Slashdot Mirror
Kids and Computers
Nothing is more mysterious in politics than why some issues capture the imagination of idealistic people like college students -- sweatshops in Latin America, for example -- and some don't, like the enormous gap in computer use and Net access between poor and rich kids.
It's tough to imagine a more urgent moral issue than the fate of children without access to computers or the Net, since their educational, economic, cultural and social lives will be directly affected. Wealthier kids have access to research, free music, challenging games, educational and social opportunities online and the better jobs of the new economy. Poorer kids may be slinging burgers.
But the issue just doesn't seem to catch fire, either on college campuses, in the political community, among the sometimes narcisstic communities of tech workers, or among the intensely policitized communities and corners of cyberspace, where individual civil liberties are a raging concern but the technological fugures of other people often aren't. That's an ugly shame.
This week, a report by the David and Lucile Packard foundation issued this week but not yet online, revealed that computers are being used more than ever by kids who have them. An amazing seventy per cent of American households with children ages 2 to 17 have Net access, says the report, up from only 15 percent five years ago. About 20 percent of kids age 8 to 16 have computers in their bedrooms and ll per cess access the Net there.
It also revealed children's access to computers and the Net varies wildly with family income. A little more than 22 per cent of children in families with annual incomes of less than $20,000 had access to a home computer, compared with 91 percent of those in families with incomes of more than $75,000. Even in those cases where they do have a computer, found the study, kids in lower-income families use it less, in part because their families are less likely to have an ISP. And they almost never have access to broadband, beyond limited time on school and library computers.
This isn't a small disparity. Access to computing -- to RPG and other forms of gaming, search engines, IM, file-sharing systems -- shapes creativity, vocabuliary, political awareness, culture and common language, not to mention economic opportunity.
According to a story by Tamar Lewin in the New York Times this week, almost every school in the nation is now wired, but there are enormous differences in how indvidual schools use computers. The Packard Foundation report, which includes studies by a number of other experts, found that schools serving poorer kids are more likely to emphasize word processing and other simple tasks while those serving more affluent students taught computing as a means of promoting cognitive skills, problem-solving and gathering information on specialized fields of study.
The report also found that computers are turning out to be especially effective in dealing with some learning disabilities, a valuable treatment that poorer kids are also deprived of.
The report had some other interesting findings, some surprising, some not:
- For young boys, games are the dominant form of computer use. And there is little evidence that moderate game playing affect's kids social relationships or friendships.
- There are concerns among educators and psychologists about the 7 to 9 percent of American children who play computer games for more than 30 hours a week.
- Teenagers use IM, e-mail and chat rooms as a primary means of staying in touch with friends.
- Children ages 2 to 5 averaged 27 minutes a day at the computer. Children 6 to 11 spend 49 minutes a day. Kids 12 to 17 averaged 63 minutes a day.
Among the recommendations the study's authors make is this: "Efforts to ensure equal access to computer-related learning opportunities at school must move beyond a concern with the number of computers in different schools toward an emphasis on how well those computers are being used to help children develop intellectual competencies and technical skills," said the Packard Foundation study.
That means equal access issues involve more than software and hardware. It involves getting kids to the next level, using computing and the Net to develop story-telling, creativity, IQ, research and communicative skills, something that's only happening, the report says, in more affluent schools.
And there's no reason to expect this disparity to narrow. Computer companies have shown little intererest in getting equipment into the hands of poorer kids and families, even though it wouldn't be enormously expensive (an AT&T study a couple of years estimated it would cost between $3 and $5 billion) and would yield enormous economic benefits down the road.
The Clinton administration talked about equal access, but never fought for funding for it. Congressional Republicans showed little interest in the issue. Bush says he wants education to be a major priority in his administration, but his proposals, which were outlined this week, focus on literacy testing and accountability -- they don't even mention technology or computing. Few people in the new or old administration -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- seems to get that the most powerful moral issue affecting many kids and the Net isn't that they are online too much, but that so many aren't online at all, or find their Net and Web lives bounded by disparities in family income.
Computers do NOT equal a good education just as pencils do not equal being a good writer. Katz may not be aware but there is an increasing uproar that education is relying far too much on computers and net access instead of teaching important things like reading, writing, and math. An article in one of the IEEE magazines last year (or was the year before?), basically said too much emphasis was being put on computers for learning when the returns from using them was small compared to traditional teaching methods.
The elementary school my kids go to in a well do middle class area area is one of the top elementary schools in San Diego County and it doesn't have Net access and only about 1 computer per classroom. They emphasize learning to read, write, and do math.
I limit my kids TV watching, we don't have any video games, and they have very limited net access at home (its probably less than 20 hours per year). My kids read books, play with legos, and are doing very well. They also have a variety of other activities.
This doesn't mean I hate computers or think they are useless, they are tools, and like any tools they need to be used for the right things at the right times. They are not magic machines that will somehow make kids smarter, you need educated people to make use of powerful tools. As my kids get older, I expect and will allow them to use computers in learning, but as tools, not the magic solution to education problems in this country.
George W. Bush is on the right track, the education problems in this country are alot more serious than access to comptuers and the net.
When I used computers when I was a kid, I had a TRS-80 and a C-64. Sure, I played games on them some, but I spent a lot of time learning about interrupts, machine language, what happens when I POKE values here and there. I was learning how the machine worked and how it did what it did. I remember hand assembling programs and computing JMP offsets. That's what computers did for me in my education. (Granted, I didn't do any of that at school, all at home.)
But from what I've seen of computers in schools, they aren't really learning anything on the computer that couldn't have been learned from a book. Books have a lot of advantages over computers, too. They can be taken to a park, to a boring class, or on a plane flight, all without much trouble at all.
I volunteered to teach computer literacy to 4th graders when I was in college. What I taught them was basically useless. It primarily consisted of word processing an already written report into a Mac. It really didn't accomplish anything other than showing them the very basics of a program which didn't really help them create anything other than a smudged ink jet printed version of their already written document.
