First, thanks to if:book for the link to The Children’s Machine, a program now known as CM1 and formerly called One Laptop Per Child. Though neither a parent nor academic, I’ve found myself so far behind (No Adult Left Behind?) in what’s going on in the educational field that the buzz words that filled discussions sounded like new computer peripherals and just as I try to keep up with technology, I figured it was about time I understood what all the grumbling was about.
Checking out The Children’s Machine, I can see some pros and cons myself, even from an unprofessional viewpoint. The screen is so small and the cases appear to be plastic, although I believe that climate and third-world conditions were all taken into account in its hope to bring technology to the children (comparably K-12) in poor, remote villages across the globe at a reasonable price (to be paid by government, grants, nice people who donate). There’s even a pull-string system for running the computer, although my first thought would be solar-battery powered as more practical, since there will be no electricity in many of the areas that are being targeted. But it’s a noble effort (despite those people who object on the basis that these kids need Aids vaccines and food more than a computer–reminding me of the great Oprah Car Giveaway debate which was ridiculously based on trying to tell somebody else how to spend their own money) and it’s a first step. Where will the children be able to go from there? I don’t know. With anything, time will tell if the program is successful in offering opportunities that they didn’t have before. There will be problems and there will be changes. But it’s better than doing nothing at all.
Which brings me to my second point, the NCLB. I haven’t had the chance to do more than scan the original proposal, but at first glance, it would seem to be one made with the best of intentions to correct a long-standing problem. My initial response is that the simple punishment/reward method is a little unbalanced. Seeings that the schools that do not pass the test or show progress will be "punished" by withholding funds and these are the same schools that likely need the money, it’s a self-defeating proposition. Just as with the kids who have learned to cheat to get into better colleges, some school officials have learned to fix scores so as not to jeopardize funds. In neither case is that a solution.
I realize that teachers will automatically hate having someone looking over their shoulders and having to be rated–hey, their students hate that too–but standardized measures of some sort are there to tell a story. Perhaps the story needs to be read in layers that will reveal more questions and therefore, solutions to the diverse conditions of the particular problem areas. Teachers and the school environment are the primary tools for learning. Even if kids can’t get the help at home that they should from parents and siblings, tutoring would still be a responsibility of the system and what they’re being paid to do. Maybe more money is needed–this is what should be revealed by testing.
Obviously, I’m not up enough on all this to argue effectively. I’m just trying to understand the problems, the proposed corrections, and what works and what doesn’t. When you listen to Hartford teenagers say that they like the schools but don’t feel they’re getting an adequate education to prepare them for college or life ahead, then we know that something needs to be done.
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology