Some Schools Ending Laptop Programs 308
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.
Gee, you think? (Score:4, Insightful)
No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
A wise man once said (Score:5, Insightful)
No surprise really (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Makes sense to me (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why did they think that in the first place? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Information access does not equal education (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:No surprise... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No surprise really (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Information access does not equal education (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, it was Einstein who said,
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.
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as it sucked then when my friends had nice cars and all their gas and insurance paid for and all the newest video games and such, I thank my parents for instilling that sense of value in me.
Re:No surprise really (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand I'm against these "laptops for everyone!" programs as it tends to put technology in the hands of those who don't deserve it, those who can't treat it properly (oh look, I dropped my laptop for the third time this week...I should really put a hole in this screen and tie it to my backpack!) and those who tend to get good things ruined for the rest of us (there's an inverse relationship between the number of people on my campus who have a laptop and the number of classes that allow the thing, which is amusing as many of the laptops were bought through the school to help in classes that they're now banned in because some people aren't smart enough to alt-tab from
I swear, most people don't have any ranks in Hide (Computer Use) at my school and far too many ranks in Illusion (I'm a leet hacker who'll never be caught)
But hey, what do I know. I'm one of the kids who doesn't pay attention in class so obviously you have to take what I say with a grain of salt...and a knowledge that I really don't like people who can't use technology right using it...and I'm currently in GM mode...
What problem were the laptops supposed to solve? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing I've read indicates that ANYONE looked at the problem. They decided that the students "needed" laptops to "prepare" the students for
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.
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I am new here, so I actually RTFA. (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, I find TFA poorly researched and rather superficial, much like the whole school-issued-laptops program.
I've been a math teaching assistant at college for a few years, and have worked in IT most of my life. I feel somewhat qualified to have an opinion on this issue.
The problem is not the laptops. It is not the kids. It is not even the teachers. The problem is management (ie PHBs) not thinking stuff through, and lazy journalists. If I was a journalist I would try to get answers to these questions:
A) What was the plan of the program?
B) What did they expect to accomplish?
C) How was the actual implementation?
D) What analysis was done afterwards to correct the problem?
E) Why are the kids getting blamed?
I suspect the answers will be:
a)
1. Give laptops to kids
2. ?
3. Congratulate myself
b)
The more money I pour into laptops, the better kids grades will be. Just because.
c)
kids got laptops, and nobody (teachers and students) had any clue what to do with them, so they mostly fooled around. And the problems were with a. and b.
d)
Too busy blaming the kids for education management FUs.
e)
Because they are the weakest link.
Of course, other questions cross my mind:
- How many kids had used computers before?
- How many used them at home?
- How many parents got involved with the program?
- How many parents where computer-savvy?
- What budget did the teachers have available for computer courses for themselves?
and so on and so forth...
O Rly? (Score:4, Insightful)
I could have told you that giving high school kids laptop computers to use in school would only make matters worse. I oft-times wonder where the common sense is in the administrative bodies that cook up these hair-brained ideas.
You see, here's the problem... High school is to kids, essentially, a place where they are forced to perform menial tasks and busy work for 8 hours a day with no reward and the only motivation is to avoid punishment (if they are indeed punished for bad grades/failure/dropping out). The incentive to excel academically is nigh nonexistent for the majority of high school kids. Introducing laptop computers to the mix does nothing but give the students a tool they can use to pay less attention to class with. After all, most of these kids aren't interested in doing much more than passing their courses... playing some solitaire or looking at some titties is much more entertaining than staring at the clock for 5 hours a day, waiting to be freed.
At university, however, laptop programs are far more beneficial. My university (Winona State) issues tablet computers to all students. Indeed there are still plenty of instances of students who decide to play solitaire rather than pay attention, their grades reflect it and (for the most part) their behavior changes accordingly. Personally, I take all of my notes on my tablet (I can type far faster than I can write by hand, and the professors can certainly talk faster than I can write!), and it is hellof convenient to be able to draw diagrams right into my notes digitally with the stylus. You can begin to imagine some of the benefits... like pressing Ctrl+F instead of flipping through pages upon pages of notes to find a definition. There's a whole boatload of advantages to the system and I'm sure most of you slashdotters can think of them yourselves.
