Questioning "One Laptop Per Child" as a development policy

 

The One Laptop Per Child project was initiated by Nicholas Negroponte from the prestigious MediaLab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  It was to be carried out by a non-profit organization with the project announced at the World Economic Forum (Davos) in 2005.

The objective was to produce a $100 computer that could be given to every student, providing ubiquitous technology on low-income countries.  It was designed to be simple, durable and operate with power sources that could include wind-up charging.  An antenna on the computer would allow for connection to wifi where it exists or to links among computers in a local area.  The software was open source, including the operating system and the applications.

Open source software became an area of conflict with Microsoft, which competed to get its software into the project with a special deal of $3 packages of its software.  The design eventually allowed for either open source or Microsoft.

The low cost of the computer did not include ongoing operating costs such a maintenance and technical support, and assumed a level of durability that has not panned out.

The project has not succeeded in having the widespread take-up that the promoters anticipated.  Some of that is because the technology itself didn't live up to the expectations. 

Perhaps of more significance, though, according to Neil Selwyn, author of Education in a Digital World, has to do with political and social values and policies.  The issues he raises are key issues to consider in all attempts to implement Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in an education context.

Selwyn draws on other researchers to identify the importance of looking beyond the technical:

We suggest that this and other ICT4D [ICT for development] projects be critiqued not only in      terms of their technological feasibility, economic rationales or models of education, but, more fundamentally, in terms of the ideologies  they intend their users to enact.  (Anannany and Winters, 2007)

Selwyn identifies five aspects of ideology and values that relate to the OLPC project, all aspects to consider in examining any policies on applications of technology to education:

1)         An assumption that access to technology will lead to education, health and life-related      improvements for those with access. 

Negroponte claims that "poverty can only be eliminated through education."  Selwyn characterizes the assumption about the centrality of technology as an aggressive  modernization agenda--technology will revolutionize the world for the better.

2)         Support for constructivist learning theory.

This form of constructivism is learner-centred, in the belief that learning takes place by the individual creating objects and systems--as in the title of a book by Piaget--To understand is to invent.  This is an individualist approach that devalues the social and institutional frames of learning.

There is an overlap here with one form of "progressive" pedagogy in contrast to the social constructivism based on the ideas of Vygotsky.

3)         Learning and change happen through networked individualism.

The learner is expected to organize their own educational experiences using the technology.   It is this networking that will make changes, not social institutions and policies.  An anti-school sentiment goes with this view.  Individual children are seen as the principal sites of change.  Technology is "inherently expressive and self transforming."

Negroponte acknowledged that the $100 laptop is a 'Trojan Horse" to get the technology in the hands of young people.  The students, presumably, will then change the education system.

4)         Access in itself is a social project.

The technology itself becomes a fetish rather than focus on the education first and the technology in relationship to it.  Selwyn quotes a programmer slogan as an example:  "Not every child in the world had a laptop.  This is a bug.  We're fixing that."

Giving computers to students is seen as educationally better than giving them books, hiring more teachers or building more schools.

5)         Promotion of the technology is culturally insensitive.

Getting computers in schools is not understood as fitting into the work of the school as opposed to becoming the work of the school.  The "evangelist" technology promoters come into the school with the message that this is the way it must be done.

Selwyn quotes former SUTEP (PERU) General Secretary Luis Munoz Alvarado saying  that the OLPC "laptops are not part of a comprehensive educational, pedagogical project, and their usefulness is debatable."

One Laptop Per Child in Latin America--a research agenda

Many countries in Latin America have adopted the OLPC to one degree or another.  The first country to give a laptop to every elementary student under the program was Uruguay.

In addition to Peru and Uruguay, others are Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico, as well as Costa Rica.

Research in these countries might look at the level of implementation, the strategies involved and the educational results as seen by teachers and their unions, as well as academics and education ministry officials.  The five areas of values and ideologies identified by Selwyn could be a framework for comparative examination of the specifics of this program as well as other elements of technology in education.

