they talk about the feasibility and profitability of a plan to give a laptop to every student, though as noble as this venture seems, it seems to me this is only a giant corporation out to make a few bucks whilst using Free software and good intentions as a sales pitch. Here is the original post:
---------------------------------------
In his recent EduTech post How do you evaluate a plan like Ceibal?, Michael Trucano wrote,
"All of this comes with a cost, of course: a steep cost. Is it worth it? And how will we know?"
When you say that something is expensive, you have to say also, compared with what? This comparison cannot only be on price. You have to compare value received. What is the value of an education, then?
In crass financial terms, you can set a price on education based on the Net Present Value of expected earnings over a lifetime. You can design a government education budget around the NPV of the person's tax contributions over a lifetime, with due consideration for other expected public services.
But this is the lesser component of the value of education. The true value has to include the unpaid contributions that the educated person makes to society through volunteer work, perhaps in charities, perhaps in civil society organizations, perhaps in emergency services, perhaps simply by being adequately informed and active as a citizen. Creating and sustaining a society is far more important to that society than merely making money.
Even if we leave that aside, however, investing in your children's future has a huge payback, and the Return on Investment for one-to-one computing is increasing rapidly as costs decrease and capabilities increase.
Let us suppose, for purposes of illustration, that the MIT technologists are correct in saying that a second-generation XO can be made to sell for $75. Let us further suppose that students use them for three years, perhaps receiving them in grades 1, 4, 7, and 10. The cost for the computers then comes to $25 per child per year. Further investment is needed in electricity and Internet, at comparable levels.
But the entire community gets to use electricity and communications, which are both essential for economic development. There will be expenses for other equipment, for teacher training, for reworking textbooks into digital learning materials, and so on, but many of these are one-time costs, and all will also contribute to development.
Now let's look a little closer at textbooks. Even the poorest countries spend $20 annually per student on textbooks. Not necessarily $20 per child, given the numbers of children not in school. But close enough for government work, since it is a duty of governments to support every child, and someday each of them will. California has taken the lead in the US in moving to electronic textbooks, but other countries are moving ahead, and substantial grant funding is becoming available.
So, what then? So this. Is it a steep cost to save money on textbooks by buying computers, and by investing in revamping the textbook industry, teacher training, and the schools? Is that a steep cost for ending poverty in the next generation? How about for ending wars and global terrorism caused by poverty, ignorance, and oppression? Do you know how much we spend on those? Now that's a steep cost.
--------------- End of post
Here is my comment on the subject:
I
have worked with schools previously, as an outside consultant in both
Tijuana and San Diego, I can assure you that schools and technology
haven't been good buddies (even in technology schools) Why?
well, schools usually use dated software and legacy hardware, they
misuse the few newly acquired machines on meaningless tasks, in short,
technology in schools is very poorly managed (its a bit better in
schools that have a sysadmin that is not a grad student)
Why do I mention all of this?
The answer is quite simple, just averaging taxes and counting
children and costs of books and overhead fees is just not enough. There
is an urgent need for someone to manage technology in schools so it is
put to better use.
A laptop/netbook for each child/student sounds like a great election
campaign slogan, but in reality it is not as sound. I know everyone is
hyped about laptops/netbooks and other portable PCs, and why not, they
have been coveted even before the Desktop PC was even invented, the
power to take my data everywhere, with me, right next to me at all
times.
Ok, sounds like good hype, the market has reaped its benefits from
this market, I mean laptops/netbooks now outsell desktop PCs, however,
here are a few facts to consider:
Fact 1 - The usable life span of a desktop is far greater than a laptop/netbook almost 4 times as long.
Fact 2 - A desktop PC is more economic and faster to repair than a
laptop/netbook, you just buy a new CD drive or memory module, video
card or hard drive and presto. Good to go.
(Try doing that with a laptop/netbook)
Fact 3 - The wear and tear of a mobile device is far greater than a
Desktop PC since a laptop/netbook is moved from one location to another
and is exposed to the constant impact of travel.
Fact 4 - The risk of a desktop PC being misplaced or stolen is also far below the risk factor than that of a laptop/netbook
I can see why they want to push this, if they were really concerned
with technology and education they would better use and manage the
technology that is available and quit following market trends and
tech-hype.
What's next? An iPhone for every child?
War cannot be avoided until the physical cause for its recurrence is removed and this, in the last analysis, is the vast extent of the planet on which we live. ~ Nikola Tesla
I have worked with schools previously, as an outside consultant in both Tijuana and San Diego, I can assure you that schools and technology haven't been good buddies (even in technology schools) Why?
well, schools usually use dated software and legacy hardware, they misuse the few newly acquired machines on meaningless tasks, in short, technology in schools is very poorly managed (its a bit better in schools that have a sysadmin that is not a grad student)
Why do I mention all of this?
The answer is quite simple, just averaging taxes and counting children and costs of books and overhead fees is just not enough. There is an urgent need for someone to manage technology in schools so it is put to better use.
A laptop/netbook for each child/student sounds like a great election campaign slogan, but in reality it is not as sound. I know everyone is hyped about laptops/netbooks and other portable PCs, and why not, they have been coveted even before the Desktop PC was even invented, the power to take my data everywhere, with me, right next to me at all times.
Ok, sounds like good hype, the market has reaped its benefits from this market, I mean laptops/netbooks now outsell desktop PCs, however, here are a few facts to consider:
Fact 1 - The usable life span of a desktop is far greater than a laptop/netbook almost 4 times as long.
Fact 2 - A desktop PC is more economic and faster to repair than a laptop/netbook, you just buy a new CD drive or memory module, video card or hard drive and presto. Good to go.
(Try doing that with a laptop/netbook)
Fact 3 - The wear and tear of a mobile device is far greater than a Desktop PC since a laptop/netbook is moved from one location to another and is exposed to the constant impact of travel.
Fact 4 - The risk of a desktop PC being misplaced or stolen is also far below the risk factor than that of a laptop/netbook
I can see why they want to push this, if they were really concerned with technology and education they would better use and manage the technology that is available and quit following market trends and tech-hype.
What's next? An iPhone for every child?