Thanks, mmille10, for an interesting discussion. I recall an allegation that ninety percent of everything is crap. Further, I personally recall that if even ten percent of my classmates were interested and engaged in any particular class, then it was a delightful exception to the general rule.
Indeed, it is my understanding, perhaps shallow and incomplete, that the constructionist/constructivist intent behind OLPC is to counter that trend toward useless education by getting students engaged in individual or team projects. With the engagement comes attention and intention which together make the learning both deeper and broader as well as very much faster than the typical classroom setting accomplishes.
One hopes that every level of education fosters a love of reading, thinking, conversing, and acting in its participants, no matter how often that turns out not to happen. Literacy, numeracy, and critical thought all demand bi-directionality. One must not only read but also write, not only be able to calculate but also choose to calculate about new topics, not only think and reason but also act in support of those conclusions.
Otherwise, one is a mere observer without a life of her own worth living, worth the air breathed and the space taken in the bio-sphere.
Fortunately, in the first world at least, we have convenient access to tremendous educational resources outside the formal institutions putatively dedicated to that purpose. That access is exactly what we hope to spread into and outside of the formal institutions of education outside the first world, is it not?
No wonder politicians are a bit leery of enthusiastic support for this effort in their own domains. It could foster uncontrolled activities by students and even teachers. Pretty scary.
Richard Karpinski, Nitpicker dick@cfcl.com 148 Sequoia Circle, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Home +1 707-546-6760 Cell +1 707-228-9716 http://cfcl.com/twiki/bin/view/Karpinski
ps Put "nitpicker" in the subject line to get past my spam filters.
squeakland@lists.squeakfoundation.org