OLPC Announces Buy-2-Get-1 XO Laptop Sale

theodp writes "Starting November 12, The One Laptop Per Child Project will sell its affordable XO laptop to Americans for a brief period of time, but there's a slight catch: U.S. buyers must purchase two computers — one for their own child and one for a child in the developing world — for a total cost of $399. 'Staff members of the laptop project were concerned that American children might try the pared-down machines and find them lacking compared to their Apple, Hewlett-Packard or Dell laptops. Then, in this era of immediate global communications, they might post their criticisms on Web sites and blogs read around the world, damaging the reputation of the XO Laptop, the project staff worried. So the laptop project sponsored focus-group research with American children, ages 7 to 11, at the end of August. The results were reassuringly positive.'"

Comments

Re:I like the XO, but I am tired of the fleecing .

[hey!]

It may be a sign things are wrong, or it may be a sign of different educational philosophies. Goethe, Descartes and Einstein all were educated, after all, with no computers at all.

And as to kids being better at mathematics, I trust that you are kidding. In freshman high school, I was doing calc, along with other kids.

I am not kidding. Look, I happen to know that learning calculus as a ninth grader is no big deal. I taught myself Calculus, because it wasn't even offered by my school. It was not typical then for kids in the ninth grade to be ready for Calculus then, any more it is now. More importantly, it is not a particularly impressive or important accomplishment to learn calculus in the ninth grade. Any sufficiently motivated parent can transform a moderately talented child into a "prodigy" capable of doing all kinds of mathematical parlor tricks above his age level. I've seen it happen, and by in large these "prodigies" don't grow into a population of adults that contribute more to society than others of their general talent level.

It is not so important that kids learn things early so much as they learn them well.

The Achilles' heel of ed reform in math is that it often addresses the wrong question. The most important question is not how much math kids can do, so much as the amount of math they understand. It's one thing to be able to perform in an integration bee, it's another thing to be able to think in terms of applied math. In my state, kids in middle school are way ahead of where most high schoolers were in my day in being able to translate everyday problems into mathematical terms. Of course, your state may be different than mine. Remember: ed reform is state based. The Republican educational reform model is broken: it demands "tough standards" but it's quasi "states rights" ideology means those standards cannot have any Federally mandated (or apparently even recommended) content. Thus "education reform" might mean teaching creationism in Kansas or keeping maps of the Soviet Union in place in Colorado (so far as I know).

With respect to 486s -- I'd rather have kids with 486s, the Logo language, and a good teacher than the latest quad core processor, electronic flash cards and an apathetic teacher. Of course this is a false dichotomy, but the point I'm making is that of all the factors involved, the quality of the curriculum and its implementation far outweigh the level of tech.

Re:Canadian Coins Too

[plalonde2]

This differs from the greenback how? Cash isn't money, it has no intrinsic value - confidence in the cash is the money. All paper currency is "money stamps".