Slashdot Mirror


Some Schools Ending Laptop Programs

The New York Times reports that schools are abandoning their laptops-for-students programs. It turns out that the expense of providing laptops, expense of repairing laptops, difficulties of school network management, and discipline problems stemming from pornography, cheating, and cracking more than outweighed the educational benefits. Indeed, a number of schools have concluded that far from improving student achievement, laptops either had no effect or actively hindered academic performance. Apparently, politicians embracing technology as a quick fix for social problems doesn't always work out.

14 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. Gee, you think? by Kid+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow... and it only took them a couple of million to figure that out.

  2. No surprise... by TheGreatHegemon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, I never thought that full blown laptops would help students (I myself having just recently finished high school). What WOULD help is something tablet-like that stores all our books in electronic form, which we could pretty much WRITE one. Seriously, that way they wouldn't have to lug around 6-7 books and erase their notes from the books when done with the materials. Would have my made high school years easier.

    1. Re:No surprise... by Gerzel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The way I see it is that schools should not be providing laptops. They should be providing desktops or rather making sure that each student has home access to a basic possibly internet capable machine and perhaps a usb drive to carry their work to and from home and school. There is no need to have a computer in front of every student in every class. When a class needs students to be in front of computers they can a either use a lab or b have simple terminals that the teacher controls and passes out/takes back with each class. If you must have laptops tie them to the room not the student so that one room can quickly be converted to a computer lab and back for classes that sometimes could use computers but other times don't need them.

      Otherwise instate a program to make sure that each student has access to a home computer so every student can do homework that requires a computer.

  3. A wise man once said by DragonHawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -- Ed Crowley

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  4. No surprise really by dosius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kids don't need technology, they need an education. I think they can be given an excellent education without ever involving a computer.

    And I agree, when I was in a computer class I spent more time actively hacking (in both senses of the word) their system, than doing work. Bootlegged their PC DOS 6.3 installation. Used Word 6 for Windows instead of Works 3 for DOS. (Or used WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS.) Et cetera. I obviously want to make the most of my time, but it was stuff I already knew. That's not the case for most kids, they need to be paying attention to the teacher, not their PCs, and you know kids have reverse midas touches and wreck everything...

    -uso.

    --
    What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    1. Re:No surprise really by anaesthetica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even in grad school, PhD students surf the web (looking at shoe stores, reading their email) on their laptops during class. Even in small seminar classes, not lectures, ostensibly built around discussion. I'm convinced that no matter what age or maturity level or intellect the students have, laptops are a productivity killer.

  5. Makes sense to me by geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Kids rarely appreciate what is given to them. If they had made it a program that rewarded students with academic success and achievement their results would have been different. Blindly giving them to all students undoubtedly would fail. Most kids these days happily trash everything they encounter. It's why most intelligent parents don't give their kids a nice car as their first automobile. They get a POS that no one cares about and can easily be replaced. Then the kid earns their own nicer car (or earns the first one off the bat depnding on the financial status of the family etc).

    We can argue all day about the educational benefits of these laptops but if the kids just trash them from the get go there are no educational benefits. I wouldn't trust kids today with a pen let alone a laptop.

  6. Why did they think that in the first place? by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would have anyone have thought that laptops would have helped schools in the first place?

    Was there any studies done to show that it would augment learning, or was it just a matter of technology=cool?

    And, if there were any studies done, were there any studies done not funded by industry groups wanting school districts to spend lots of money?

    --
    Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
  7. Information access does not equal education by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think one of the biggest paradigm shifts that people are going to have to adjust to is the idea that information, like many other things, is now often causing a problems with too much, and not with too little.
    Having constant access to information does not mean you are educated. Becoming educated is more than just having access to information. You can give a student a laptop, with built-in or internet access to a database of information on anything in the world, and that doesn't make them educated. A fully 3D, interactive CD-Rom showing the human anatomy isn't what is needed for someone to become a doctor. Its the understanding of the basic concepts, and the discipline to understands how information fits into the big picture that allows people to really be educated. Without out, information is just a distraction.

    --
    Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
    1. Re:Information access does not equal education by anaesthetica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed, it was Einstein who said,

      Never memorize what you can look up.

      Kids need to be taught to understand concepts, how to think critically, and how to engage in research. Having access to information and memorizing some of it is nearly worthless.

    2. Re:Information access does not equal education by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kids need to be taught to understand concepts, how to think critically, and how to engage in research. Having access to information and memorizing some of it is nearly worthless.

      I think Einstein memorized more than he thinks, and in any case mathematical formulas which was his domain are very much a special branch. I find that this "memorization is pointless" is often being warped into "knowing WTF you're talking about is worthless". Let's say the assignment is "Explain the reasons for World War II". That involves a lot of critical thinking, it's not about memorizing dates or names or figures or whatever. Pick any of the below:

      - Past history of wars
      - Massive war damages to pay
      - Heavy demilitarization
      - Insane inflation, poverty
      - Rise of glorifying nationalism
      - Rise of xenophobia, racism
      - Fear of Communism

      From these (and more I'm sure) you can start to draw concepts and critical thoughts. But you wouldn't get anywhere without knowing that yes, there is a history of wars here and yes, there were economic problems and yes, there was racial ideologies and so on. Of course, at this point you're going to tell me that you could just look up that information here but then you've put the cart before the horse. You're using other people's critical thinking, their logic and arguments and almost certainly arrive at the same conclusion they did with little critical thought of your own, unless you're doing a proper source analysis and inspection of their logic, counterarguments and so on.