Just my ramblings..
bush doesn't use computers because he hates things that count. see, he's a lot smarter then people give him credit for. he might not know what counting is, or how it's done but he knows it's bad.
and to think, he's the guy that gets final approval over the federal budget.
damn glad i emmigrated (1998). i knew the average american was getting dumb when i left but they've help more valid elections in tinpot dictatorships. dead people voting, dead people winning elections, invalid counting in a state controlled by the brother and party of the guy who "won."
impressive.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
While computers and the Internet are useful tools, I think Katz has greatly exaggerated their importance. The best source of accurate and comprehensive information on most subjects is still the book. Games and instant messaging may have some social and recreational value, but there are plenty of non-computer based alternatives. Computers are not a "silver bullet" that will solve the problems in our families, educational systems and society.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Stoll's book High Tech Heretic gives many of the argumetns against the overuse of computers.
I'd somewhat agree but I think it's important to provide oppurtunities. The whole thing about being able to open the door but not being able to push them through. I don't know if I'd put the computers in schools to be used for lame ass stuff like most public schools choose though. Outreach centers would probably be more effective. If all books were in school libraries many people couldn't access them afterall. I also think college should be free (I suggest being paid for by taxing businesses based on number of college graduated employees) as long as it is required to get a job better than working at Burger King or Blockbuster. Luckily as a geek I didn't really need college tog et a decent job but it would have helped and would help people enter professions with more strict requirements (like medicine).
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I'd say a college degree now has no real value. The only difference is who has parents that can afford to send them to college and who can't. I personally can do circles around a lot of friends with college degrees even though I haven't one. The push for everyone to need to go to college has already been made so we may as well make it so everyone can go to college. I also think we need third party certifications to get a college degree - the school teaching you should not be able to just give you a degree or claim you have a degree in such and such unless you pass the same certifications every other student in the country has to pass. Just because you give everyone a fair chance to go to college doesn't mean you have to promise they'll pass. The military already gives most people the chance to go to college but it really leaves out those of us who don't believe in violence or have to many responsibilities to dedicate anymore of our time. This would just be shifting the costs onto companies rather than the military (they could still offer their own programs) and giving the rest of us the same chance. Myself I have no complaints as I'm doing pretty well for myself but I think the road would have been easier with a degree and I know many friends that really need the degree. I won't argue that our K-12 needs major work too though. In poor areas (such as where I lived) the schools were nasty/old, the textbooks outdated, etc.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
This same thing happens every time a new tool comes out. Anyone with half a brain knows that computers do not automatically make our youth smarter. However, anyone with half a brain AND a liberal agenda knows that their agenda comes first, common sense comes dead last.
In the 70s poor kids were being disenfranchised because they were forced to use slide rules... or even pencil and paper *gasp*... while the rich kids were able to use digital calculators!
In the 50s, poor families couldn't afford televisions, and medium income families sometimes had onle ONE television. Oh my gosh, how were they ever able to get their news!?!?!
Reading your column, it sounds like anyone born before 1975 was doomed to failure because of the lack of computers in their upbringing.
Computer experience helps get jobs, but come on, you can get all the experience you need for most jobs by visiting a library, flipping through a light computer book, and spending a bit of time on the computer there. An hour a day over a week, you are set. That's why it's there. Not everybody can afford a book collection either, and many of us simply doesn't need one.
Stupidity is not a problem that can be fixed by computers or by money. Hell, Mr Katz, you've been here on slashdot for quite some time and it doesn't seem that computers have done much for your education either. It takes time, effort, and work on both the part of students and parents. Extra tools tend to be publicly availiable through our libraries. But there will always be a divide between the rich and the poor. It's easy to fall from the top, especially if you are born there. It's hard to climb from the bottom, but the ability to climb is what separates the real men from the boys, and the real women from the girls. That's what it's been about since the dawn of time, it's just that most of us who hit bottom aren't instantly killed by the lions nowadays.
I'm actually part Cliff Stoll disciple (well, I agree with him on many points), so I'm definitely not of the mind that the presence of computers can bolster most areas of education. However, there's a few points I'd like to bring up:
1) I'm convinced that learning to program boosted my understanding of mathematics and problem solving in general. From programming, I learned what variables and formulas and functions were. I learned to break down problems into smaller problems.
I heard someone say "Honestly, I don't know how people who can't code get by" a couple of years ago. When I taught High School Algebra a year ago, I saw that some people could code mathematically and some people couldn't, and wondered if a programming course or two would have helped (there was, though, a Linux/Perl hacker who couldn't factor polynomials to save his life).
That said, most "computers in education" initiatives probably don't really include the idea of teaching programming to every student.
2) Having computers in schools probably
does help with... learning about computers. It would provide kids who don't have computers at home with a chance to become literate with them. Or more.
Case in point: me & some of my classmates. My family had (up until I was a senior in high school) a TI 99/4A. A cool machine, and I love Parsec, but not a paragon of modern computing, even in the late 80s. At school, we were fortunate enough to have (donated by Word Perfect, I beleive) an ICON m68020 based unix workstation. So at age 16 I was lucky enough to have access to something UNIXish and learn all sorts of good things. Another guy in my class, Matt, completely absorbed the OS and I believe was making $50,000 a year in the early 90s working as a sysadmin/consultant. Not bad. Several others in that class have gone onto cool things.
3) I worked for a company called the Waterford Institute for a bit. They create software to teach young kids fundamentals of reading and math. Coincidentally, my Mom works as a remedial reading teacher, and the school where she was working used their software. It was her feeling that the software actually really helped many of the kids. Each exercise was very carefully designed by educators/artists/techwriters/programmers together (I've never seen software so well speced and designed) and they usually quite entertaining.
--
Tweet, tweet.
While governor of Texas, he oversaw legislation to make all text books censored and specially written to the state's specifications. Which is no wonder why they have text books that depict world maps where the equator passes through the southern part of the US.
Given this, I don't think technology in education will be one of Bush's main priorities (nor would I want it to be, given what he might do to it).
