|
|
Posted on May 24, 2007
New York Times Article Sparks Debate
Mix a scrapped program with significant public funding and the press is there. If the local paper happens to be the New York Times, the attention can spur debate across the nation.
by Mary Axelson and Judy Salpeter So it was when a Times article ( Seeing No Progress, Some Schools Drop Laptops ) reported on a laptop computing initiative at Liverpool High School (Liverpool, NY), which was scrapped after hacking, cheating and technical repairs rose--and test scores did not. The author, Winni Hu, then went on to describe other laptop initiatives that have been deemed, by at least some parties, to be failures. The Fallout Educational leaders who are experiencing success with one-to-one computing initiatives worry that the controversial article will provide justification for cutting or eliminating effective programs. An article in The Pittsburgh Tribune Review ( Pa. schools say high-school laptop program works so far ) provides one example. Pennsylvania’s laptop program, which includes more than 100 high schools, is working well, the article reports :
In spite of local support, however, the The Pittsburgh Tribune Review points out that some Pennsylvania lawmakers are using the Times’ article as an argument for cutting funding:
Taking a Closer Look A number of educational leaders point out the need to look more closely at the specifics of a floundering program to understand why it is not working as planned -- and what the planners of that program might be able to learn from other, more successful one-to-one initiatives. As techlearning.com blogger David Warlick puts it so lucidly in "What's Good About the May 4 NYT Article?", lack of sufficient professional development or technical support might doom a specific program but they don’t negate the real needs that the program was set out to address. A closer look at Liverpool’s year three report provides further data that would support Warlick’s contention: “With three years of data, the picture of how laptops are used at the high school is becoming clearer. Typically in the tenth grade, students, parents and teachers find the laptops to be a good tool in the learning/teaching arsenal. Use is relatively high at this grade, and a majority of those involved at this level find the project beneficial and worth continuing. Three years of survey and observational data support this finding.” The report’s bad news: “However, as students continue on to the eleventh and twelfth grades, laptop use declines, and declines noticeably. With the decline in use comes increasing doubt about the value of the computer to the learning process – and a growing unrest related to the value of the laptops versus the costs parents must bear so that their children may participate in the Program.” What accounts for this significant decline in use – which, in turn, leads to a significant decrease in impact (if you don’t use them they’re not going to help)?The report’s author, Kenneth Stevenson, a professor of education at the University of South Carolina, concludes that, “The major problem limiting laptop use and acceptance was adult and political.” He then goes on to describe a major power struggle between the district office and the 11th and 12th grade teachers in which the teachers viewed the laptop program as a top-down mandate, reached without their input in an attempt to make the administration look good, while the district administration saw its job as overcoming faculty resistance to change. The study – and the Liverpool laptop program – clearly has a lot to teach districts about technology implementation. However, many would argue that what it teaches has far more to do with communication and involving stakeholders than with the pros or cons of one-to-one computing. Scandalous Hip Wiggling? In the movie the Hudsucker Proxy, a character who invents the hula-hoop shows the toy factory president a pencil-drawing of a circle, expecting that he will fully comprehend the joy and fun illustrated there. Similarly, laptop advocates who see more than an expensive rectangle obvious but undefined benefits. “Scandalous hip wiggling!” scoff the opponents. Reactions in blogs and discussions fall roughly into two camps : those who see the vision and those who don’t . A primary argument by the detractors echoes that in Terry Turner’s Watching Washington blog ("Schools Overlook the Obvious"); he asks, “What part of ‘teenager’ did the local school board not understand?” Some reference a student’s t-shirt in the Times’ photo, which reads “I’m a drinker, not a fighter,” and ask what chance we have of expecting such an adolescent to use a computer responsibly. A number of respondents to Ann Althouse’s Althouse blog echo the belief that kids can’t be expected to behave. As one writes:
This camp appears to have given up on youth behaving responsibly, not the technology. Advocates Respond While critics of one-to-one have been quick to point to the bad news, the blogosphere is buzzing with counter-arguments. The majority of responders to the Althouse blog, for example, echo Ann Althouse’s final words to the critics:
On Joanne Jacob’s site, Freelinking and freethinking on educationa commentator identified as JerichoFallsDown, chimes in with,
This comment from the Engadget blog site offers another commentary on the failure to plan:
Or as another Engadget contributor, “jjonesdtrt,” puts it:
|
| RSS | Privacy Policy | Subscribe to the K12 Blueprint e-Newsletter | Link to Us | |
K-12 Computing Blueprint is hosted by Tech & Learning, NewBay Media, LLC Copyright © 2010 | ||||



