OLPC Announces Buy-2-Get-1 XO Laptop Sale 360
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.'"
Re:$100+$100 = $399? (Score:1, Interesting)
Yeah, Canadian dollar is nearly equal to the USD at the moment.
Re:I like the XO, but I am tired of the fleecing . (Score:5, Interesting)
they just don't get it (Score:2, Interesting)
Price positioning (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I like the XO, but I am tired of the fleecing . (Score:4, Interesting)
US education has more to fear from ill considered education reforms than a lack of technology. That said, my experience is different with respect to "today's kids". In my state (ed reform is state based) they are much better educated even than kids of my post-Sputnik days, particularly in mathematics.
Re:Very dissapointed. (Score:5, Interesting)
IMO, Americans could do with far more such selflessness these days.
What would be really great in my opinion is if the two laptops were somehow registered such that the kids can get to know each other
Re:I like the XO, but I am tired of the fleecing . (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do children need to code anyway? And why do they need to use a computer? Isn't it better to teach them to think, and other basics such as reading, writing, and maths?
No, it's about price (for most) (Score:2, Interesting)
Programs like this look good on paper, but don't take typical human behaviour into account.
Re:I like the XO, but I am tired of the fleecing . (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course some of the more advanced aspects of both language and programming require a background that most or all children won't have, partly due to time constraints. But if the fundamentals are hard-wired in by learning them while the relevant portions of the brain are developing, the concepts that build upon them should be much easier to pick up at any age.
Re:A certain irony... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I like the XO, but I am tired of the fleecing . (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I agree with a number of points (Score:5, Interesting)
My state is Massachusetts. I did not bring it up, because it automatically brings up a lot of extraneous political issues.
It is not correct to say that ed reform is unambiguously working in Massachusetts. In some areas, such as social sciences, the results are not satisfactory. Ed reform has a number of negative impacts on the quality of education, including, I believe, unhealthy amounts of homework. There are now serious and challenging curricular requirement in Kindergarten, and Kindergarten students are being assigned homework. The state is beginning to talk about curricular requirements in preschool and even as a condition of licensing family day care providers. Many schools are cutting out arts education and sports in order to maximize their performance scores.
These, in my opinion, aren't positive developments.
However in math, the program is the most successful component of the reforms. First, we were early in on the ed reform process, our reforms starting in 1993, seven years ahead of most of the country. Also, when tests are introduced, schools teach to the tests. I've looked at some of the questions in the test MA requires to graduate high school, and their is considerable emphasis on mathematical thinking, which I think is a very good thing to teach. Thought is required to set up the solution of the problem, which is as mechanically challenging as any reasonable person could wish.
The vast majority of adults in the general population would most frequently fail at either the conceptual or mechanical aspects of the problems. More likely both. Provided that the students retain the abilities needed to pass the test, requiring all students to have them is clearly an advance in general mathematical education. It seems likely to me that a program balanced between mathematical thinking and mathematical mechanics will result in higher retention than programs which are exclusively based on being able to perform a collection of algorithms when prompted.
Many of the mechanical skills of arithmetic are introduced at about the same pace as they were in the 60s, or maybe a bit faster. Geometry is more integrated into the curriculum earlier, going back to foundations introduced at the K and 1 level, and really in earnest by the fifth grade. Also, much greater emphasis is put on word problems. Converting word problems into solution plans is taught in parallel with reading, right from Kindergarten (most kids are reading when they enter first grade). Considerable conceptual content is covered all along the way laying the foundations for algebra. This content becomes recognizably algebraic by the fifth grade, although still within the context of a general "math" subject.
There is training on skills that my generation was supposed to pick up on its own. For example, children in my kids' elementary school are drilled in estimating correct answers, as well as producing them algorithmically. Finally these math skills are consciously put to use in the science and technology curriculum, through projects like rocketry or bridge design and testing.
Overall, I don't care if the kids don't see a lick of calculus until they are college, so long as they can find a use for the mechanics of calculus by the time they get out of college. That said, most students would, in my opinion, be well prepared for a strong introductory course by the time they are juniors in high school, not that that is so important. What matters most in mathematics is the strength of the foundation, not the height of the edifice.
The truth about money (Score:3, Interesting)
DING! Give this guy a cookie! Or at least a good upmod.
Since everyone abandoned the Gold Standard all money is 'faith based.' Which is why exchange rates fluctuate so wildly these days. I'm not a pure 'Gold Bug' in that I don't think gold is the ONLY possible basis for currency, only that sound money needs A basis in reality and that gold has performed that function well in the past. But if someone made a case for a different foundation I'd listen. This current scheme blows though.