In related news... research also finds that rich kids have better access to DVD players, designer clothes, gourmet food, automobiles, etc.
I mean, not to be a troll or anything, DUH!!!! People with money have more and/or better access to expensive, high-technology items? You could've knocked me over with a feather on that one!
--
Now, let's address the Net as a reference source. How can a child learn about what's actually the case, what's fluff, and what's wild conspiracy theory just from what they learn on their computer with Net access ?? OTOH, a library can give them all the answers on these types of questions.
Last point: if computers are so essential to a child's development, then how did we get where we are today, without them ?? I first touched computers at around age 10, and at the time, that was unusual (I'm 39 now. . .).
Just wondering. . .
Look, you can get a computer for a couple of hunder bucks if you sign up for interenet acess which you are gong to need anyway these days. People don't appreciate things when they are just handed to them anyway, and the last thing we need is another govt program giveaway to the poor. If some provate group wants to waste their money like this, fine, but don't blow my tax dollar on this stuff.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I couldn't help but think of the Reverend's wife on the Simpsons while reading this: "Think of the children! Oh won't somebody please think of the children!"
They could easily get them.
Am I talking 1 GHz Athlon systems here? No - we all know that 386's, 486's, and low-end Pentiums abound everywhere for near nothing - sometimes people can't even give them away! So why is it when all of these perfectly useful machines sit and rot, that those with as much money don't take them?
They aren't bright and flashy - that's it - they can't do the lastest stuff, can't load the latest software (never mind the fact that these same people probably couldn't afford the latest software, nor the fact that older software is also floating around out there for the taking). In other words, having an older PC doesn't make you look "rich" - whatever that means.
These people (actually, the majority of people - poor, middleclass, and rich) don't understand that a computer can expand your mind, and allow you to do and learn things, and ways of thinking, that you hadn't dreamed about before. A throwaway C=64 and a couple of magazines can do wonders!
However, if these people did know this, or had an inate feeling for this - they wouldn't be looking for a computer at the first drop of a hat - they would be looking for books (another widely throwaway item) - to read, and expand their minds, and teach them ways and ideas never before explored.
Most homes these days have few books in them. You don't see many homes with large book collections anymore (and those that do have large collections, those are typically in rich people's designer homes, who have the books to look cool - but don't actually read them). It is really apalling.
I actually think, as a whole, American society is becoming more illiterate by the day - there is no reason for this, other than laziness or something - maybe they just don't care. Even the rich are becoming illiterate - they may have the money to buy a book about a subject, but they would rather pay to have someone else tell them about it.
I wonder if we will see a different class structure in the future - literates on one side, and illiterates on the other...?
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Neither did Brian Kernigan or Doug Ritchie, they must be technically illierate also!
And Jon Katz! (wait a minute, this may be a bad examlple;) )
Or me! I didn't have a PC when I was in school, time to quit my programming job and rejoin the Army!
Computers are not neccessary to getting an education.
Best Slashdot Co
. I do not agree that this is enough to compensate for the disadvantages of an underclass environment or family troubles.
Those issues are not caused by a lack of computing technology - nor is it the image being presented by Katz. If you live in such an environment, your first concern is to get out of it - and this has zero to do with the issue at hand. Government handouts are NOT the answer to dealing with poverty; Teaching people responsibility and offering education is. You can't force it down their throats, and I think a lot of people forget that.
I'm not from the USA, and every now and then I forget about how bad things are down there, but 20 miles north of your border, the situtation seems to be a little better.
My point is that if you life isn't fucked up, and you're poor, you can get access to decent computing tools at little or no cost IF YOU WANT TO. If your life is fucked up, then you fix that first. The issues are unrelated to one another. If you don't want to do anything, though, then I don't have much pity for you.
..don't panic
Maybe you're talking about people who don't really care that much about computers, but nowadays, I'd argue that computers have never been more accessable to poor people than ever - if they're interested - and that your arguement is completely and uterly WRONG.
When I was growing up, my parents didn't think computers were all that big a deal, and didn't have a lot of money. I managed to cobble, scrimp, save, and work to get a C64. Once I had that, I learned most of the concepts that I have today - how computers work, how to do low level programming, etc etc etc. I didn't even have a disk drive!
Look at what you can do today. You can get a 486 system for almost nothing - nevermind a new PC with internet access for a couple hundred bucks. I would guess with $200 or even $100 you could get a cobbled together 486, and put linux on it. Presto! That's ALL YOU NEED to learn about computer technology. A 486, linux, and time. You could even get a network on the go if you're good at finding parts (you can get 386's free, in a lot of places, if you poke around). From there, finding your first job is probably not far away. Unless we're talking about the destitute poor, who aren't eating. But that's far and away another issue completely.
I don't think this has anything to do with access to computer technology, but a bunch of people whining and looking for a problem that isn't there. Exposure to computers plants the seed; If there's a desire, that seed will grow.
..don't panic
I got most of what I have by working for it, ironically, as a sysadmin...
...and I had a lot of expertise already when I came into college, ironically, that is the one place that my parent's having a computer DID help me.
...I'm a senior now, graduating a year ahead...
How is that ironic? You're a computer science major. Working as a sysadmin seems like a logical job.
Your parents had a computer before you entered college, and because of that you had computer experience. Again, why is that ironic?
I'm a computer science major... graduating early.
I get the message, but it sounds like you need to rehash English 101 (or at least the definition of irony).
-----
The above message has been sent in the traditional, I'm-better-than-you-are style that defines Slashdot.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
- Cost of a 3-year-old computer: damn near zero.
It's a matter of priority. If you're raising a family on 20k/yr, then there are far more valuable things demanding one's money than "[scraping] together the cash" for a shit computer someone threw in the trash a year ago. It's also a matter of image; which is worse on the kid, the stigma of no computer or the stigma of a "worthless" (by modern standards) computer. Keep in mind, kids can be very cruel.Cost of using one of several ad-driven ISP's: absolutely zero.
