Slashdot Mirror
Technology and Society
nyquist_theorem writes: "MSNBC has an interesting article entitled Billy gets a laptop that covers the Harley-riding independent governor of Maine's take on technology and its role in government. While previous coverage on Slashdot covered the governor's plan to give his 7th graders laptops, this article offers a glimpse of that all-too-rare breed, the insightful, technologically aware bureaucrat - in this case discussing the sociological implications of the net in the wake of Sept 11th. The article also mentions some of the other measures the government of Maine is taking to use the net in ways that actually benefit its citizens."
This radio interview with the gov really says more than the articles...(realplater, WinMedia, and quicktime) here: http://www.wired.com/news/school/0,1383,45866,00.h tml#
BTW: I think this is really a great idea, and although its bound to be misunderstood and misimplemented by many teachers and administrators, it does have the potential to really benefit TONS of students. I'm encouraged by the governors actual awareness that faculty will need just as much training and help (if not more) than any of the kids. Good stuff.
.sig wanted: Must be concise, funny, and display my cleverness.
I believe that technology should supplement a strong education, rather that be the basis of it. Give the laptops to the teachers; they can take them home and plan the next days lesson rather then passing out laptops in class and telling the students to quietly browse the internet while Mrs. Smith cuts her fingernails.
They don't even teach multiplacation tables to childeren any more. Okemos, MI is an example of a school district that left multiplication tables out of their students' educations. They stated that it was due to the fact that students have easy access to calculators and computers and don't need to remember these things. I say that the Okemos school district was using technology as a crutch to remove a rigorous and somewhat challenging (for the teacher) thing from the curriculum. Young students need to sit down and learn that some things you have to memorize or work for and their are not always easy shortcuts.
</end rant>
Perhaps this was a better rant for my 'angry old man' alter ego.
Keeping
I graduated from high school not too long ago. I was one of the generation that was supposed to be propelled forward by the "computing revolution".
IMHO, computers have no place in schools, at least not until upper level classes where a computer is necessary (say, a basic computer literacy class, but more importantly, programming courses). My experience with computers in school consisted of the following:
1) "Educational games" that were neither fun nor particularly educational. Among the ones I remember were those I played during the monthly trek to the "math lab" in Junior High; stupid things where you added numbers and a correct answer would advance you closer to a goal. Whoop-de-do... I could have learned those fractions a lot easier in a classroom.
2) A few "multimedia" computers in the library playing movies of cheetahs. This was during the era when "multimedia" was first rearing its head. Each one of these 486s with a CD-ROM and monitor probably cost the district $3,000, and possibly more.
3) Computer "literacy", which taught basic point-and-click on ancient (even at that time) Apple IIe units. A wonderful waste of a semester.
Which left us with the one actually useful application (outside of CS): Writing lab, so that students who didn't have a computer at home could type their papers.
When I look at these massive expenditures, I can't help but think how angry the teachers must be. A fairly reasonable estimate (even for the dinky little CE machines) for purchase and maintenance of those units would be around $8,000 for a classroom of 28 students. Can you imagine the jump in the quality of teaching applicants a district would receive if even $4,000 of that amount were being given to the teacher?
Instead, districts and states are forced to give in to "feel-good" programs like this. Parents think that these computers are giving their children a "head start" on the "high tech" world out there (buzzwords used for emphasis). What the system is really doing is (inadvertantly) discouraging quality teachers who would have made a far bigger influence on their child's life than ANY computer could have ever made.
Computers do have a place in schools, but that place should be very, very limited. Say, 10-20 computers in a library for research (ideally running linux on a lower end ~500mhz system to save money), a gang of 30 or so computers available in a writing lab for students before, after, and during school, and a classroom of computers for any programming course. Beyond that, I don't think districts or states should squander precious funds that could be paying teachers or repairing schools.
While I applaud Mr. King's efforts to improve the services that the state of Maine provides by implementing technical solutions, he should remember that technology is not a solution in and of itself.
I fear that merely throwing hardware at the class of 2006 will provide very few with any significant benefit. Now I am sure there will be the occasional adventurous student who will discover their own means of benefiting from this windfall, but for the masses I believe it will cause more confusion than benefit.
I doubt seriously that the majority of junior high school teachers have the knowledge of how to thoroughly implement the new machines into the their daily lesson plans. Do they know how to reinstall the OS, or how to configure the computer to print to a different printer when the class's primary printer goes belly-up?
