Hi Edward,
I read your analysis of the Illinois Children's Low-Cost Laptop Act and the
scripted letter supporting it with great interest. From what you wrote, it
seems you and I are in agreement on the end goals we are seeking. As a matter
of fact, your thoughts seem to mesh with mine enough that I'd like to figure
out how we can collaborate to achieve our shared objectives. Before I comment
on the other parts of your message, there was one part that disturbed me:
>If we want to make this program happen, we have to learn how education>using
>the XO is supposed to work, teach a bit of it to the legislature>and the
>public, and then make sure that that understanding informs any>bill on the
>subject. This means that group members will have to learn>to demonstrate the
>process with real children, and show the process to>everybody who will pay
>attention.
The point of HB 5000 is to establish a pilot project in Illinois for up to 300
schools to provide every child in those schools (or a subset defined in the
school's application) with a low-cost laptop. It would seem to me a pilot
program is a necessary first step toward what you seek - it is hard to show how
education is suppose to work when every child has a laptop UNTIL pilots have
been run where every child HAS a laptop. Your message seemed to imply a bill
shouldn't be passed until all of this is understood. The point of the bill
seems to be to fund a large-scale pilot to get the answers you seek.
You make MANY more points that I completely agree with. It is EXTREMELY
important that the right criteria be established for project evaluation and
proper training needs to be provided on multiple levels. However, there are
also political realities in getting a bill passed that must be acknowledged.
Getting funding for a sizeable 1:1 low-cost laptop project would seem to be a
critical first step toward everything else we care about. A large number of
special interests are affected by a bill like this. Perhaps I am too
pessimistic, but I don't think that the State Legislature could (or should)
force educational philosophies upon a school. The really hard and important
work to instill Constructionism will be at the school level - school by school,
administrator by administor, teacher by teacher, etc.
You raised some questions:
As usual, the Devil is in the details. This says nothing about how tochoose the
laptops. Will the authorities decide to buy as muchhardware as they can for
$400 per unit?
Three points from the bill seem to answer this question:
"A school or district may apply to the State Board for the establishment of a
low-cost laptop pilot project grant for an entire school or for a particular
grade or group of classrooms in a school."
"The dramatic expansion of low-cost computing options and the worldwide
reliance on computer technology for commerce, education, information, and
social interaction makes it ever more important to introduce computing skills
to students at an early age. Accordingly, the State Board of Education shall
establish a pilot project to provide a low-cost laptop computer to each
student, teacher, and relevant administrator in a participating elementary
school and implement the use of educational software and computer skills
training in order to improve academic achievement and the progress measures
listed in subsection (a) of Section 20 in this Act."
"'Low-cost laptop' means a portable personal computer suitable for use among
elementary school-aged children, under $400 in initial cost."
>From these points, it seems to me that schools apply for a project grant. If
>the school is accepted, EVERY child in the school (or grade or group of
>classrooms) would get a laptop. What isn't clear to me is WHO decides what
>type of computer is purchased. Will it be the State Board of Education or the
>individual schools?
>Or will they understand that the XO hardware and software are designed for the
>mission?
Let's keep in mind that this bill is NOT the "XO/OLPC Laptop Act". I attended a
House committee meeting for this bill, and the Asus Eee and Classmate PC were
on display along with the XO. Frankly, although I am a strong advocate for the
XO and OLPC, I would like to see there be a mixture of machines purchased.
After all, even OLPC states this is "an education project, not a laptop
project." The bill provides for the acceptance of up to 300 schools into this
pilot. Wouldn't it be preferable, especially in a pilot, to see a wide variety
of approaches and see what works best?
>Of course, they could buy every child a 1G or 2G thumb drive, on some
>scientific>instruments, or something. Do they even know that this is possible?
>Is>it possible under the terms of the bill?
I don't see that being possible under the definition of "Low-cost laptop"
listed above.
>Furthermore the bill explicitly provides incorrect criteria for>evaluating the
>project.>>3 The report must include the>4
>project's effect on:>5 (1) academic progress of students
>who are>6 participating in the pilot project, as measured
>by>7 performance on assessment instruments;>8
> (2) student progress in schools or classrooms>9
>participating in the pilot project as compared with student>10
> progress in schools or classrooms not participating;>11
>(3) student performance on assessment instruments>12 required
>by the State Board;>>Items 1 and 3 specify the use of standard tests for
>evaluating the>program.
Yes, items 1 and 3 make me cringe - but in the age of "No Child Left Behind"
(ack!), do you think any bill could be passed without that criteria?
>If this bill becomes law, the education authorities will be>prohibited from
>evaluating the children's interest in learning,>whatever they learn outside
>the curriculum, or their progress in>collaboration, independent learning,
>discovery, creativity, or>problem-solving.
