One Laptop Per Child

By Stephen Downes
January 2, 2007

One person on schoolforge said this:
An interesting article by one of the GNU Classpath Developer Roma Kennke

He thinks what our children really need are:
* Parents.
* Time to learn.
* Childhood.

and they don't need:
* Floods of information and media.
* Plastic toys
* And certainly, kids don't need a computer
Then another said this:
When your world is dominated by where your next meal is coming from and IF your next meal is coming, you probably aren't too concerned about things like PC's, the Internet, etc. This is one project that should die an early and fast death.
This is my reply:

It is true that people in developing nations are most worried about where their next meal is coming from. Computers aren't high on the list.

But that's the problem. These children have no way to earn a living, and when they are parents, they will have no way to care for their children.

It should be abundantly and blatantly obvious that aid to impoverished children should consist NOT ONLY of the basics of survival. At some point, aid needs to focus on how they will grow so they need no further aid. 'Teach a man to fish...' and all that.

The suggestion that they need parents and time to learn and all that is cutesy and all motherhood (quite literally) in a family values kind of way, but is utterly useless. They're not going to to get that (you can't just manufacture parents), and even if they got that, it would not improve their situation at all.

That's why development aid often consists of things other than the basics of survival. You might say that a starving child has no use for a road, and directly you'd be right, but the road is what allows people and goods to travel, and thus enables products to flow out of the community and the food those products pay for to flow into the community.

You might say that a starving child has no use for a power plant, or a furniture factory, or an aqueduct, or even things like a postal service, and you'd be right. But all of these things make it easier, make it more possible, that the child in question will get food.

The question is, WHAT BEST will improve the poor child's chances of being able to make a future for him or her self.

And honestly, it's hard to come up with something better than a laptop and free (or very low cost) internet connection.

The laptop teaches the child. Perhaps not as effectively as a parent or a teacher - but remember, these kids are not going to get parents or teachers. There isn't enough money in the world - have you any understanding of what a teacher costs? For many children, if the laptop does not teach them then nothing will. And a laptop is a whole lot better than nothing.

Moreover, once the child has learned a few things, then the child can use that very same tool to actually earn money. Unlike almost anything else, a computer allows you to make something from nothing. You can create software, you can create designs, you can perform services like translation or transcription, you can answer questions, you can write and make music and so much more.

The cost of this is $130 or so per child, plus whatever the connection costs are over time. That's less than it costs to feed them - a lot less.

And if we're doing comparative costing, well then let's keep in mind that the cost of one cruise missile would pay for every child in a developing nation to have a computer. The cost of the Iraq war could have provided every child in the world a computer (and probably fed and housed them too). The money developing nations spend on arms (usually purchased from the U.S. or France or Britain) would feed and educate their children. So I don't buy this whole 'misplaced priorities' argument. If a country can afford to fight a war, it can afford to provide computers for children.

I'm ready to entertain the argument that a computer might not be the best way to educate a child and to then provide a means of employment. But believe me, family values ain't it. Nor anything else I've seen.
Share |

Comments

Re: One Laptop Per Child

Brody Morrison 6610, February 1, 2010

Mike:
I enjoyed your posting and your thoughts, but I must point out that your premises, basic human needs, may not be an entirely equitable comparison. Yes, providing laptops to students will not solve basic needs, but educators are not in the business of providing basic human needs such as food, housing, and clothing. Not yet anyway.
However, as educators, we are in the business of providing other basic human needs such as access to free knowledge, freedom of expression, and some physical activity that all contribute to a healthy learning environment. I think the use of laptops do require some training and commitment but before that we need two things to get us to that 'horse': First, and most important, there needs to be leadership to move teachers forward, however the incentive, and last of all the inherent 'will' of teachers to change, explore, and become 'better'. Funny, how that parallels with what we ask of our students.
Sometimes I see the discussion about tech changes and wonder if there was a debate about moving from chalk tablets to notebooks. Did they argue about who would pay for the ink, paper, and then a focus group on the realities of this major shift in pedagogical practice? Was there an assessment performed to check on the impact of increased paper and ink usage? Were major stakeholders lacking in any desire to move to paper? I guess my point, and I do have one, is that the time for debate is over. The tech is coming, the world is advancing, and it would be nice to have the horse ready to take the cart, but we need to get on that horse and chase that cart.
[Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: One Laptop Per Child

CarrieCollins6610, January 31, 2010

Today's students have the unique distinction of having grown up with technology. They have only known a life with television, video games, CD and DVD players, computers in the home and school, MP3 players and iPods, cell phones, text messaging and email. They are the digital age. "Today's average college grads have spent less than 5,000 hours of their lives reading [printed material], but over 10,000 hours playing video games (not to mention 20,000 hours watching TV). Computer games, email, the Internet, cell phones and instant messaging are integral parts of their lives" (Prensky, 2001) This generation of students has already established a presence online, they socialize on Facebook and MySpace, send tweets on Twitter and it sometimes appears they can text message faster than they can talk. Technology has fundamentally changed who students are and how they learn. Our schools and teaching practices have already changed in response to the needs of these technologically diverse learners and the technology that is so prevalent in their lives. As Prensky (2001) stated, "Today's students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach." They are multi-media savvy, creative and interactive which goes hand-in-hand with today's collaborative technologies.