Poor kids can't afford to play Everquest on a P4 with a 20" monitor and a broadband connection, but any kid that has power and a phone line can scrape together the cash to get on the net with a cheap Linux box and an old modem.
I think the point Katz failed to point out is one of computer literacy. In the modern world, computer literacy is a core skill required to be a productive part of society. If you don't know how to use a computer, there's not much you can do.
Also, there was no mention of gaming consoles. It would be interesting to see the distribution of video game consoles along with these numbers. I suspect even the dirt-poorest households have a game console (and a number of expensive games.)
Hmm, "poorer families who didn't have computers at home" attending "a local private high school"? I don't know where you're from, but around here (NC, USA) private schools are far from cheap (and certainly not free.) If a family has the money to send their child(ren) to a private school, then I would hope they have the budget to purchase a home computer.
As for the computer being the modern equiv to a phone or "passing notes"... I don't see why that's so surprizing. Computing technology is ubiquitous so people tend to take it for granted. Much like power and telephone services... very few people care how power gets to the plug on the wall or how their phone call is connected to someone on the other side of the planet. They don't care how it works; they only care that it works.
I don't very much like this example of how black people are suppressed in this country, mostly because it's not a very good one. While I'll readily agree with you that the differences in penalties are quite unfair, it must be considered how this came to pass. The fact is that the stricter penalties for crack as opposed to powder cocaine came from the same people who are now crying about the unfairness of this policy. When crack was introduced it quickly became apparent that it is a much more damaging drug to inner-city communities (or all races though it has a particular impact on blacks) due to its relatively low price. This is the reason that black community leaders lobbied for stricter penalties and enforcement against crack rather than for powder cocaine. This link provides some interesting discussion on the topic.
The real problem is that this effort, as with most of the efforts in the "War On Drugs" has had unintended consequences. Having really strict penalties against those who use and/or sell drugs does not stop this activity from taking place, it merely makes it more violent and dangerous to society. Please no note that I'm not saying that drug abuse is harmless to society (I believe exactly the opposite), what I am saying is that our current criminal policies aren't solving the problem and may actually be making it worse.
_____________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
- You need access to the old parts; it's easy to dumpster-dive in the office district if you're a white guy with a car, but if you're a black kid who has to get home by the bus or subway you might well be risking trouble just by being around the loading area. It is private property after all.
- Once you have the parts you have to have some idea of what to do with them. It's probably easier with PnP BIOSes, but I didn't think 486's had those. If you get an entire box in bootable condition, you don't have this hurdle.
- You've got to have someplace to keep your hardware where it won't get stolen or trashed. This is a serious problem; I know someone who was tutoring a kid and lent him an ancient laptop. The kid's brother stole it and sold it for drugs. Or your mother's boyfriend throws the monitor across the room during a fight. You get the idea.
- You've got to have some idea of what Linux is and where to get it. If you don't already have exposure to the nerd culture, you might not have the Linux meme.
I agree that it's entirely possible for lots of disadvantaged kids to have access to real computing environments and serious tools. I do not agree that this is enough to compensate for the disadvantages of an underclass environment or family troubles.--
Knowledge is power
Power corrupts
Study hard
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
--
Knowledge is power
Power corrupts
Study hard
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
A society which respects and values education and educated people wouldn't have these problems. Almost needless to say, there are big pockets of the United States which does not have such a society. (<rant> The USA is socially diverse and it makes little sense to try to talk about it as a monolith; this is one area in which "diversity" deserves and needs to be denigrated, attacked and even suppressed, not praised. If people are acting in a way to continue or aggravate the lousy education kids are getting, they ought to be pariahs. There should be a special term for them, just as pejorative and common as "deadbeat dad". </rant>)
--
Knowledge is power
Power corrupts
Study hard
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Also, there was no mention of gaming consoles. It would be interesting to see the distribution of video game consoles along with these numbers. I suspect even the dirt-poorest households have a game console (and a number of expensive games.)
Though I obviously own a computer, I have to say that this is specious reasoning, at best. Even the very-much-middle-class don't all have game consoles & expensive games. I certainly don't have one myself. Back about the time that SNES and Sega Genesis were coming out I managed to scrape up an 8bit nintendo system and castlevania... but even then, I only had 2 or 3 games EVER.
To assume that EVERY or even MOST lower income families are choosing to afford a game console is to ignore the reality. When you're dead broke and the creditors are calling daily, you have plenty to keep your mind occupied without a Playstation 2.
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
=(.\')=
We all may hate Bush, but look at the alternative! It's not like an independent has a chance against the national majority faction of Republicrats... and do you think Gore could have done much better? Not that I'm advocating one or the other... (frankly, I think they're both horribly clueless)
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
***It's tough to imagine a more urgent moral issue than the fate of children without access to computers or the Net, since their educational, economic, cultural and social lives will be directly affected**
Au contraire, mon frer! Listen Katz.. at *least* half of the common readers/editors of slashdot (I I would surmise) gre up without access to computers or the net. So why in the hell isnt the world in chaos, and why are we here, instead of in jail or running amok in the streets, killing lousy journalists who exist only to stick buzzwords into hard to swallow "secret studies"?
You *DONT* need a computer to learn.. you need to learn, in school, Math, Science, ENGLISH (yes, its america, ENGLISH) and history. Sports if you want, etc etc.. but those are foundational.
You dont learn them, you can forget College, where you *get* a nifty computer, and a nifty internet connection, once you are old enough and trustworthy enough to *USE* them right.
yeah.. I'm gonna get flamed.. but thats my opinion.
My 8 year old son has a P1 laptop. He has no internet access. he will not *GET* internet access. The last thing I want is him on the web at 8 years old. He has magic schoolbus, and a host of learning software.. and yeah, I suppose its unfair that his dad cobbled together this equipment for him.. but guess what? Welcome to america.. I work my butt off for a living so he can *have* things like this. Will it give him a head start? yes. Do I care that this disenfranchises inner city youth? not a bit.
