[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [xmca]schools-without-computers-by-choice-and-conviction-that-they-dont-help-kids

There may be a lot more to this than meets the eye.  A couple of years ago there was an article in Wired suggesting children of parents working in Silicon Valley had a higher incidence of Aspberger's and that parents were kind of worried about this.  So this idea of no computer schools may in some ways be a response to that.
There is also the idea of who is actually interviewed in the article and quote in the blog post.  The head of e-bay isn't really that much of a technology person, more of a businessman, and I believe a strong libertarian.  Don't assume the Silicon Valley people have that good a grasp of education.  Remember Bill Gates (I know, he's Seattle) and his foundation are in my opinion doing more harm than good to open and progressive education.  The other person writes speeches for Eric Schmitt, who again is a business person not a technology person.  The magic words Silicon Valley are not synomous with knowledge or even strong affinity for varied potentials of technology.
Perhaps the darkest part of this is that when the children who go to these Waldorf schools go home they are most probably immersed in a very advanced technological ecology where they and the people around them are using different types of tools and applications at a pretty high rate.  Probably the stuff these students get in school is somewhat redundant.  This is not true for people from different, often lower SES backgrounds.  We are a backwards nation in many ways when it comes to making technology available for all (braodband is probably prohibitively expensive for many, and while there is some public access it is often limited and often not very good).  Schools are the only place many children get to use technology on a regular basis.
So then what is the point of the Times article and the blog post?  Is it even people from Silicon Valley don't want computers in their schools so why should we wiring our schools at all?  Or is it something else?


From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bill Kerr
Sent: Wed 10/26/2011 7:37 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca]schools-without-computers-by-choice-and-conviction-that-they-dont-help-kids

The constructionist use of computers in schools as developed by Seymour
Papert and allies is still a fruitful one. The modern incarnation of the
software is scratch from MIT http://scratch.mit.edu/ but it remains true
that to understand its educational philosophy fully you need to read some
books. One idea is "hard play". Another is "low entry, high ceiling". This
was modified a little in scratch to "low floor, wide walls".

Moreover, the one laptop per child (OLPC) as developed by Negroponte and
allies remains a worthwhile experiment to kick start learning for third
world children.

Peter, all the link shows is that mediocre use of computers leads to
mediocre results.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:

> http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/10/26/schools-without-computers-by-choice-and-conviction-that-they-dont-help-kids/?cxntfid=blogs_get_schooled_blog
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
xmca mailing list


xmca mailing list