      Giving critical thought to a matter means in my opinion that you need to know more about the subject than mere memorization, which is usually only of some important events. By that I don't mean that you need to know them by heart, but you do need to keep them in mind at the same time as a working set. Critical thinking is figuring out which of these facts are relevant and arguing why. If you feel you see a factor that's been underrated or overrated, and can gather evidence and arguments for that then it is research, it shows understanding and critical thinking. Quoting others like a parrot is not, memorization of arguments and memorization of facts are just two sides of the same corn.

      In short, if the information you're basing yourself on is crap, the conslusions will be crap even if the logic is excellent. You can reason yourself from knowledge to understanding, but you can't reason yourself from ignorance to knowledge, and so neither from ignorance to understanding. Memorization is not a goal, but it is a side effect. If you meet someone that can't quote you some facts about how WWII started, then he sure can't have any meaningful understanding of it either.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  8. What problem were the laptops supposed to solve? by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real issue with laptops in schools is ... what is the problem that the laptops are supposed to solve?

    Nothing I've read indicates that ANYONE looked at the problem. They decided that the students "needed" laptops to "prepare" the students for ... something.

    Think about it. It's kind of like giving kids a TV. Or a game console. Yes, there may be very specific instances where such would be useful (learning TV repair?) but on the whole, it's a fucking stupid idea.

    Add to that the fact that (as they discovered) laptops are FRAGILE and it just gets worse.

    Instead of focusing on technology, I'd rather see the focus on finding better educational models. We've all heard stories of kids who go from illiterate to college because they moved to a non-traditional school. Why can't we spend a fraction of the tech money seeing if we can find better low-tech (and therefore, more reliable) methods of educating our kids?

    The average laptop probably won't last 4 years in high school. A book can last 20 years.

  9. They did it to make money. by twitter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    what is the problem that the laptops are supposed to solve? Nothing I've read indicates that ANYONE looked at the problem. They decided that the students "needed" laptops to "prepare" the students for ... something.

    As I recall, that "something" was "survival in the business world" and the solution was to tech kids how to use Word and Excel. Encarta and other "resources" were admitted to be inferior to those the school already had in the library. Of course that's a loser, but those pushing it made a lot of money selling licenses and hardware.

    The irony of this is that free software has solved issues of fragility and also has created real resources for learning that are cheaper than conventional alternatives. KDE's educational package has math plotting, algebra manipulation, language studdies, flash card programs, star charts, periodic charts with chemical properties, isotopes and images, and more. Wikipedia is a vast resource that easily competes with printed encyclopedias. Google will help you dig it deeper. All of this is free, robust and actually gives students what schools want them to have.

    The low price comes with a cost: finding people willing to push it. Parents, having been burnt, are now sceptical and anyone who would follow the frauds are going to be abused. The well has been poisoned by people who claimed that "computer literacy" was being able to work M$ Word and other now worthless non-free software.

    Falling hardware prices may help turn things around, but the M$ laptop will always be expensive, fragile and barren of learning material.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  10. No. They did it to as an attempt to throw money.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Schools and politicians have this belief that money solves problems. Buying laptops is a high tech and expensive way to babysit kids. Since every kid spends oodles of time playing video games and surfing the web, politicians and teachers thought that buying laptops was the best way to get all kids to learn. Throwing money and technology at the problem wasn't the solution.

    The real issue here is a poor educational system. Teachers need to be paid based on merit. Students with poor discipline need to flunk. Instead, educators think flunking a student is a sign of a bad school, or a bad teacher. Parents can't believe that they are responsible for their childrens' inability to learn. They coddle their children, blaming everyone but themselves or their children.

    We've grown into an age where kids don't care. Teachers are not given the power to teach properly, nor are they incented to do so. They go through the motions, and whatever happens, happens.
     
    The teachers unions have crippled the entire process. The unions protect the worst teachers. Unions also drive the best teachers out of the system, leaving us with a system that gradually deteriorates. Unions always blame lack of funding. They line up the poor kids, pointing at how little money is spent on kids' educations. Yet most of the funding increases don't go to teachers' salaries. It goes to administrative costs, new buildings, and golden parachutes for administrators.

    What we need is for teachers to be held accountable. And for those students that refuse to do the work, disciplinary action. Flunk them. Put them into a trade school. Europe has a pretty good system. If a student doesn't show aptitude for higher learning, send them to a different type of high school... one that is geared towards learning a trade.

    Instead, schools just try to keep students in their classrooms, because headcount means tax dollars. And tax dollars are the only things that school administrators care about. They have no interest in grades. They have no interest in test scores. They get their money no matter what grades or test scores happen.
     
    Laptops were seen as an easy way to throw money at their educational woes. "We need to do this to stay competitive." The insuation was that America was losing ground to the students elsewhere in the world. A computer for every child HAD to be the solution. Ignore the work. Ignore the fact that they actually have to learn something. Let's just buy the technology, and the rest will just fall into place.

    Balloney. After this spending fiasco, the rest of the tax payers should wake up and force the teachers unions and school districts to change their ways. Paying teachers regardless of performance is RIDICULOUS. Throwing money at problems is careless and irresponsible. It's downright sad. To think that money, and not real work, will solve our educational woes.