One Laptop Per Child pledge

[Jeff Kinz]

On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 09:10:53AM -0400, Michael Costolo wrote:
> On 5/30/06, Jeff Kinz <jkinz at kinz.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 01:26:22PM -0400, Michael Costolo wrote:
> > > I've never understood why giving laptops to kids who can't read or add
> > > would make them better at reading or math.
> >
> > Please go see "reader Rabbit" or "Math Blaster" in action with kids
> > who are in Kindergarten through fourth grade.  Then it will be clear to
> > you.
> 
> I never implied that kids couldn't use them to learn. But generations

Michael, I never said that you implied that.  You said, and I quote from
above 
>>>I've never understood why giving laptops to kids who can't read or add
>>>would make them better at reading or math.

And I said: 
>>Please go see "reader Rabbit" or "Math Blaster" in action with kids
>>who are in Kindergarten through fourth grade.  Then it will be clear to
>>you.

For many people, children and adults, the immediate interaction and
clever presentation of both concepts and skill drills available on a
computer make the task of learning new things faster and easier.

Why?  One of the major ingredients of excellent learning software 
has always been the fun factor.  The two examples which I listed
for you above both have excellent "fun factor".

>  of us learned rather well with books.  Books that are relatively
> inexpensive, don't require power, or break when you drop them.  Math
> in particular hasn't really changed (nor has reading), particularly at
> the grade school level, so (math, reading) books remain essentially up
> to date regardless of how long you have them.

Books are great things, I have a few thousand of them here in my house.
Unfortunately books are not expandable, books cannot interact, books
cannot teach except in the most static fashion by presentation of
information.  Yes generations of people have learned very well with
books.  And before those generations many more generations learned very
well with parchment, or papyrus, or clay.  Which we clearly should never
have moved away from the first place.  After all what's the difference
between a chunk of clay, and a nice lightweight hardbound edition of
Mooney's reading primer?

Right off the bat the OLPC unit has an advantage over books which is
insurmountable. it can carry many books simultaneously, and can present
information dynamically and interactively.  As for your claim that books
are inexpensive, for the cost of three good technology books I can
purchase one OLPC unit.  And I'm willing to bet you that O'Reilly
publishing will let you insert a number of their technology books into
the OLPC units for free as part of their contribution to the project.
However their books are probably not appropriate for the children that
the project is targeted at.

One aspect of the OLPC project that you are likely unaware of the
curriculum/texts efforts which is trying to include educational books
with the OLPC units - for ZERO cost.

As for your claim that these things will drop when you break them,
please go and read more about the OLPC units.  These are not the same
type of thing that you go down to Staples and buy off-the-shelf.  It
pains me to see this misconception continuously regurgitated. These units
are designed from scratch for use by "children".  If a ruggedized case
is not the first design requirement then everyone in the project has
gone completely mental.

> 
> Laptops in particular are expensive, require power, break (often
> catastrophically) when you drop them, and no one wants last year's
> slow, bulky models.  How uncool...
$100 is expensive?  Interesting.
Last years model?  nope - there is only one model.
break?  Nope, not these.

> 
> And apparently the much less expensive desktops just won't work here?

Another misconception - Desktops would be more expensive than the OLPC
units. desktop= $400 OLPC = $100 (maybe $130 initially).

> If these are the hoops we have to jump through to get kids to learn it
> is a rather sad commentary on the state of our society.  And our
> ability/willingness to parent.

Exactly what hoops are you referring to here Mike?  Thats sounds like a 
criticism, but it has no content in it, just a judgmental phrase.

These are not hoops we are jumping through to get kids to learn.  This
is a "hoop" we are jumping through to give more children the chance to
learn better, or in some cases, to have the chance to learn at all.

Most children in the underdeveloped regions of the world would love to
be able to go to school.  Many can't.  

Current education trends (in places where the public education
is actually working) are pushing kids farther and faster than they have
gone before. (sadly - this isn't true everywhere in the US, I wish it
were).   Your comment on parenting is on-target.  Educators have learned
that no matter what they do if the parents aren't re-enforcing learning
at home, the kids never do as well. The OLPC UNIT can help children
learn better by giving them a better tool to use.  They can access
information more quickly and easily.  They can drill anytime they want
without needing anyone to quiz them.

> 
> -Mike-
> Father of a 2 and a 4 year old.
Congratulations, I have two myself. As well as four professional
educators in my immediate family and 12 nieces and nephews at ages
ranging from 3 to 20, and nine siblings.  None of which means anything 
in the discussion at hand.  What does mean something is I have been
following the OLPC project and have better information about what is
actually being built.  Not speculation.


-- 
Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.
Speech Recognition Technology was used to create this e-mail