Laptops for each students would not be a quick fix, but instead the next logical step to help facilitate learning and meeting the needs of the diverse learners. Presently in my school we have a program where the teacher can sit at computer and can communicate and control each computer the child sits at, but this can only happen in a tech lab. But if this technology was present in each classroom, teachers can teach to the whole class, while differentiating the instruction to the individual learning style and ability. This is not to say all teaching and instruction will be done using technology, just like in today's classroom, not all instruction is done with text books, or to the whole class. Students will be able to utilize interconnections to show their teacher and classmates their thought process; this allows the teacher to follow each students in their independent learning, which does not always happen in today's classroom.


Works Cited
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon , 9 (5).

[Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: One Laptop Per Child

Hugh McMullen 6610, January 17, 2010

Hello Michael

I don't think that an educator would suggest that children should be provided with a laptop over the basic needs for life (food, shelter and clothing). However, if every student I taught had a laptop and internet access, it would make it easier for me to provide students with a Personal Learning Environment that would help prepare them for their future. In addition, I could provide students with problem based learning activities more efficiently than I currently do.

One contention you make is that many teachers are either ill equipped or simply unwilling to utilize technologies, and before technologies are introduced to the classroom educators should become more competent or willing to use them. It is true that some teachers are not ready or willing to use ever evolving technologies, but I don't like this as an argument not to provide technologies to students. I feel it is the responsibility of the educator to evaluate their personal strengths and weakness in an attempt to evolve as an educator. Once an educator determines areas he/she needs to improve, that educator should take the initiative either through board offered PD or independent study to become better.

If you have seen the T.V. commercial (http://calteacherblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/no-apologies.html) which has a teacher apologizing to students everywhere for "an educational system steeped in tradition and old ideas," you initially may be insulted, as I was. Upon further contemplation, however, I have witnessed and myself been guilty of using tradition and old ideas to guide my teaching often because I was too busy or tired to change. Some new technologies are just "a fad;" however those that aren't will shape business, government policy and social interactions during my students adulthood. Should we not prepare them for this?

Hugh McMullen
[Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: One Laptop Per Child

Mike Parsons, January 12, 2010

Providing a laptop for each child has some merit. I agree that laptops are a tool that can aid in building a framework for change in how education can be delivered. In closing the gap between the have and have not's, this device can level the field in terms of "where learning occurs" and "who" can be educated. A computers ability to easily send and receive volumes of information is an important part of this process. However, let's be somewhat cautious here. We cannot ignore reality.

In many areas, at home and abroad, basic needs have to be met first. Simply providing a laptop will not solve pressing issues at hand. When basic needs are met, children are in a much better position to learn. Being properly fed, housed, and clothed creates a more favourable environment for learning. This seems like a simple thing, yet evidence worldwide points to the contrary. The process is complex and requires funding.

In addition, the notion by Downes that the "laptop teaches the child" seems to lack the human element. Trained educators in the area of how laptops can be used to effectively help students learn is vital. Too often the technology may be in place, but many teachers are not sure how to utilize its potential to maximize learning opportunities for children. Many still shy away from it. Logic dictates that before laptops are put in the hands of children, quality training and professional development for educators in this area needs to occur – a kind of keeping the "horse before the cart" idea. Without this, children may not be able to develop the necessary skill set to reap the benefits of what the laptop (and internet connection) can truly do for them. For some (differentiated learners) this technology may not even provide what they need to become successful learners.

In short, Downes makes a valid argument for the importance of laptops in educating our youth. However, just making them "available" to all students is not the "be all - end all" solution to effective teaching and learning. There is a process to follow when seeking solutions; often a quick fix falls short.
[Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Comment



Title
Your comment:
Enter email to receive replies:

Your comments always remain your property, but in posting them here you agree to license under the same terms as this site (CC By-NC-SA). If your comment is offensive it will be deleted.

Automated Spam-checking is in effect. If you are a registered user you may submit links and other HTML. Anonymous users cannot post links and will have their content screened - certain words are prohibited and your comment will be analyzed to make sure it makes sense.