Source:

Selwyn, N.  (2013).  "'One Laptop per Child'--A Critical Analysis."  127-146.  In Selwyn, N. (2013).  Education in a Digital World:  Global Perspectives on Technology and Education.  (Routlege:  London).

 

 

 

IT, corporations, global institutions vs local culture

 

The connections between IT corporations and the push for technology as a solution to education problems is very clear in the US.  The Gates Foundation funds projects and organizations that are pushing IT and online learning as government policies. 

The Foundation also funds the Pearson Foundation which is creating online courses and assessments for the new Common Core curriculum that are then sold by the Pearson for-profit company.   Microsoft and Cisco are big promoters of information technology in education with an obvious corporate interest in sales and profits. 

Joel Spring in his book, Education Networks, points to "shadow networks" of people who move from corporation to foundation to government, linking and pushing the IT policies.

But do those links operate on a global basis as well?  Not surprisingly, the answer is yes and here are a couple of examples.

Microsoft linked up with UNESCO in 2009 to create a UNESCO-Microsoft Task Force on Higher Education and IT.  A UNESCO-Microsoft agreement was announced at a meeting of 150 education ministers and top bureaucrats.  A UNESCO officer said that "Through the creation of the UNESCO-Microsoft Task Force...we will help mobilize critical strategic resources to better assist ministries of education worldwide." (p.37)

Spring reports that the" agreement allowed Microsoft to make major inroads into national systems of higher education."  Microsoft put $50 million into the project--in the form of  "free software and certifications which would lead to future purchases of Microsoft products by the world's higher education systems." (p38)

The World Economic Forum (Davos) plays a role as well.  It published a report (written by two corporate executives of Cisco Systems who formerly worked for the World Bank) called The Global Information Technology Report 2010-2011 which claims that "ICT has also proven...an important instrument for bridging economic and social divides and reducing poverty."  It's a claim that seems somewhat overblown when compared to reality.

The future promised by the report is of a "global consumer class" who can afford personal ICT.  They are part of "a 'new global Internet culture' where users across countries generally share similar opinions and habits." (p. 57) 

This is reminiscent of Thomas Friedman's "flat world" thesis that globalization and technology have homogenized the globe.  It, of course, ignores the reality of the billions of people who are not part of the global consumer class. 

What are the links between national education decision-makers and the corporate and transnational organizations promoting ICT in education?

Is the technology having the impact of creating a global culture?  If so, is this happening because it is desirable and desired?  Or is it an unintended consequence that can be altered if there is a social consciousness and will to maintain diversity?  Can ICT be used to contribute to maintaining cultural diversity?

Reference:

Spring, Joel.  (2012).  Education Networks:  Power, Wealth, Cyberspace and the Digital Mind. (Routlege:  New York)

 

The digital manager uses data as a tool of control

The political economy of technology and education

Why is so much of current discussions of education "reform" centred on Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and data-based decision-making?

What are the links in the education politics of ICT between corporate interests and the promotion of digital technology and "21st century skills" as key elements of the education future?

Joel Spring provides a valuable framework for analysis of these questions in his book, Education Networks:  power, wealth, cyberspace and the digital mind.

An obvious link for the corporations is profits.  If that were all there is to it, developing a counter strategy that turned ICT in education into a non-profit, social return project would be relatively simple.  Spring, however, provides a look into deeper social and technological issues that make the project much more complex than just about profits.  He provides a framework for analysis. 

Data and the digital manager

One of the most common refrains about ICT and education is a focus on data-based decision-making.  How many times have we heard "if you can't count it, you can't manage it."  The developers of centralized, standardized data systems promote this as an essential tool for improving education through massive data, analytics and a dashboard that will give administrators the information they need to direct education.

Spring contends that what we are seeing is an application to education of the tools of management of global corporations.  Data and spreadsheet software to help make sense of the data is key to identifying sources of gains or impediments to production and profits.  Managers monitor their employees using digital data. 

