
Why giving poor kids computers doesn't improve scholastic performance. - jbrun
http://www.slate.com/id/2192798/pagenum/all/
======
wallflower
A good friend of mine grew up poor in the city. His parents brought him and
his brother every Sunday to the bookstore and told them they could buy a book.
Even when the family was having trouble with finances. To this day, an
individual who loves literature, he gets emotional when trying to tell me what
this meant to him.

~~~
pmorici
Sure, but if you have a computer with internet you have access to Wikipedia
and the like. Access to information is what allows people to bring themselves
up in the world. In so far as the OLPC will bring these kids more and higher
quality information it will help them of course they need to learn to read
before they can realize those benefits.

------
noonespecial
_Scholastic performance_ in this context usually means _ability to follow
arbitrary instructions, remain quiet, and perform obviously unimportant
busywork without becoming bored or distracted._

So, no, a tool that can both provide distraction and unleash a creative mind
to explore is not exactly what you'd want to hand someone you'd like to meet
the above goal. Its quite likely the opposite. _For God's sake, give it to
them!_

------
GavinB
The important question isn't whether it improves scholastic performance, but
whether it improves life and career performance. Computer skills are a
prerequisite for getting almost any modern job.

Whether a computer improves a student's performance on algebra or history is
really not too important.

~~~
a-priori
Very good point. I had a computer available almost as long as I've been in
school, since about age 6-7. I first stumbled onto QBASIC shortly thereafter,
and I've been coding ever since.

My grades were never stellar. I was just never driven to excel in school and
avoided homework whenever possible. Instead of studying, I spent my time
learning about computers.

All that time on the computer definitely hurt my scholastic performance, but
it did wonders for my career performance.

~~~
roadtripgeek
My dad was a programmer, so I don't know what it's like to grow up without a
computer. Having a computer from such a young age set me up to be bored in
school. Zork was a major influence in my initial interest in reading. By the
time I hit kindergarten, I was already devouring the biographies written for
kids. My teachers usually didn't know what to do with me, so I spent most of
kindergarten - second grade on my own in the school library.

My grades have always been good, but I think that's more because of my
parents' influence. My mom is a teacher and helped me find books on subjects
that weren't offered in my school, so I would be less likely to hit material
that I would be learning later in class. She also encouraged me to write.

My dad introduced me to programming and Pascal in elementary school. I went to
a rural public high school in Louisiana, so my dad would often pick up old
college textbooks in subjects my high school didn't offer, like chemistry,
Latin, and history from a non Christian perspective. He also stood up for me
when my guidance counselor tried to put me on the MRS. track instead of
college. If I had to sit through 4 years of home ec and parenting classes, I
would have dropped out as soon as I turned 16.

I think kids tend to do better in school when their parents care. An involved
parent could use a computer to enhance their child's education. A non involved
parent might use it as "tv 2.0" - just another thing to entertain their kid so
they don't have to.

~~~
rw
A deeper thing you're getting at is the irrelevancy of public grade school.

~~~
Zev
Public school isn't irrelevant. It just needs to be updated a bit. The gap
between how the current generation (people born post 1980 or so) and people
born before before that is _huge_. And now we're starting to get teachers who
grew up in the 1980's and soon, the 90's. Having teachers that know how to
relate to kids will do more to keep them interested then any change in the
curriculum can do.

Because, fundamentally, the curricula is solid - Math doesn't change that
often, Physics/Chemistry/Biology/Earth Sciences are well established fields.
History is ongoing, but given what High School history classes focus on, it's
not going to change much. English/Literature isn't going to change an
incredible amount - new books can be added in, but Shakespeare's words haven't
changed since he wrote them. Writing styles may come and go, but thats just a
small part of everything learned in HS.

------
mynameishere
I'm not sure why anyone thought that computers could aid in teaching
traditional subjects. Computers can store and process data, simulate objects,
crunch numbers. They cannot explain or evaluate. These are the root of
teaching and they're beyond computers' abilities.

My schools always had computers, and I never observed anything to suggest they
aided in teaching. At best, they were labor-saving: More efficient than
typewriters, more efficient than paper indices, more efficient than
microfiche, etc.

------
gaius
The truth is that if pencils and paper don't work, then computers won't
either. The problem can't be solved by chucking more "stuff" or money at it.