My point is, the real driver behind the effectiveness of laptop programs is the students' motivation to excel in academically. High school doesn't give the motivation, so laptops will only help students actively perform poorly. In a university setting, however, there is motivation. Be it the fact that the student is paying for an education out of his/her own pocket (like me!), or that the student is seeking a degree in order to make money hand over fist, or that the student is studying something he or she is actually interested in and doing it of his/her own free will. Because of that motivation, students will utilize computers effectively.
They did it to make money. (Score:5, 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.
Why not a computer lab? (Score:3, Insightful)
Great. But wouldn't it be far more cost effective to teach those apps (or equivalents) in a computer lab or such? Maybe even have a class on "modern business technology"?
Mandatory car analogy
We don't purchase a car for each student just because we know that they're probably going to need to know how to drive, do we? Instead, we have a "driver's education" class where they get to practice with a few school owned and maintained vehicles.
Long ways to go (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Information access does not equal education (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re:In praise of rote memorization (Score:2, Insightful)
Due to our mind's wiring, we usually find rote memorization more difficult and less effective than doing our jobs, looking things up as necessary, and letting our mind cache the looked-up information we actually use.
Re:No surprise... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:School students and pornography a problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
You know what? It's just too ludicrous. You've got to have fundamentals before a laptop and the ensuing internet access is of any use, and even then, they won't help with anything they'd be teaching in any sort of school where you're not expected to buy your own laptop if you need one.
This is time (Score:3, Insightful)
This is time for the big, collective "D'uh!" we've been holding about this for a while.
As technologists I think we know better than the bureaucrats who propose these "nuggets of wisdom" that technology does not fix the fundamental problems in education.
Typical knee-jerk reaction (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gee, you think? (Score:3, Insightful)
Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
-ccm
Re:For example... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. They did it to as an attempt to throw money.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Laptops work with lower income students (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why not a computer lab? (Score:2, Insightful)
The skills I learnt then (on a BBC micro) have carried through till today, sure the formatting codes and function names have changed but the basic principles remain the same.
I have skills which are usable on a wide variety of programs and systems and there wasn't even the possibility of a personal laptop anywhere.
Re:Why not a computer lab? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Why should I learn to read? I'm going to inherit the junkyard ain't I?"
"You gonna go broke, son".
"Why? I'll just hire a manager".
"Your manager can read and you can't? You gonna go broke, son".
Laptops teach communications skills. Laptops give you the opportunity to use what you learn that way, too.
IT is absolutely the wrong career for a lot of people, but if you even get a job selling cars and your boss can communicate but you can't, well, you're gonna go broke, son.
Every new techology becomes a silver bullet (Score:3, Insightful)
When movies came along students sat through all sorts of educational movies as a way educating them and engaging them.
Students were subjected to film strips.
I was a professor when TV came along. The university had a new building devoted to TV lectures. I had to film a few lectures. They were terrible! All except the most telegenic faculty had the same experience. Very soon the building devolved to a lecture hall with an unused TV system.
Computers were hailed as a magic solution. We see where that is going.
Education consists of an engaging teacher and engaged students. Without those, all the newest gadgets are useless. With them the gadgets are superfluous.
Re:Listen quietly and you can hear (Score:3, Insightful)
"Is our children learning?" If you look at the national average the answer is a resounding NO!
Teach them how to read, from a book. Teach them math, without a calculator. Teach them history, and quit being PC about it. Teach them about computers, but in a seperate class from the rest.
Re:For example... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are apparently very inexpensive license of MS products for some classes of non-profit organizations.
Re:Why not a computer lab? (Score:3, Insightful)
So we're training kids for the lowest end of the office workers... secretaries? Of course it is good to know how to use a computer in a office, but very few careers (and I say career here instead of just "job") actually make it a primary requirement. A college education is so much more important than just computer skills. And lets face it, if you've been through college there is a pretty good chance you have a pretty good grasp on basic computer skills.
A much more overall effective goal is just to get kids to move on to college after high school. Forget about laptops for each kid. That is worthless. You can teach kids just fine in computer labs. Make them do all their written homework on a computer (they can use lab computers if they have to). The main goal should be to get kids to learn the CAREER skills. Or even better, just make them well educated, free thinking individuals and their careers will more or less just fall into place. A smart person would seek out cmputer training if they thought that was holding them back.
-matthew