Sorry dude.. computers in lower level education are *not* a requisite.. typing class is. but surfing class isnt.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
heh.. lemme start by pointing out your own proofreading in response to my capitalization and punctuation. *grin*
Yes.. you have a point.. but my point was not to make english the dominant or only language.. but that one should come out of an american high-school with the ability to speak and work it fluently. It is, after all, the primary language of this country. (In other words, we are graduating people who speak fluent french or spanish, but who cannot write fluently in english.. this is a travesty!)
Hearing a public speaker in a high position say "I want to axe you a question" makes me cringe. Hearing a person doing a radio commercial say "right off the back" or "get down to brass taxes" (both of which I have heard locally) annoys me greatly.
High-school education exists to give you a basis for all future education you choose to pursue, or just enough to get by should you not decide to pursue it. Having that foundation flawed and cracked is a serious problem.
My point was not to set English up as the only language here, but to set it up as the one that is predominately used here, therefore the one the most attention should be paid to.
I speak well, and write well when I want to. I automatically mark somone down when I see them speaking publically and see common grammatical errors, misused words, an flat out mistakes. Yes, the cue card said "potatoe" but ya know what? I would have caught, or at least questioned that.. because I *do* know how to spell potato.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
>>Who really cares about someone's grammar? If it's a good point, it's a good point. Don't knock someone's argument just because their grammar is sub-par. Find somewhere else to be nit-picky and petty.
I do. I care because words mean things, pal. If you cannot use the language correctly, then you probably do not mean what you are saying.
BTW, "poindexter", Voltaire didnt say that, SG Tallentyre did.. look it up.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
Jon,
The issue doesn't get people fired up for a few simple reasons.
It's simply more important to get more books and new copies of books into kids hands than it is to get them new computers. It's also much cheaper to buy a book (or a dozen books or even a hundred books!) than it is to buy one computer!
It's also more important to spend the money on qualified teachers. Getting more teachers with more experience and better qualifications at the head of classrooms with smaller class sizes than it is to put net access infront of kids faces.
It's more important to spend that money on field trips. Do you think kids want to look at web pages about dinosaurs or they want to go to the American Museum of Natural History and see the fossils for themselves!
And honestly, if you sit and 8th grade boy infront of a computer, do you think he's a) going to sit there and look at what the teacher wants him to look at or b) he's going to spend his time trying to find ways to get to the WWF website when the teacher's not looking.
Cire
Thus claims Katz. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth: Bush explicitly asked for increased funding for school computers and other technology. Show some responsibility and check your facts before clogging the /. pages with your leftist bullshit.
Access to
don't blow my tax dollar on this stuff.
Nearly twenty years ago, my government (UK) blew my tax dollar on this stuff, and I'm damned glad they did. This was the BBC (Ah, the old Model B !) and a plan to drastically increase the numbers of computers in schools. The kids might not have become any smarter, but they did get to learn an awful lot more about IT than they would otherwise have done. Even today you can see the difference, UK late-twentysomethings grew up with the exposure to "small desktop info gadgets" that other European kids didn't see for another decade. It's this pervasive exposure to IT from an early age that creates the conditions for an IT-literate workforce, and these days an IT-literate workforce is a more profitable one.
As a result of this, I believe I live in a country that's measurably richer than it would have been without this inititative. I'm richer for it.
My "tax dollar" was well spent on this one.
I took a "computers and education" class back in college. It was an awesome class, lots of discussion and arguments. We were a vocal, fun, active group. Anyways, one of the main conclusions of the class were that computers were NOT good for the children of america from a health standpoint. (radiation etc) Due to the logic base of computers, the value of computers an education is often misleading. Examples abound of children who were able to pass the computer exam with flying colors but then when questioned by a teacher or peer, drew a total blank on understanding the subject.
Anyone who has any interest in computers and education needs to read "failure to connect" by jeane healy. Im not sure if i spelled her name correctly. She outlines the basic problems with computers introduced at a young age, 5-9 y/o. This should be required reading for anyone who is looking into computers in the classroom. There are ALOT of problems that develop from computer use at an extremely young age.
no
Abraham Lincoln walked 10 miles to return a book. Assuming it were a 100-page book, I reckon he got about 192 bps.
Somehow, he managed.
Almost all kids today have easy access to a library Abe could only dream about. But how many high school graduates have read a single work of Shakespeare? How many know Euclid's Elements? How many can compose a coherent paragraph? Answer: almost none. That would require real work, and no one wants to do that. Instead, Katz wants to give them an Internet connect so that, I suppose, they can fail faster.
P.S. The study is here
Howdy all!
In High School, I purposely chose NOT to use a calculator for 3 years. The only ones I would occasionally use were basic =-*/ calculators so that I could do long division and multiplication quickly.
Otherwise, I did all forms of slope-intercept form, geometry, Algebra II plus some of the regression formulas by hand!.
I learned a whole lot more from this than if I had chosen to copy the program the teachers gave us to plug into the TI-82+ calculators that everyone was required to buy!
It used to drive my teachers crazy when I wouldn't use a calculator on work.
The only hard part was Physics because of all those formulas, but then, memorize them and you can do those by hand also.
Has anyone else done stuff like this?
Also, I was one of the few people that actually wanted to learn (especially about science/technology/computers).
About Reading, Writing, and Grammar. What's the use of learning Grammar if you can have a Grammar check on the computer. Or Spelling for that matter with Spell Check in all MSFT product!. Why learn how to write if you can use a computer?
Granted that one must learn how to use the computer but one must also not be absolute in one or the other.
What attitude do you give an audience if you are reading Shakespeare when you are reading it off of a screen compared to the old-time book? I believe reading out of book causes a better response from an audience (IMHO)
These are just a few of my ideas.
Thnx,
Fuller
#BBS-Files on DALNet IRC, Come and Chat about the good old days of BBSing!
We don't need government funding to make a difference in the inner city. It can be done with donations.
http://agape.qis.net
http://linux.umbc.edu/gits
The list of current hardware is a bit outdated; we have 8 workstations for the kids, all X-terminals from a beefy machine (dual celeron 400). All of the workstations are donated 486s or low-end Pentiums.