Hopefully these issues, and others have been taken into account and resolved, but I would not hold my breath. My guess is that the primary benefit will be the extra strength training the kids will receive in having an extra 5 - 10 lbs in their book bags every day.
just imagine YOURSELF with a computer in middle school during a boring class. what would you do? something bad or good?
;)
Good troll, and Im gonna bite. OK, if youre in a boring class, most people will just zone out after a brief point anyways. SO? Nothing is being learned; if a kid is intellectually excited by something online and they pursue it for 45 minutes in class (yes, still ignoring the teacher) instead of fantasizing about the girl two desks over...whats the big deal? People have been bypassing boring teachers and having fun for years (well, even longer than that), as represented by the always present note being passed, pencils getting thrown at the ceiling etc. etc.... But, replace the mindless time, filling with something a bit intellectual, and many kids are bound to grow a little bit. Plus, i might be little bit stimulating to find various ways around filters, firewalls and stuff. The worst part about introducing these laptops is that they DO have the potential to be distractions, and surely will be to a lot of kids. But isnt it a better distraction than fantasizing all class about the hot substitute? (which can be better accomplished at home with the door locked anyways
.sig wanted: Must be concise, funny, and display my cleverness.
*) Angus King (Maine's governor) is on his way out of office - his second term expires shortly. This is his "going out with a tekno-cool bang".
*) Funds have *not* been appropriated for the laptop-for-7th-graders program; people are being asked to donate laptops to it. Needless to say, they aren't anywhere near the number of laptops we need. Does anybody really think that Maine has enough money for laptops for all of its children?
Sure, Maine is the coolest state in the USA - but for a different (better) reason.
We drink Moxie.
In michigan, the governor is spending a zillion dollars to give every kid a laptop. But there is no way to get it fixed, get any software you might need, or learn how to use it. And you wont be getting a new one in a few years when this one gets old.
Well, thats a waste of millions of dollars. Most teachers don't know how to use computers. The ones that do could probably make good use out of a laptop, but is it really worth it to give everyone a computer at a cost of tens of millions of dollars?
At least kids could put better use to them, but personally I think it would be better if needy kids who couldn't afford a desktop at home could apply and get one. And if a kid already has a computer, put that cash to good use on something else. Like an extra teacher, building repairs, a field trip, new books, etc.
Or, to take a more technology related course of action, develop a computer curriculum that doesn't suck. I graduated from a relatively well off community 4 years ago, and our High School had 2300 students. Our computer curriculum was two classes: Typing, and learning MS Office. And it was the windows 3.1 version of office when Office 95 was out...useless skills. And being MS I'm sure you all think useless in general. We need to be offering some higher quality tech classes.
The univeristy I got my first degree from, Acadia University in Nova Scotia, Canada, gives all its students AND all its faculty IBM Thinkpads. It's a very small (less than 4000 students) but well-respected university a few hours north of Maine. Every residence room is wired with 100mbit ethernet to a decent internet pipe, as is every classroom, parts ot the campus pub, most on-campus hangouts, and the first two floors of the library. Even the town, with a population of less than 4,000 (not including the students) has both cable and DSL available for $39CAD (~$25USD)/mo. It's a wired place.
The students really do all use the laptops, and for more than ICQing from one side of class to another (although that's fun too). My fourth year, I was a teaching assistant, and one of my assignments was to moderate online discussion groups for classes on ACME (Acadia's online discussion and coursework system) - one of the things my professors and I found was that the students making the most intelligent posts online were often NOT the students making intelligent points in class - opening up online discussion allowed a lot of shy, nervous, or whatever people to come out and say their piece to the class in a forum that they were comfortable in. Professors really do reply to their emails, and students and professors alike use powerpoints and websites on a regular basis.
Also, because students were posting on a forum (like Slashdot), URLs and other methods of backing points in their arguments up was quite common, and helped to add a level of intelligence and legitimacy to discussions.
Overall, the Acadia Advantage, as it is called, works quite well - while there are some who criticize it, enrollment at the school is up substantially, and students are well-trained in internet research methodology, online collaboration, web publishing, and lots more regardless of their major. It works, and it gets a lot of attention in Canada (its why I chose the school in the first place). Hopefully the same benefits will be seen in giving the computers to younger kids, as the man from Maine proposes.
-- "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." (Charles Darwin)
And all of this has what to do with what a 7th grader should be learning?