I think your use of the word "prohibited" is too strong. The bill's wording
says "The report must include the project's effect on...", it does NOT say "The
report can ONLY include the project's effect on...". I won't digress into how
nuts items 1 and 3 in the required criteria make me, but I agree with your
sentiment that what truly needs to be measured are the improvements in
"children's interest in learning, whatever they learn outside the curriculum,
or their progress in collaboration, independent learning, discovery,
creativity, or problem-solving." Successful pilots (in my opinion) would
absolutely need to cause improvements in the areas you list!
Just today, I saw an interesting article titled "Bloom's Taxonomy Blooms
Digitally" at techlearning.com
(http://techlearning.com/story/showArticle.php?articleID=196605124). Toward the
bottom of the article, it lists a new digital taxonomy map that contains "new
digital verbs". My strong hope is that all pilots would have many elements
focusing on the Creating, Evaluating, and Analysing portion of the taxonomy.
The question then, one that I urge you and anyone else reading to help me
answer, is what assessment methods and evaluation criteria would we use to
determine if a project has been successful on these levels? Even if the bill
passes with the criteria listed, we would want to challenge schools to look for
evidence of strong improvement in their students' performances in these areas.
You will see below that I have an immediate need for a good list of assessment
methods and evaluation criteria for improvements in these higher order thinking
skills.
>We also have to be prepared for the>naysayers who will come up with every
>excuse not to look.
Agreed, agreed, agreed. :-)
>Calling or writing is easy. Building a movement is actual work. Who's>up for
>it? Ask your children who have tried XOs how much of a>difference it would
>make to them to have XOs in school before you make>up your mind. Don't forget
>that the children can volunteer in this>project.
Count me in for heavy lifting on building a movement! In the grand scheme of
things, passing the bill may be the easy part... I have purchased an XO for
myself, my wife, and (most importantly) my two children who are 6 and 8 years
old. We have had our "oldest" XO for about six weeks now and the last one
arrived early this week. During that time, I have already:
- demonstrated to the principal at my children's school
- demonstrated to the technology instructor at their school
- demonstrated to the technology committee at the school
- loaned my XO to three other people who wanted to show it around to people at
their elementary schools
- loaned my XO to three other parents who wanted their children to play with it
- given three presentations on the XO, OLPC, and Constructionism at Learning
College Day at the community college where I teach
- recruited other college faculty to participate in the OLPC initiative
- taken my children and their XOs to the playland at a local fast food
restaurant (a crowd of children and parents gathers every time - while my kids
demo for everyone)
- taken my children and their XOs to the local library (an interested crowd
gathered there too)
- conducted three informal meetups at my community college to help support the
fledgling OLPC community in the Chicago area (with others to come in April and
May)
- conducted one mini repair jam
- presented on XO, OLPC, and Constructionism to students in a "Technology for
Educators" course
- proposed the creation of a laptop pilot project to the VP of Academic Affairs
and two deans at my college
- helped form a steering committee which will define up to four pilots at the
college for this fall (which was the outcome of the meeting with the VP and
Deans - these pilots are where I need assistance coming up with good evaluation
criteria...)
The best is yet to come! My son (6 years old) came up with the idea that he
would like to have an XO at every station in his classroom one day soon (they
have 6 stations). I am working with the kindergarten teacher to make this
happen - hopefully this week or the week after. My son played with a lot of the
downloadable activities this week to help determine which activities they
should have at the 6 stations. I hope to do something similar with my
daughter's 2nd grade class. My next goal after that is to try to get at least
one teacher from each grade level (K-8) to use these in their classroom before
the end of this school year. Ultimately, I would like to convince the school to
purchase a low-cost laptop for every child in the school. My motto is "One
child at a time, one teacher at a time, one parent at a time, one administrator
at a time." I know, it's a long motto... ;-)
My bigger goal is to work to establish a "center" at my community college where
we can support schools in our district with 1:1 laptop initiatives. I also hope
what we do will be reproducible at other community colleges throughout
Illinois. I am VERY concerned about the many issues you raised. My plan is to
be there to help schools if/when they decide to proceed with laptop projects. I
don't (yet) have official backing from the college, but I will work tirelessly
to help any individual or group that wants to explore how education can be
radically enhanced when every child has a laptop. I have a separate document
listing my personal objectives for that center - I'm happy to share a copy with
anyone who is interested.
I apologize if any/all of the above sounds like I am "beating my own drum".
That isn't my intention. I simply want to show that one person can make a
difference! The XO generates a LOT of excitement. However, we must demonstrate
"prudent haste" when translating that excitement into action. It is easy for
the momentum to get away from you, resulting in nothing more than
"computerizing" the same old curriculum.
We must work to define projects that produce valuable new ways to educate.
Anyone proposing an OLPC-inspired laptop project should challenge themselves
with the following question:
What can/will you do (educationally) WITH the laptops that you could not
have otherwise done without them?