The assumptions of digital management are brought into education.  Areas where data can be produced become the most significant areas of attention.  Standardized tests become central to digital management.

If the data shows a decline in achievement, then the school and the teacher become the focus.  The data system gives the tools for intervening from outside the school.  The target to be managed is the school and the teacher.

A key factor is missing in this, of course.  The life of the child is more than the school and many other factors affect the child.  The data systems are not holistic and can seriously mislead, particularly if you want  to look at the development of the full life of the child and not primarily his/her development as a worker in the economy.

The data manager is constantly after more data: "the student becomes the data and the school becomes the data source." (14)  Further, "the digital mind of ICT managers tends to see schools as institutions compose do data while not seeing the holistic context of students' lives such as their families, neighbourhoods, and income levels. (24)

In Alfie Kohn's description, they miss the "quality beyond measure."  Diane Ravich in a blog posting quoted management consultant W. Edwards Deming countering the data is essential to manage message:  "The most important figures needed for management of any organization are unknown and unknowable."

An ideology of "technology as the answer" spread through networks of power

Digital management of schools to produce workers to be competitive in a global economy is appearing in the rhetoric of education reform in most countries, almost regardless of level of economic development.

Spring describes this apparent global consensus  among those with power and influence as technology is "the panacea for world problems and the solution for classroom instruction."  (25)

The World Economic Forum (Davos) that holds an annual gabfest of the global economic and government elite set the tone.  It also has a subgroup, the Global Education Initiative and other regional conferences that expand and amplify the dominance of this idea.

Other promoters of ICT and its role hold conferences as where ICT in education for global competition is promoted:  the OECD, the World Bank and regional organizations such as APEC, with its own Education Forum and the Inter-American Development Bank.  A few key corporations also play a supporting role in these influence-peddling activities.

None of these are bodies that directly make decisions about education, but they are crucial processes to building networks among those who do make the decisions.  They do have the power and influence, though, to identify "which ideas and people are 'sound'" for national education policies. (23)

Challenging the promoters of ICT in education

Spring's examples of the operation of networks of power promoting a particular version of ICT in education are drawn from New York, where he works.  To understand the global nature of the push for IT in education, it would be useful to use his framework to look at the education policies in other countries.  This could start with a description of national education policies and the place of ICT and data being used to manage and control teachers and programs. 

To develop a strategy that puts democratic citizenship at the centre rather than the global economy at the centre, it is important to identify the networks of power, with their links to transnational organizations.  To challenge these networks of power requires alternative networks of those who believe it is important that education, with or without ICT, be developed from a social, democratic and holistic basis.

Reference:

Spring, Joel.  (2012).  Education Networks:  Power, Wealth, Cyberspace and the Digital Mind. (Routlege:  New York)

The brain--by Pearson

These items are a preview of my Roundup column that will appear in the next issue of Our Schools, Our Selves, the education journal of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

********

The brain--by Pearson

Brain research holds out the hope that it will have implications for identifying effective teaching practices.  But beware.

An article in the Times Education Supplement suggests a filter to use:  "When the entrepreneur begins to talk about the brain and how easily students can learn using their newfangled technique and doesn't show evidence in terms of improved student achievement, that individual should be shown the door."

One program, Cogmed, founded by a Swedish neuroscience professor, claims to improve working memory and claims backing from published studies.  A group of psychologists, however, examined the research and said "The only unequivocal statement made is that Cogmed will improve performance on tasks that resemble Cogmed training."

Cogmed has been purchased from the professor by Pearson as part of its rapidly expanding stable of education products.

************

Correct the empathy deficit

Reading posts on social media can be toxic.  An Australian group has developed an approach to changing the online environment by calling on people to THINK before they post on social media. 

THINK stands for:  is it True; is it Helpful; is it Inspiring; is it Necessary; is it Kind. 

***********

Teaching in a fishbowl

That is how the Manitoba Teachers' Society has described the public expectations of teachers.  MTS staff writing in their newsletter say that using Facebook or other social media "expand their fishbowl exponentially."