I know I was into computers at that age, but it was a hobby outside of school. School needs to focus on the basic skills (building blocks) that will let that kid make his hobby (the computer) even more rewarding, since he'll actually learn and understand far more than he could ever have on his own.
What use is a few computers in library or the back of the classroom? Suppose you had to learn to read that way. You're only allowed near books a few hours a week, under supervision. Please!
I'm not acquainted with the details of the Vermont program, but there are schools that have gotten good results with classroom computers. They do it by giving the students continuous access to computers. One student, one computer. With wireless LANs so they can use them in the classroom. This has a positive effect on all aspects of learning, not just computer skills.
When I was in school, they had a "students with laptops" program - essentially, if you had a laptop, you could bring it to school and use it instead of books.
It ended up being the worst 3 weeks at school. It was quite a while ago, so my Laptop only had 1 hour of battery power - every other class I was moving my desk or trying to find somewhere with a power point. On top of that, since it was a 486, I spent 2-3 minutes just waiting for Word to open. Maths was impossible, and Computing Studies was ironically also a waste of time, since I was forced to use their dodgy programs rather than my own, not to mention that most of the CS Teachers were just other teachers who filled spots ("CorelDRAW? No, I'm sorry, you have to use Canvas, since it lets you draw lines").
It ended abruptly when my laptop was stolen. Fortunately it was recovered, but literally just before the kid who stole it was about to hand it over to someone outside the school for $$$.
While it might be different now (longer battery life, books online/net access), I still think in general it's a bad idea.
First of all, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about schools' purchases of computers, and their ultimate disuse of them. I graduated from high school two years ago last May, and I saw how our systems were, or were not, used. Probably a million dollars' worth of equipment throughout the district (and I'm not exaggerating--between the labs with IBM Eduquest-series PC's, Novell network software, and token ring networking, to the teachers' systems, Digital machines on ethernet, which were replaced after four (IIRC) years, across a high school, three middle schools, and I don't remember how many elementaries, plus admin buildings), and most of them were only minimally used. Teachers often had only passing familiarity with the systems; one used the system primarily to collect South Park clips (in RealMedia format, no less!), with many others in the same category. Windows licensing no doubt cost a small fortune, to achieve a network with almost as much reliability as a 15-year-old Chevy. All of the copies of Office were at least one version out of date, making it a royal PITA for most students to transfer work from home to school (and no e-mail for students, either--sneakernet only). Bess, that wonderful internet proxy, stopped more useful research than it did pr0n. Students were limited to eight (IIRC) pages of hard copy from the printers at any given time--meanwhile, those of us in Honors English were writing papers that often ran to eighteen. Yes, the systems were a waste. The administration was not exactly the most clueful, either, but what do you expect on a public school salary?
The big thing about the funding, though, is that most of it couldn't have been used any better. Most of the funding for our computers came from grants, with stipulations that the money be used to bring technology into the classroom. I never did find out who donated the money (MS, trying to get another group of kids, and another school, hooked on Wind'ohs?), but the stipulations were clear--no tech, no dough. It would have been nice to have money that could be used to hire some decent teachers (we had a few very good ones, but we had a number of not-so-good ones too...names withheld to protect the guilty...). From what I'm told, this is actually a fairly common situation. If the money were to be given to the general fund, it would be a lot more useful. I understand why it is not, having seen how our administration handled itself (yes, i actually attended school board meetings; dad and I made a sport of embarrassing board members)--I know what would likely have happened. So, while I agree that the money could be better used, before complaining, it might be wise to check out the source of the money, and see if there were other options. The administrators might have their hands tied. 'Course, they might also just be dolts. (OR, not XOR.)
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
This stuff scares the hell out of me. We are not teaching our kids to think or research. We are teaching them how to let a computer figure it out instead.
Mod the parent back up, please. For an explanation, read Silicon Snake Oil by Clifford Stoll (who also wrote Cuckoo's Egg). Summary: computers are pretty much useless un education between the ages of 6 and 16. The money would be better spent on museums visits and field trips than on multimedia CD Roms, and on hiring great teachers rather than on bandwidth.
Even the best search engine can only answer questions, it cannot teach how to ask new questions. A word processor can't help you with what to right. A spreadsheet will work out numbers for you, it can't tell you if what you are modelling even makes sense.
Parents who let their kids be educated by laptop are as guilty as parents who dump their kids in front of the TV their whole time. It's simply abdicating responsibility.