If the answers generated for that question result in demonstrably more
effective ways for students to be better at analysing, evaluating, and creating
then you have a great project!
I'm sorry, I know I'm getting away from talking about the bill. My overall
point is that there needs to be money to have laptops to have OLPC pilots. This
bill provides that. If we can get the bill passed, then the really tough work
is just beginning! The bill doesn't buy laptops, it provides an opportunity for
schools to apply for funding to participate in a pilot. It will be up to US to
be highly active in working with your local schools to develop successful
proposals. We will also need to help teachers utilize the laptops effectively
after they get them and to help parents/administrators/school boards understand
what "effective" is. Trying to load provisions for all of that into the bill
could kill it.
Best Regards,Larry> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 22:49:23 -0700> From: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [OLPC-Chicago] The Children's
Low-Cost Laptop Act - Contact your Illinois Legislators NOW!!!> CC: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I was born in Chicago, and
I am going to be on staff for PyCon 2009 in> Chicago, so I signed up here. Hi,
everybody. My part of PyCon will be> to recruit parents and children with
Laptop experience to teach the> adult Pythoneers what this XO thing is all
about and how to work one> to program in Python. Some people don't get the
idea, and think that> they will be teaching the children. Little do they know
how little> they know!> > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Larry Langellier>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> > Dear OLPC-Chicago Enthusiast,> >> > Have you
heard about the Children's Low-Cost Laptop Act? This bill is> > currently in
front of the Illinois House of Representatives and is scheduled> > to be voted
on this week. Read the attachment for additional details. You> > can also
follow the progress of the bill (HB 5000) at> >
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=5000&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=35963&SessionID=51&GA=95.>
> Full text of the bill can be found at> >
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=51&GA=95&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=5000&GAID=9&LegID=35963&SpecSess=&Session=.>
>> > In the spirit of One Laptop Per Child, we need to muster grassroots
support> > for this bill.> > What do we know about the bill's sponsors? We must
talk with them> ASAP. Who is in their districts?> > House Sponsors> Rep.
Cynthia Soto - Constance A. Howard - LaShawn K. Ford - Ruth> Munson - Jack D.
Franks and Patrick J Verschoore> > > As usual, the Devil is in the details.
This says nothing about how to> choose the laptops. Will the authorities decide
to buy as much> hardware as they can for $400 per unit? Or will they understand
that> the XO hardware and software are designed for the mission? Of course,>
they could buy every child a 1G or 2G thumb drive, on some scientific>
instruments, or something. Do they even know that this is possible? Is> it
possible under the terms of the bill?> > Furthermore the bill explicitly
provides incorrect criteria for> evaluating the project.> > 3 The report must
include the> 4 project's effect on:> 5 (1) academic progress of students who
are> 6 participating in the pilot project, as measured by> 7 performance on
assessment instruments;> 8 (2) student progress in schools or classrooms> 9
participating in the pilot project as compared with student> 10 progress in
schools or classrooms not participating;> 11 (3) student performance on
assessment instruments> 12 required by the State Board;> > Items 1 and 3
specify the use of standard tests for evaluating the> program. If this bill
becomes law, the education authorities will be> prohibited from evaluating the
children's interest in learning,> whatever they learn outside the curriculum,
or their progress in> collaboration, independent learning, discovery,
creativity, or> problem-solving. Several laptop programs in the US have been
shut down> because they did not evaluate any of these things, and produced no>
significant gains in standard test scores.> > If we want to make this program
happen, we have to learn how education> using the XO is supposed to work, teach
a bit of it to the legislature> and the public, and then make sure that that
understanding informs any> bill on the subject. This means that group members
will have to learn> to demonstrate the process with real children, and show the
process to> everybody who will pay attention. We also have to be prepared for
the> naysayers who will come up with every excuse not to look.> > * These
laptops are toys> * Laptops distract from the educational basics> * Children
will just play games or view porn (or any other content the> speaker doesn't
like)> * Discipline will break down as children message each other in class> *
It costs too much> * What do you mean, children can repair XOs?> * What do you
mean, children can teach each other?> > In the Chicago O'Hare airport on my way
to PyCon last month, I offered> a child a chance to try an XO. His mother
wouldn't let him touch it,> because she is a Christian home-schooler. (The boy
turned on his> mother and said, "I hate you." She said, "No, you don't," which
is no> doubt true, but not helpful.)> > The New Math died in large part because
of such objections, compounded> with the fact that the teachers were not given
adequate training.> > 13 (4) school cost savings on textbook or other
purchases> 14 replaced by laptop abilities;> > How will such savings be
realized, when there are no approved> electronic textbooks to replace the paper
ones?> > 15 (5) attendance rates;> 16 (6) teacher performance and retention;>
17 (7) communications among students, teachers, parents,> 18 and
administrators;> 19 (8) parental involvement in education;> 20 (9) community
involvement and support for the school;> 21 and> > Points 4 through 9 are fine,
although I would think it would take at> least two years to evaluate teacher
retention. But how will parental> involvement be approached? Will the teachers
explain Constructionism> to the parents? Will they be expected to learn simply
be observing> their children, or through what the children can teach them, or
will> there be a program to bring in parents and teach them? It makes a>
difference.> > 22 (10) student proficiency in technologies or "computer> 23
literacy".> > This shows that the author of the bill has no idea what the
laptop> program is about. The question is whether the children can program,>
build Web sites, administer servers, set up wireless networks, learn> (human)
languages over the Internet, and create more XO software and> content. But the
question that comes before that is, how will they> learn that, given that there
is no curriculum for it, and no> age-appropriate textbooks? Will they be
allowed to learn any of it?> > So we need to bring in people who know something
about these matters> to advise the legislature and the educators. There aren't
many such> people available, which means that we have to become most of the>
experts we need.> > >> > Thanks,> > Larry Langellier> > Calling or writing is
easy. Building a movement is actual work. Who's> up for it? Ask your children
who have tried XOs how much of a> difference it would make to them to have XOs
in school before you make> up your mind. Don't forget that the children can
volunteer in this> project.> > > First -- find your Representative and/or
Senator at> >
http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/SelectSearchType.aspx> > All of
them have 2 offices -- one in their home district and one in> > Springfield.