They report that a teacher faced discipline for posting a video of students working in their science lab without the knowledge of the students that they were being videoed, nor did they have parent permission to post the video.  The teacher received a letter with a very prescriptive process for future online activity and posting.

**************

Social media inoculation against corporate GERM (Global Education Reform Movement)

An organization to counter the corporate takeover of public education plans to challenge the GERM-supporting organizations in vying for school board seats.  Diane Ravich has launched a Network for Public Education to support candidates against high-stakes testing and the privatizing of public schools.

Ravich said the Network "will give voice to the millions of parents, educators, and other citizens who are fed up with corporate-style reform."  She notes that "wealthy individuals are pouring unprecedented amounts of money into state and local school board races, often into places where they do not reside, to elect candidates intent on undermining and privatizing our public schools."

The Network doesn't have deep pockets, but will put a "seal of approval" on candidates and ask others to donate to them.  They intend to use the power of social media to create a national movement.

The network calls for broad-minded public school curriculums that include arts, sciences, foreign languages and physical education; better financing for schools; more respect for teachers; and the "appropriate use of testing to help students and teachers, not to punish or reward students, teachers, principals, or to close schools," Ravich said.

 

 

Computers at home--no academic impact?

Having a computer at home produces no identifiable impact on academic achievement--positive or negative--according to a study released in February 2013.  The study was conducted by two professors at the University of California, Santa Cruz--Robert Fairlie and Jonathan Robinson.

Unlike most previous research on the topic, this was a randomized study.  It included 1,123 students in grades 6-10 in 15 California schools.  All students in the study had no computers at home.  Half the students were given a computer to use at home, the other half were not given a computer to have at home until after the study was completed.  All students were able to keep the computers permanently.

About 75% of students in California have access to computers at home; the students in the study were from the 25% who do not.  Access to computers in school is ubiquitous, the authors report, with 15.5 million in US schools, about one computer for every three students.

In their literature review, the authors identify a few studies reporting large positive impact on grades, test scores and cognitive skills.  An equal number of studiesreported no impact or negative impact of having a computer at home.

The researchers found "that even though the experiment had a large effect on computer ownership and total hours of computer use, there is no evidence of an effect on a host of educational outcomes, including grades, standardized test scores, credits earned, attendance, and disciplinary actions...Our estimates are precise enough to rule out even moderately-sized positive or negative effects."

As well, "the pattern of usage is also consistent with a negligible effect of the computers--while treatment students did report spending more time on computers for schoolwork, they also spent more time on games, social networking and other entertainment."

The context is an environment where computers are widely available at school and in the great majority of homes so students may find other ways of carrying out work that requires a computer even if they don't have one at home. 

Similar research on the impact of computers at home in countries where they are not ubiquitous might produce different results.  Several Latin American countries, including Peru, Argentina and Uruguay have undertaken large scale provision of computers to students who can use them at home and at school.

The authors of this study, though, suggest that those in the US proposing to give computers to students for their use at home "need to be realistic about their potential to reduce the current achievement gap."

Reference:  Fairlie, R. and Robinson, J.  (2013).  "Experimental evidence on the effects of home computers on academic achievement among schoolchildren." 

http://www.policypointers.org/Page/View/15174

The Forschungsinstitute zur Zunkunft der Arbeit-Institute for the Study of Labor that published the study is a German economics research institute.

 

 

 

 

Finland's boys read better online

Computers find very little use in Finland's schools, well behind the OECD average for classroom use, although Finnish students always score highly on the PISA tests.  Most of the ITC experience of students is leisure at home.

A study of students' reading showed that this out-of-school experience produces different reading results for boys and girls, according to an article in the Finnish Journal of Education.

Girls in Finland, like most other countries, come out on top in reading scores in international PISA tests.  However, the results were reversed when the reading was online with hypertext links rather than hard copy material.

