Glenn-

Thanks for the link. I had a related rant over the $100 laptop:
http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2005/11/negroponte_as_the_music_man.html

I was floored at the lack of discussion over cost/benefit and 'total cost of ownership' (training, etc.).

I've been following the laptop-in-schools debate on GlennLog for a while, and I've always been curious what you think of the One Laptop per Child (http://www.laptop.org/) project.

Do the differences in environment (poor developing vs rich developed countries) or goals (teaching programming vs word-processing) make it more or less worthwhile?

[Glenn writes: I would cast the argument differently as I don't know that developed world children need laptops, either. When I read the One Laptop Per Child Web site, it's very very short on reasons why and very very long on reasons how and when.

I can't articulate a good reason for kids to have laptops as a tool for basic learning, which is a problem in much of the U.S., Canada, Mexico, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa...probably Australia.

Since the fundamental problem is about learning how to communicate, a tool that improves communication doesn't necessarily improve the ability to communicate.

Written expression and verbal expression are still two of the most important measures of social status and one's ability to progress in any social, academic, or business environment. That's taught best by human beings, though it can certainly be supplemented by heuristic learning programs that adapt to a person. I haven't heard much about that kind of software at all being part of any of these programs.

The sciences benefit most from computers because you can simulate with a computer what you might not be able to afford (or what might not be safe to do) with physical materials. You can also learn to program, which isn't a basic learning skill, but is certainly a good professional skil.

The squishy goal of One Laptop is that give kids laptops and they'll learn and create. This includes appropriate software, which hasn't yet been defined or possibly even developed. They write in their FAQ: "Laptops are both a window and a tool: a window into the world and a tool with which to think. They are a wonderful way for all children to learn learning through independent interaction and exploration."

Sure. But there's a difference between exploring and learning. Learning through interaction and exploration doesn't require staring at a screen or an exclusive screen.

I'd so much rather more teachers be hired and better classroom materials be developed, and more time be spent learning with real people and things. That's expensive. But computers are more expensive.

I'm not interested in having my son learn PowerPoint in school. I am interested in him spending days with nets in rubber boots in a river examining fish and insects.

Glenn wrote, "I'd rather my son spend years learning to draw than years learning to PowerPoint...."

Very well put, Glenn. Why is that educators cannot see the issue with this much clarity?