Sotto la panca, la capra crepa
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
cool high school
...using low cost PeeCees and open source solutions.
cool high school instructor
cool high school instructor's supercomputer course
a national education program embracing open source, spearheaded by this great instructor, could move the emphasis towards low cost PCs and free software (no licensing or tracking hassles).
This would allow a much wider saturation of computing and math in schools, without having to depend on UltraWealth (Gates, Jobs, Rockefeller, Taxes) to do it.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Most of the people that I know are complete idiots.
Additionally, the most useful thing that I saw most kids do with computers in school was play oregon trail, and since they had to load it off the a: drive, and most of the people that I know can't even seem to do that right, they didn't learn much about computers either.
I have seen very few programming courses in school.
Kids need to learn to write reports with notecards and learn to spell before computers do it for them.
I am sick and tired of people saying that we need to throw computers at an educational system that is failing, especially when it's not always the school system... perhaps it's the fact that kids today have minds rotted on teletubies and motivations that are all fucked up by the fact that they have always had whatever they want.
Perhaps we should show kids that if they work hard, and make something of themselves, then they will be self fulfilled. I think that the dream of most kids these days is to marry rich, or make big bucks having someone else invest their money.
When being a "pro at computers" means you're the fastest solitaire in the west, and being a "hacker" translates to what we refer to as a script kiddie and being a computer security professional means you load norton antivirus and buy a hardware firewall that someone else installs and configures... well...
As for the college scene, activism is futile because government doesn't care.
As for the rich, they'll always have everything. The world is full of haves and have nots. There are haves that lose everything and have nots that become rich... cool eh? I came to college with a Mac LC (I'm a senior now, graduating a year ahead). I know people who dropped out who came with PII laptops (they were the shit then). In fact, many more than those that didn't come with a computer. Having a computer doesn't mean that you'll learn anything about it. I'm a computer science major... graduating early. I got most of what I have by working for it, ironically, as a sysadmin (and I had a lot of expertise already when I came into college, ironically, that is the one place that my parent's having a computer DID help me.) Not everyone is really going to go home and learn to program on their parent's computer. Is it sad that the opportunity isn't there? Yes, but what percentage of people would REALLY benefit in a measurable way? Besides, you can learn programming on a 486... probably better than on a P4. I mean, I started on a TI 99 4/A, and I turned out ok. And you can go grab a P 133 for about $10 these days.
I do a lot of community service... I care... I care out the ass. I would love to see tech education... but most schools that have computers just say "look we have computers, wet dream come true eh?" and then leave it at that. I can learn most of what the typical high school student learns on a computer better from a teacher who is well motivated.
Eh...
In New York, for example:
Ultimately, the problem of kids and computers doesn't boil down to who has the hardware or the software, but who tkaes initiative in helping others. The cynical might say "Grab a Linux box, a cheap 4-yr old computer and Net-Zero and they're done." Realistically, can we expect everyone to accomplish this without assistance?
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Computers are not critical to the teaching of (especially young) children!
First, and foremost, as a prerequisite to everything else, including using the net effectively, kids need to learn to read, and read well. No other learning matters, if a child cannot read, write, and comprehend.
To teach kids to read, you need books, paper and pencil, optional black or white boards, and someone to teach them.
Second, and almost as important, kids need to learn basic mathematical concepts. The foundation of this is arithmetic. This needs to be followed up at appropriate ages with algebra, geometry, and probably some trigonometry and calculus. Kids also need to be taught to apply these concepts to real-world problems.
Again, to teach these skills, you need books, pencil and paper, maybe a whiteboard, and someone to teach them.
Third, fourth, fifth, etc., in no particular order, kids need to be taught basic science concepts, some history, some government and civics, and some "social studies."
Again, you need books, paper and pencil, maybe a white board, and someone to teach.
Parallel to all these needs is one that is harder to meet, teaching kids to think clearly. What you need to teach this is guidance from an adult who knows how to think clearly.
These skills are needed to excel in any job other than pure physical labor, if such a job exists. (Even someone who works with his hands most probably needs to read things like work orders.) Everyone needs these basic skills to function generally, from reading street signs, to balancing a checkbook, to deciding how to vote.
Notice that none of this learning requires, or in my opinion for younger children, is even particularly helped by, computer access. Nor is is particularly expensive...that is why it is possible for homeschoolers and private schools to teach rings around the public schools for less money per child.
All this said, access to computers is a good thing, which we should promote. But the child who is taught the basics above can succeed at anything, including using computers. The child who is not taught the basics will have trouble succeeding in general, and specifically not be able to effectively use computers and the net. (He will probably end up signing up for internet access through AOL. *snicker*)
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
True indeed. For looking up facts, the internet is great. But when I really want to -think- about something, I'll generally find a really good book. Either from a library, or a bookstore, or perhaps borrowed from a good friend.
;-)
If there is such a directly proportional link between learning and internet/computer access... then perhaps someone can explain to me the mystery of IRC Newbies. And even some IRC Not-So-Newbies.
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
It's also a matter of image; which is worse on the kid, the stigma of no computer or the stigma of a "worthless" (by modern standards) computer. Keep in mind, kids can be very cruel.
/. or in something like an IRC room, noone can tell when I'm on my old P100, or my PIII 650. Unless the kid is inviting friends over to play games on it or the like, there is little difference between the two as far as just getting online and the kid's image online to others.
True, but on
Hell, the kid can still play his online MMORPG's on a P100, they just have to stick to text-based MUD/MUSH/MUCK/MOOs, which actually are quite a bit MORE intellectual and educational for kids. There are quite a few MOOs that have online schools, teaching the basics of object oriented code and server playing. Even the less educational MOOs still help reinforce mathematical skills, grammar, and spelling. And all of these text-based realities can be accessed through the same comptuers that were accessing them almost a decade ago.