Meri-Tuulia Kaarakainen, a researcher at the University of Turku, speculated that boys are playing computer games at home and they seem to be learning from these, despite the general feeling that they are bad.  She said "we found that boys who were very active internet users and who studied computer programming performed best of all on hypertext reading. "

Practice makes a difference, not surprisingly.  Enough research has shown that the brain organizes itself around the uses that are made of it to expect that the students whose use of computers is consistent with what is being tested will do better than those who use them in different ways.

Boys who were judged by teachers to be below average readers in hard copy tended to do better with online reading.  Girls who were better readers, performed less well reading the digital resources.  Boys and girls seemed to use the digital environment differently.

The researchers are concerned that girls not be left behind in ability to perform in the information society. 

Followup research is planned by Kaarakainen:  pupils will "set their own problems and find the solutions because this is what life on the internet is like." 

This is an assessment that would send a powerful message about valuing the student role in taking control of their own learning.

Reference:  Times Education Supplement, TESPro, March 1, 2013

DL funding falls behind f-2-f in BC

DL funding falls further behind

Funding for British Columbia Distributed Learning programs for the 203-14 school year will fall further behind the provincial funding provided for face-to-face students.

It sometimes seems like the only serious issue in DL in British Columbia is about funding.  Questions of quality, completion, online pedagogy and professional development all take a second place to financial issues and audits.  This is not likely to change under the current system.

The announcement of funding for the 2013-14 school year remains frozen at $5,851 per DL student, which is $1049 less than for a student enrolled in a face-to-face program.  That is a slightly larger gap than last year since the f2f amount increased by  $116 per student.
Some districts are looking at ways of getting more of their students back on f2f programs to increase the funds coming to the district.  For example, a district with 600 students loses more than $600,000, a not insignificant amount given the tight budgets.

At least one district is looking at breaking up their DL school, reassigning teachers to schools where students would take a blended program.  If 51% of their courses are in f2f and 49% in DL, the district will get $1049 per student more.

Research consistently shows that students in blended programs do better than in online-only programs.  However, the restructuring in BC is happening on the basis of funding, not educational value.

Details of funding for 2013-14 are found in the Operating Grants Manual on the Ministry of Education website:  http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/k12funding/funding/13-14/welcome.htm

Funding details specific to Distributed Learning:

*For each eligible school‐age full‐time equivalent (FTE) student enrolled in Distributed Learning schools and reported in the September enrolment count, 2013/14 is $5,851

 *For each eligible school‐age full‐time equivalent (FTE) student enrolled in Distributed Learning in Kindergarten to Grade 9 and reported in the February enrolment count $2,926

 *For each eligible school‐age full‐time equivalent (FTE) student enrolled in Distributed Learning in Grades 10 to 12 and reported in the February enrolment count $5,851

 *For each eligible school‐age full‐time equivalent (FTE) student enrolled in Distributed

Learning in Kindergarten to Grade 9 and reported in the May enrolment count $1,950

 *For each eligible school‐age full‐time equivalent (FTE) student enrolled in Distributed Learning in Grades 10 to 12 and reported in the May enrolment count $5,851

*The estimates of total full-time-equivalent DL students reported over the three counts is anticipated at 10,721 for K-12 and 652 for the non-graduated adult students

*The Ministry will not fund summer programs for Distributed Learning.  If programs run on a 12-month basis, the funding for the summer period must come from the annual allocation per student.

Regulations for cross enrolled K-9 students

Regulations for several years have required K-9 students to be enrolled in one school only.  That meant that a student would have to take their full program either at a f2f school or at a DL school. 

The regulation was based on the difficulty of having a student in an elementary school or junior secondary taking a course from DL while the rest of their program was in a f2f program.  For example, if a Grade 4 student took math online, but everything else in the school, what would the student do while the rest of her class was taking math from the classroom teacher.

Bill 36 passed by the BC Legislature allowed for students from K-9 to cross-enroll between f2f and DL.  However, regulations were not defined and cross-enrolling has still not possible this year.  The Ministry is carrying out a consultation with stakeholder groups (although not the BCTF) on how this change should be carried out.