computers in the classroom, boondoggle or real tool?

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:39:35 -0800
From: Elizabeth Ditz <ponytrax () batnet com>
Subject: computers in the classroom, boondoggle or real tool?
X-Sender: ponytrax () pop batnet com
To: dave () farber net

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 () batnet com

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 interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/