I have two children in a suburban school system that is considered one of the top in my state. I am also involved as a member of the Technology Committee for a k-3 elementary school that my younger child attends. I am trying to find the time to also join the Technology Committee on the 4-6 elementary school my oldest child attends.
Right now, the k-3 school has around 30 iMacs networked. Last year there was a room used as a lab. This year that room became the teacher's lounge, and the Macs sat unused in the Library because there was no plan, no curriculum for them.
we finally got the Macs up and being used just this month (half the school year is GONE!!!)
I think the major difficulty for Technology in Education is that admninistrations/teachers/principals/etc DON'T KNOW WHAT TO USE THE TECHNOLOGY FOR!!!!!!!
Do we teach them all at once with networkable software? Do we get them to learn keyboarding? (and introduce carpal tunnel at a really young age)
There are actually parents who WANT THESE KIDS TO LEARN POWERPOINT!!!!!!
The kids also have internet access by sharing a 56K frame relay-it is DOG SLOW and completely frustrating.
Things move so
- incredibly slow
in this system and there is so much political mumbo jumbo (can't piss off the School Committee, can't piss off the Town Council, can't piss off the Supt.)that it is an absolutely ridiculous situation.What can be accomplished in such an environment?
-mom (because I said so)
What about adults who have to spend 40 or more hours working on a computer? Why isn't anyone upset for them? And I'm not talking about programming or image manipulation or something creative like that. I'm talking about the type of working on a computer where all you create is Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Hmm...not to start an off topic flame war, but "its america, ENGLISH" is not a logical argument, even if you weren't abusing capitals, failing to use apostrophes, and if we lived in a country called England. English is an important language to read and write, especially for business and functioning. On the other hand, the bible, the Mahabharata, the Elder Edda , the Quenta Silmarillia HongLongMeng, the Odyssey, the Quran , the Linux kernel and many other important works were not written in English. But that is incidental.
The logical fallacy of your (implied, not stated) argument is that because we live in a country where English is the predominate language that English should be the predominate language. Making a prescriptive statement from a descriptive one gives one a recursive loop where it is impossible to move from where one is.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
perhaps? maybe? ya THINK?? yes, absurd comparison... a luxury item such as a BMW is not at all comparable to the essential learning tool the computer has become... and access, not necessarily ownership, should be a right and not a privilege... we are talking EDU here, folks, and said access need not be in the home but should be a right of all kids in all schools at all times, at least here in the wealthiest country in the world (USA)
Amen.
As a society we need to realize that computers are tools. They are useful, shiny, powerful tools, but tools none the less. As a society we need to buckle down and invest in our children at a fundamental level before we start giving them toys. A kid who can't read can play video games till his eyes fail and it won't have helped him at all.
I would like to flip the question around: Why have we created an upper class that insulates itself via the internet from reality? How can we get people out of their virtual communities and back into their real ones?
To wit: Bullshit. Show me a politician who drums up hatred against the upperclass. We lionize our rich. We lionize the powerful. That's pure rhetoric with no defensible position whatsoever.
Let's take what happened to myself and other slashdot readers in school. We were abused, assaulted, slandered by people who now have low paying jobs while we have high paying jobs and are generally sucessful because we worked hard.
What is comes down to is why should we get back into our real communities if we are hated so much simply for being ourselves? If they can't accept us why should we accept them?
That sucks. I'm sorry anybody is abused/assaulted, as a person it galls me. But that does not excuse you from the responsibilties of a citizen. Think back to high school, was your entire school against you? Or was it a small vocal group? They are not your community. Your community is vast and rich and if it makes you feel good to gloat on those who hated you then do it. Enjoy it. But recognize that your experiences during a traditionally traumatic time in peoples lives does not excuse you from your responsibility.
If anything it should make you want to invest in the community and make sure that it changes, so that the geeks/nerds/losers/outcasts of tomorrow are at least tolerated. As a succesful member of society you have the ability to do that. And by abondoning your community you sentence the children of tomorrow to the same fate that you held.
I don't know about you, but I'm getting sick and tired of computers being pushed as the catch-all way to "fix" education. How about better pay for teachers? How about fixing some of these crumbling schools? How about textbooks that are up to date (and don't give me the line about computers replacing textbooks, because they don't currently replace regular books in enough of a way to do that effectively either)? How about emphasizing basic literacy and critical thinking?
None of these things come naturally with using a PC. You can use the PC as a way to learn these things -- and if you ask me it's not even the best way -- but to expect kids to pick this stuff up automatically by sticking them in front of a computer is stupid and naive. Also, contrary to popular belief, posting to BBSes and chat rooms does not automatically give you better command of the language. I know too many kids out there who are whizzes with their computers, but can't put together a real-world argument to save their hides.
The emphasis on computers as educational fix-it-alls is misleading and dangerous. They're like antibiotics: powerful and useful, but over-prescribed, and often for the wrong maladies.
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
Many inner city schools are failing to even provide a basic level of literacy, let alone properly prepare students for advanced education.
While in four black men are going to prison, drug laws jail crack users longer than powdered cocaine users. (The only real difference between rocks and poweder: powder is the popular choice of white addicts, while the rocks are mostly used by blacks.)
Roughly one in five prgnancies in America are terminated, most of which are abortions of convenience, many of the women having these abortions are having more than one. Pro-choice or not, this should offend your sensibilies from a moral perspective.
Women in many Arabic and eastern nations are still treated like property.
That was just the first few things I could think of off the top of my head that are more "urgent moral issues" than kids that can't access Slashdot. Try to keep things in perspective, Jon.
The solution to this problem is easy.
Cost of a 3-year-old computer: damn near zero.
Cost of using one of several ad-driven ISP's: absolutely zero.
Poor kids can't afford to play Everquest on a P4 with a 20" monitor and a broadband connection, but any kid that has power and a phone line can scrape together the cash to get on the net with a cheap Linux box and an old modem.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
This is more important that you might imagine at first glance. You would expect that everyone would agree on the purpose, etc.
