the argument was 'we do not have the money, and the money we do have is better spent elsewhere', which is true for all countries. it is more important to give their children healthcare, primary and secondary education with access to computing through those venues, than to invest in an underconceptualized program. why do you think the newspaper might have published those other 'positions' without sharing the context of the rest of the report? without providing you the opportunity to judge the full merit of the position? might they have been structuring their news in a way to generate just the response that you gave them? I think they did and i think the article is meant to be critical of the decision though it appears to be objective. as for their second argument that you dismiss, i think it really hits the nail on the head. why doesn't the u.s. have a one laptop per child program... what happened to the one laptop per child program in maine,? why doesn't france have one, or germany? have there been experiments with this in terms of large scale policy? (hint, the answer is yes), what did they show? I tend to think that bureaucrats in India have done the homework. and beyond that India has had many successful computer education programs based on other models, the kiosk program and the private training program come to mind. Perhaps in their mind.... it is more important for india to educate its students(6-12) to become other things than computer users given that you can gain computer competencies at nearly any stage in life. Let's also remember that India has a history with universal computing, not just for children, but for everyone, the simputer case is instructive. On Jul 27, 2006, at 12:49 AM, Wojciech Gryc wrote:
Hi,
Keeping in mind the long discussion that was posted a few weeks ago with regards to the merits (or lack thereof) of the One Laptop Per Child project, I thought this may interest subscribers of this list:
HRD rubbishes MIT's laptop scheme for kids http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/ msid-1698603,curpg-1.cms
So India has decided against the One Laptop Per Child Project (for now). Two arguments that stood out for me:
1. Poor rural children often have health problems that may be exacerbated by laptop use, especially those affecting eyesight and children's backs. 2. No developed country has universalized laptops for children, so why should India?
I must say that the first argument is a perfect example of how people in developed countries often lack the foresight and local knowledge required to adequately decide whether a technology truly is "appropriate". Forget the merits to education or the potential for employability skills -- those are secondary to the potentially negative health effects of the laptops.
Thanks, Wojciech Gryc
--
Five Minutes to Midnight: Youth on human rights and current affairs http://www.fiveminutestomidnight.org/ _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ LI-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series