You can call and write both of them. For a phone call, just> > find your
Representative or Senator's phone number, call the office and tell> > them in a
few sentences that you hope they will support House Bill 5000 (The> >
Children's Low Cost Laptop Act). For a letter or email, feel free to use the> >
script below:> >> > ***PERSONALIZE THE BLANKS AND THE STUFF IN ALL CAPS***> >>
> Dear ____________________________,> >> > I believe that laptop computers can
help improve, and maybe even transform,> > elementary school education in
Illinois.> >> > When you have the chace to vote on the Illinois Children's
Low-cost Laptop> > Act (House Bill 5000), I hope you will think about the kids
in our> > community, whose future social, economic and educational
opportunities will> > be tied to their command of technology.> >> > The
Children's Low Cost Laptop Act calls on the Illinois State Board of> >
Education to administer a pilot project that would allow up to 300> >
elementary schools in Illinois to receive grant funding for low-cost (under> >
$400) laptops. Support for professional development (teacher training),> >
school infrastructure readiness and laptop repair are accounted for in the> >
bill.> > Where? I see teacher training and parts, but no maintenance personnel>
or infrastructure. Well, the kids can do the repairs on XOs, but what> if the
program buys something else?> > I see nothing defining what training to give,
or how to decide what> training to give. Will we just show the teachers how the
XO works?> Will we teach them anything about Constructionism? Will we do it
using> textbooks, or will we do it hands-on in a Constructionist manner? Will>
we provide any curriculum guidance? How will they share what they> discover in
the classroom? Can we bring in the training programs now> being given in Peru,
Uruguay, or Nepal?> > The State Board shall use pilot> 7 project funds for the
following:> 8 (1) low-cost laptop computers;> 9 (2) replacements for any of the
following low-cost> 10 laptop components: batteries, power cords, or other> 11
software and hardware; and> 12 (3) the hiring of staff to administer
professional> 13 development and technical support for participating> 14
teachers; for the purposes of this item (3), "professional> 15 development"
means the training of certified teaching> 16 professionals in the integration
of low-cost laptop> 17 computers into the classroom curriculum.> > > Elementary
schools like ______________________________ in our> > community could benefit
if this bill becomes law.> >> > But make no mistake. I know that laptops alone
will not fix all the problems> > in our schools.> >> > The fundamentals --
reading, writing, math, history, science, art and music,> > too -- can all be
reinforced with computer technology.> > Reinforced? No, the fundamentals can be
mastered with computer> technology, and the children can learn far more than
they ever have.> > > We must make it a> > priority in Illinois to produce a
generation of young people who can> > outperform kids in other states and other
parts of the globe.> > I hate that kind of political nonsense. The point of the
laptop is to> get children everywhere into collaboration. It's not a race. It's
not> a zero-sum game.> > > House Bill> > 5000 is a real step in this direction.
Thank you for considering my letter,> > and for your work on behalf of the
people of ________________.> >> > PERSONAL STORY AND/OR CLOSING COMMENT.> >> >
Sincerely,> >> > YOUR NAME> >> > ________________________________> > Use video
conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. Get> > started!>
> _______________________________________________> > OLPC-Chicago mailing list>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-chicago> >> >> > >
> -- > Edward Cherlin> End Poverty at a Profit by teaching children business>
http://www.EarthTreasury.org/> "The best way to predict the future is to invent
it."--Alan Kay
_________________________________________________________________
Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_getintouch_042008
_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open