But this is no true than the varied reasons to build a motor vehicle. You look around, and you see many models of motor vehicle, depending on the purpose. And sometimes are using the wrong vehicle for the the job. [Imagine using a jaguar to tow your yatch to the beach for example.]
It is really tied into the vision that you have for the society. What kind of society do you want to build?
- a society of contented workers
- a society of active citizens
- a society of drug users
- a society of happy consumers
- a society of people competent in what they have studied
- etc. etc. etc. you add to the list
as a side note: the level of expertize need to really understand something and be competent in a subject is different than merely being sortof familiar with it. (I heard about that once in school)For example, I have seen education software that runs real world experiments such as physics and chemistry, etc in simulation. While this would be okay for a quick intro, can you really imagine someone becoming an expert guitar player merely by running a simulation on a computer?
and we also have the idea of subjects that are not meaningless to the students studying them
Education took place certainly in ancient times. [For example, check out this article on the information workers of 2500 B.C.E.] There are fundamentals of education that have been there regardless of culture and level of civilation. Failure to take advantadge of these fundamentals will doom an education enterprise, regardless of the bells and whistles and technology you employ. The ultimate failure is to not even know what these fundamentals are. From the results we see around us, despite what the education professionals tell us, these fundamentals are certainly missing in action
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Frankly, I'm even more unimpressed by this rant than most of John's stuff. Initative, drive, and focus are still the most important factors in achieving the life you want for yourself and your loved ones. Don't have access to the net? Get creative, or spend time at the library. Need a computer? Make some sacrifices. Yes, I know it's hard, but life is hard in general. And in case you're wondering, I grew up as one of the "have-nots"; below poverty line, broken home, etc, but I did not, and will not, let myself become a statistic. Many years of hard work paid off and now I'm a System Admin with the chance to give my family a better life than I had growing up. Why? Initative, drive, and focus.
Peace
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
Well I can't talk about government-funded computers at school. But when I was at high school (that's about some years ago), there was this mentality of -mostly wealthy- parents buying the newest computer for their kids because "they need it to learn computers". Honestly: most of those computers grew a nice layer of dust after the kids played the computer games and got fed up with it....down the drain the investment. ;-)
Remember this was pre-mass-internet-age, nowadays the computers bought for "they need to learn computers/the internet" are plainly used to surf, chat and email. A very small minority is becoming the nerds/geeks as we used to know in the good old times.
When I started my Comper Science study, I was driven by passion for computers. Nowadays, people don't enroll because of passion they do IT because "you'll earn big-bucks" I think that is sad.
As for those who wonder: my dad never bought a computer for me (we weren't that wealthy), he bought one for himself (for accounting) and I screwed around with it when he wasn't there (password cracking...fun!). He learned pretty quickly to back up his files
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Let's see... Basic civil liberties vs. the ability to download pr0n and watch your stock ticker stream by...
You tell me.
---
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
Ever notice how Katz always posts statistics and studies that "aren't published yet". Hmmm, he wouldn't make this stuff up would he?
I would like to emphasize this. You do not learn to excel when the machine damn near does everything for you, you learn by overcoming adversity. My first machines were 70's-era 8-bitters with 4K-16K RAM and, if you were lucky and spent a little extra, cassette tapes for mass storage.
I am currently dealing with a factory engineer who graduated college circa 1995 -- we got into this discussion a couple of weeks ago. His first computer experience was an 8086 microprocessor trainer, which he used for one lab before being introduced to a 286 workstation. He is constantly amazed at the tricks I am pulling to get extra performance out of his firmware, and how I can practically tell him over the phone what the source and object code must look like in order to get the results I'm seeing. He simply never had to press the CPU's he was using to get the performance he needed; I did. In doing so I not only learned specific tricks (he went "wow" when I described using a 16-bit integer normalized to units of 1/65536 to use MUL to multiply another integer by a fraction of 1); I learned a whole way of thinking about the machines that you don't get if you start with a GUI and C++.
As many of others have pointed out, what you mostly learn with a really state-of-the-art machine is how to play video games. I would say that some computer usage is useful, especially if it develops strong typing skills (in this modern world, those translate anywhere and are hard to find in the workforce); but a machine that challenges its users to overcome its limitations will teach them more than one that does everything they ever want.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
I have two kids. 13 and 15 both with computers and net access from their bedroom 24/7.
In my mind the article comes up with lot of numbers but some pretty lame conclusions - if any. This is not to say that it is a bad article.
Are computers and internet access a crucial component in growing up? Do "poor" kids have nothing else to do than "slinging burgers"? In my heart I really don't believe so. The quality of growing up is primarily given by the parents of the child. Granted "rich" parents have a lot more time to offer their kids, but they may not necessarily choose to do so. In that case the computer offers a convenient way of escaping reality, but that doesn't make for a healthy substitution.
For the curious, there is no doubt in my mind that the computer coupled with the net is the best thing since sliced bread.
I think I made these conclusions reading the article:
- Retrospective statistics are still the best means to manipulate oppinions.
- The personaes of the government still thinks it is better to talk about education than to spend money on it.
- The educational content available on the net today don't target the "poor" students. There is lots of good higher education sites, but not many sites target basic skills like spelling, math and reading. Anyway the computer can't do anything here that most parents can't do themselves.
- I remember the same items discussed when the overhead projector was introduced. I think that the article is slightly overstating the importance of the computer in this context.
- Access to the internet is better than no access to anything. Yes I can agree to that, but access to qualified human beings would do the same.
Where I think the article fails to report is that we have successfully used computers to teach kids with learning disabilities. Adult education is another area, since most adults are afraid of making a fool of themselves in front of others. They don't exhibit the same attitude when a computer is used instead. All this have been documented since the 1980's and still it is not an available alternative. What I am getting at here is that some education of the teacher base is warranted and has to happen first. We need our teachers to be knowledgable about how to use these instruments and give them the necessary means to do so. Just claiming that having a computer means something to your educational, economic, cultural and social is like saying that more people would play baseball if we issued a baseball to everybody.