[OLPC-Chicago] The Children's Low-Cost Laptop Act - Contact your Illinois Legislators NOW!!!

[Edward Cherlin]

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Larry Langellier
<llangellier at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Excellent.

> 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.

No, actually I said that a little understanding would be OK. And maybe
that understanding exists. But the text of the bill doesn't indicate
that. It suggests that the idea is that all laptops are equal.

> 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.

This legislature and all the others in the US have forced
Prussian-style cookie-cutter education on the public for over a
century. Congress has forced schools to teach to the No Child Left
Behind tests, and to drop nearly everything else. A legislature can
state what it wants to see tested in a trial that it funds.

> 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.

Starting with a little bit of understanding on the part of everybody
our movement can reach, including legislators.

> You raised some questions:
>
> 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?
>
> 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?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I don't mean how many laptops, I mean maximum
RAM, hard drive, whatever. There is a strong temptation in government
contracts to spend all of the money, and to by the highest-priced
product that qualifies. Of course, we could make the argument that
buying the lowest-cost devices (XOs) creates the biggest program, if
it means that the schools can buy twice as many units.

> >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".

But the question is, should it be? Not because it has the best
hardware (although in some ways it does) but because it has
collaborative software over mesh networking that works even at home.

> 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?

I would like to see a proper experimental design that makes it
possible to draw meaningful conclusions. That means, in almost all
cases, limiting the number of variables to test. I don't see any
virtue in testing products just because they exist. But any devices
that do have mesh networking and collaborative software should of
course be in the trial.

> >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.

So perhaps the scope of the bill should be expanded a bit.

> >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?

I'm not going to tell them to ignore test results. But we need to work
out how to measure the real value of laptops in education before we
start throwing money around.

> >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.

I think you're right. But I'm fairly certain that without a
requirement to evaluate other forms of educational achievement, it
won't happen.

> 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.

Oh, good. We must ask them what they have come up with. My mother, who
studied Child Development at Chicago, told me about some tests for
such things, and also for creativity, a long time ago. No doubt there
are many  more since.

> >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!

Thank you.

> In the grand scheme of
> things, passing the bill may be the easy part...

Too true. But it is possible that real education will have its effects
even if those delivering it don't understand it.

> 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".

Not at all. This is precisely what we need to hear from those doing
the work. No hiding your light under a bushel.

> 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.

Given the network effects we can expect from free electronic
textbooks, I doubt that. But it is a well-known error of the past.

> 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!

The OLPC Development mailing list and Google Summer of Code are full
of such ideas. Ask me about health, including telemedicine, games, the
multilingual program editor, text-to-speech for literacy, learning
about electricity with the digital oscilloscope in Measure, plugging
an iPod in in Measure and switching to frequency analysis mode,
creating musical instruments in Synthlab and running _them_ through
Measure, the clip-on microscope,...

> 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.

Micromanagement, no; understanding possibilities, I think so. We'll
discuss this further.

> Best Regards,
> Larry

Cheers.
-- 
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