[IP] computers in the classroom, boondoggle or real tool?
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:39:35 -0800
From: Elizabeth Ditz <ponytrax@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: computers in the classroom, boondoggle or real tool?
X-Sender: ponytrax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Dave, some people think that the value of computers in education have been
way oversold. Todd Oppenheimer (the author of The Flickering Mind: The
False Promise of Technology in the Classroom and How Learning Can Be Saved )
<http://www.flickeringmind.net>http://www.flickeringmind.net
is one of them.
He's published an article
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/30/ING8L39SIP1.DTL>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/30/ING8L39SIP1.DTL
The key points are:
1. Cutbacks in bodies (teachers, librarians) and proven programs (arts, PE,
shop) but increased and wasteful spending by school districts on computers.
<snip>
Shifts of this sort have made for a drastic and worrisome change in today's
classrooms. Throughout the country, computer technology is dumbing down the
academic experience, corrupting schools' financial integrity, cheating the
poor, fooling people about the job skills youngsters need for the future
and furthering the illusions of state and federal education policy.
<snip>
2. Districts are blindly throwing computers into classrooms without
considering if computer use is transformative or age appropriate.
<snip>
Yes, computers can open up valuable new learning opportunities. But this
mostly involves older students, who should have the maturity to navigate
the vagaries of the Internet and take advantage of sophisticated technology
classes. (These classes involve activities such as advanced scientific and
mathematical modeling, or electronic projects, in which students make
circuit boards and their own software programs.) Unfortunately, classes of
this sort are the great exception.
<snip>
3. Throwing computers into classrooms in low-income districts has increased
the digital devide, not decreased it.
<snip>
In Harlem, for example, teachers have their hands full just trying to
maintain order and pass on a basic level of knowledge. Now, they have to
spend much of their time managing technical hassles the schools can't
afford to fix and watching for cheating, instant messaging tricks and
illicit material on screens that teachers cannot control or even see.
<snip>
4. Software manufacturers prey on naive school districts
<snip>
Consider one popular software package for reading -- the president's top
priority for education, if not for domestic policy in general -- called
Accelerated Reader, or AR, which is used in more than half the nation's
public schools. AR is made by Renaissance Learning Inc., an aggressive
Wisconsin company that stakes its educational reputation on the volumes of
research suggesting that its products raise academic achievement.
But the quality of that research is another matter. "This is not an honest
picture of what this program is doing," Cathleen Kennedy, a researcher at
UC Berkeley's Evaluation and Assessment Research Center, told me after
reviewing several Renaissance studies. "It's a typical dog-and-pony show
used on administrators who don't know about statistics."
<snip>
5. Hardware manufacturers prey on naive school districts
<snip>
To make matters worse, when schools set out to buy computer gear, the
technology industry often takes advantage of them. In San Francisco,
federal authorities approved a $50 million grant in 2000 to finance the
lion's share of a massive school networking project (the total cost of
which would be $68 million). Surprisingly, the district later turned down
the $50 million grant. After examining the contract, district technicians
discovered they could build the system themselves for less than their tiny
share of the costs -- that is, less than $18 million.
How could this be? It turns out that if San Francisco had accepted the
grant, that $50 million would have gone to computer industry giant NEC,
whose bid marked up prices on computer hardware by 300 to 400 percent. One
small Internet switch in the bid retailed on the open market for about
$4,000 apiece.
NEC was selling San Francisco 130 of these switches at approximately
$10,000 apiece. This would have yielded a profit margin to NEC of $780,000
-- on just one item.
<snip>
Liz Ditz
E-mail me at: ponytrax@xxxxxxxxxx
Read My blog at: <http://lizditz.typepad.com/>http://lizditz.typepad.com/
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
--Thomas Edison
</blockquote></x-html>
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/