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
_________________________________________________________________
Going green? See the top 12 foods to eat organic.
http://green.msn.com/galleries/photos/photos.aspx?gid=164&ocid=T003MSN51N1653A
_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open
