It’s easy to get caught up in the buzz of some new social
innovation that aims to solve the world’s problems. I’m not questioning the
intent behind a great idea; I’m just asking for a thoughtful pause about the
whole whirlwind of fetishizing the next new thing.
I don’t think anyone
can argue the monumental significance of giving young children access to the
web through product’s like One Laptop Per Child (OLPC)’s screen tablet. The
effects are huge, especially if these new products are given to children who
need them the most. With words like ‘technology’ and ‘access to the internet’ being
almost synonymous to increased educational opportunities these days, organizations
like OLPC are not the only ones who believe that laptops can facilitate positive
educational outcomes.
| Children in LAUSD receive iPads |
For example, schools systems in the US are exploring
technology to bridge the achievement gap in their own “emerging markets”. When
the Los Angeles School District (LAUSD)—the second largest school district in
the US—announced that they would be providing iPads for all students, there
were mixed responses. This would cost the district over $38 million if they
were to provide iPads for all 650,000 students. Late last month, however, the
first couple elementary schools received their iPads. Kids were excited as district
officials visited classrooms and snapped flashy photos to mark the roll-out of
their new technology plan. Equipping each student with an iPad and access to
the internet and educational software is great, but how much will this improve
student learning? Will the teachers and school administrators be prepared to
support the new technology features?
Although both of these scenarios seem different at first,
because we are comparing the impact of a child from a developing world
receiving a tablet and a child from a developed world receiving a tablet, there
are several commonalities. New innovations and products can easily seize the
attention of students and teachers alike. But are there instances when
innovations and products lose their luster? How do they? Without sufficient
helping structures in place to facilitate the use of these new innovations and
products, these efforts may be in vain.
No educational device can replace the role of an actual
human teacher and I don’t think OLPC or LAUSD is suggesting that. But, we can
take a broader look at the education system to see what other concerns need to
be addressed in tandem with handing out new devices. Maybe the issue of
attracting teachers? How about finding incentives for families to send children
to school? Or considering government partnerships with organizations to help
roll out these new changes?
 |
| Eager to learn |
The good news is that there is a hunger for more educational
opportunities. Take the story of a school under a bridge in India. Last December
in 2012, the world found out about a 40-year old man from New Dehli who was on
a mission to get children of laborers an education and admission into
government schools. It was heart-warming and hopeful, yet highlighted the sense
of urgency about educational opportunities in developing countries.
 |
| School Under a Bridge |
As social innovators, we must always think about the broader
implications of the new product or idea. We cannot be effective or hope that
our ideas or products will be effective unless we become knowledgeable about
the systemic problems that currently exist. As we pair new ideas or products
with helping structures in the community to support the new endeavors, I am
positive that there will be long-lasting positive outcomes—whether for a child
in India or in the inner city of Los Angeles.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.