression that the average lifespan of a portable computer
was about 1.5 years, at most (Though at home I do have a 12 year old machine
still in use to date, its a PII, it ran for 4 years 24/7 as a DB server when it was new)
> Fact 2 - A desktop PC is more economic and faster to repair than a
> laptop/netbook, you just buy a new CD drive or memory module, video card or
> hard drive and presto. Good to go.
Buy? In Africa? LOL. One of several reasons why an XO has no CD or hard drive.
Hmm, yes, this is indeed a good point
I can tell that you haven't seen the YouTube video of Canadian
12-year-olds taking XOs apart and putting them back together using
only a #1 Phillips screwdriver. See also the Nigerian children's
Laptop Hospital, founded by six-year-olds. The first broken XO becomes
the source of parts for the next. Children love making FrankenPuters.
It's alive!!
This sort of comment just reinforces my conspiratorial belief that this
program serves as future employee training for overseas factories.
> Fact 3 - The wear and tear of a mobile device is far greater than a Desktop
> PC since a laptop/netbook is moved from one location to another and is
> exposed to the constant impact of travel.
You haven't seen the environmental test reports on the XO, either,
have you? Engineered to survive a drop from 4 feet onto carpeted wood
floors. Survives falling off desks handily.
And don't get me wrong the XO looks to be a quite sturdy and well put together
piece of hardware and the fact that it was almost non mechanical parts makes
it even more solid, however, the chances for accidental or incidental damage are
still far greater than those of a desktop.
> Fact 4 - The risk of a desktop PC being misplaced or stolen is also far
> below the risk factor than that of a laptop/netbook
Uruguay has given an XO to every one of its public school students.
Few are lost, and almost none stolen. The security on an XO locks it
up if it is not periodically in range of its school server.
So if a child has fallen ill and that child lives on the other side of town
(away from the school)
There is no way that child can continue his education at home?
> I can see why they want to push this, if they were really concerned with
> technology and education they would better use and manage the technology
> that is available and quit following market trends and tech-hype.
I was a high-tech market analyst for more than 15 years before
volunteering with One Laptop Per Child and Sugar Labs. Knocking down
hype was my paid work.
This accredits you as an authority on hype.
> What's next? An iPhone for every child?
Strawman fallacy. Usually a sign of lack of real argument.
While my last remark is indeed a bit out of place (and sarcastic)
My argument is this:
There is a dire need in the world to better educate children,
giving them a versatile tool like a laptop is only the beginning,
don't get me wrong it is a step in the right direction, however,
this is only step one in the race, the educational system must
be drastically reformed, teachers must be taught how to teach
children to reason and to think and learn on their own.
A big part of the real cost is the willingness to be radical,
a big portion of the value should be more than a profit margin,
the real value should be "Better students that will become
better people" and it should not be "Better computer users
for a better work force"