One Laptop per Child Criticism

Education is necessary for the development of a nation as well as for the continuous growth of any society. Those at MIT, who pioneered the One Laptop Per Child program, approached the challenge to expand education access to children in developing countries by integrating communication, technology, and creativity in a $100 laptop (ok, really between $188 and $399 depending on where you live, but the idea is still nice; see the official site).

Running on an OX system, the durable laptop is waterproof, can withstand drops of up to 4 feet, and is powered by sunlight, foot-pump or pull string (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6994957.stm). The operating system itself entertains and educates with activities such as a web browser, music-making programs, a camera for photos and movies, e-books, journal, newsreader, drawing programs, a data collecting and analyzing device, and more. (http://www.laptop.org/en/laptop/start/activities.shtml)

In addition to the importance placed on creative and observational input from the children using these machines, I am very impressed by Pippy, an introduction to the programming language Python (anyone that took biochem 331 will remember this as the basis for our beloved PyMol assignments).

On the freedom-to-tinker blog, a 12 year old wrote rave reviews about the laptop distributed to school age children around the world. (http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1187). SG, an amazingly articulate 6th grader, offered these closing comments:

“All in all, this laptop is great for its price, its job, and its value. It is almost perfect. Just speed it up, give it a little more battery charge hold, and you have yourself the perfect laptop. I’m sure kids around the world will really love, enjoy, and cherish these laptops. They will be so useful. This program is truly amazing.”

I agree with SG and others that Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the One Laptop Per Child program, has made an important attempt to share technological advances that many developed countries enjoy with children in developing nations. Information about health could perhaps increase productivity in a community that primarily generates income through labor. Interaction with ideas, beyond the unidirectional presentation of news on television, could invigorate change. I believe the spread of knowledge is crucial in any community, but there are some downfalls to this program that I think should be considered.

To begin with, these laptops are easily stolen or sold to provide much needed income to many families in the developing world. A small budget for training may leave teachers ill-equipped; students may be able to operate the system with ease, but potentially learning little. Technical support is limited in many areas, as is Internet access. A lack of books and websites in student’s native tongue or concerning their culture could undermine cultural identity and collectiveness. Of course, there is always the question of power as demonstrated by who has the laptops and who gets them. Some Americans argue that it is unfair to charge a greater amount for the computers in America when there are millions of children in the US who are also in need of information access and creative entertainment. Finally, as a nutrition major, I have to point out that increased computer use is associated with a decrease in physical activity, setting the stage for rising BMIs (though this is probably not an immediate concerns, although obesity is rapidly rising in developing countries- that’s a whole other topic to blog about).

In contrast, this program facilitates new ways that children can learn, therefore broadening the possibilities life offers them. For example, limited tech support causes laptop owners to take problem solving into their own hands. “What you want is for the kids to do the repairs,” said Negroponte, who believes such tinkering is itself a valuable lesson. “I think the kids can repair 95 percent of the laptops.” (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/12/25/onelaptop.onevillage.ap/index.html).

Overall, I like the idea of sharing technology that increases access and exchange of knowledge. I am curious to know where this program works, when it does not, and ways that such a program could improve. Factors at the ground level, such as gender issues, power structures in the households, theft frequency, and many more could influence how such a program could succeed in diverse regions in our own country and around the world.

What do you think?