12 ms·

I live in Argentina. The OLPC came to Argentina to promote the project, at the same time as Uruguay our neighbors. The pressure from Intel/Microsoft to no adopt

I live in Argentina. The OLPC came to Argentina to promote the project, at the same time as Uruguay our neighbors. The pressure from Intel/Microsoft to no adopt it was incredible. In record time there were cheap netbooks pre-installed with a reduced version of Windows including Office. They did lot of lobby, and while Uruguay choose the OLPC... Argentina went with the Wintel netbooks. I think that the project failed because it ignored the political aspects of the education system. The $100 laptop was a distraction. A fundamental aspect of the project was to rethink education in relationship with technology. But if you learn a little bit about the history of education in each country, you’ll see that education is closely related with politics (e.g. the Catholic Church had a lot of influence in Latin America the education system). While technology is an important driver for change, if you want to change the education system including how teachers teach... technology alone is not enough. Sadly companies like Microsoft and Intel understood that it was easy to convince corrupt politicians to buy the machines without a substantial change of the status quo: win-win for the companies and policy makers, but a loss for the future of children.

clueless123 7y ago
Exactly the same for Peru where I live.
jseliger 7y ago
I think that the project failed because it ignored the political aspects of the education system. The $100 laptop was a distraction. A fundamental aspect of the project was to rethink education in relationship with technology. I suspect 1/100 or 1/500 or some similar number of people will be extraordinary autodidacts and, if you give them sufficient baseline education and an Internet-connected computer, they will get extraordinary results. I've worked on numerous 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) proposals that were supposed to get computers and the Internet in US schools from 2000 onwards. That effort has largely succeeded and not been a panacea. Today I still ban laptops in class: https://jakeseliger.com/2008/12/28/laptops-students-distraction-hardly-a-surprise https://jakeseliger.com/2008/12/28/laptops-students-distract... because they seem to detract from learning, on the net.
- ericol 7y ago
  At the time of the program in many areas of Argentina it was rather internet was not really widespread enough. And when the kids would go in the internet would be either to play Counter-Strike or log into Facebook, that was taking over the world at the time. > if you give them sufficient baseline education That didn't happen. I think even 1/500 is too optimist. Anecdotally, there were some security measures implemented in the netbooks in Argentina that would require periodic re-enabling (So as to prevent kids for quitting school?) and the only "smart" thing I saw coming out of the netbooks was kids finding out how to circumvent those measures (That in this age and time means just googling it)
- lukego 7y ago
  I'm an "autodidact" programmer so I feel like I should discount myself as an outlier in this discussion, but I'm amazed to see my kids just spending time on their computers at age 4-5. They are learning really complex problem solving in Minecraft, learning to sound out words when searching the inventory for items, and learning a little geometry when trying to predict the right coordinates to teleport to. They learn fluent English with an advanced vocabulary automatically too. I love to watch it and it reminds me of how I engaged with computers as a kid too. They learn all this stuff independently on YouTube tutorials. I just join in their games and play along and ask for help when I get stuck. Or help them with sysadmin tasks like installing the "mods" they want to try. So I feel like my kids are living the dream and engaging with computers in a positive way, regardless of whether it improves their grades in school, and to me the purpose of OLPC was to spread this self-directed play-learning opportunity much more widely. Isn't everybody a bit of an autodidact in the age of YouTube, podcasts, blogs, and forums?
agumonkey 7y ago
every good will project ignore politics, marketing, and reality and fails miserably tough
- justaguyhere 7y ago
  It is hard enough to get good projects going, especially something involving hardware. They have to think about funding, manufacturing, shipment, spreading the word out ... In addition to these, if they also have to think about politics - especially against those with insane resources like Intel or Microsoft, it is almost an impossible fight. It says a lot about our society as a whole that good projects face such miserable odds
ericol 7y ago
I wouldn't go as far as saying that it was a lost for the future of children, but I'm all in for saying that it made no difference. I have 3 daughters between 25 and 18. The 3 of them received a netbook from the plan. My father was a teacher both at secondary schools and at a university at the same time that the program developed, and he was a serious and dedicated proponent for the use of the netbooks on class; so, I kind of have a first hand experience on 2 sides of the dice ;) From the side of my kids, it was just a way to be able to connect to the internet 24/7, with absolutely no effect on their academic performance (I'd dare saying it had a negative effect; not trying to diminish my responsibility, but it was rather difficult as a single father to policy 3 young girls while at the same time the example set on the contrary by their friends was rather strong: Most father would just let the kids use the computer all day, as that meant not having to care for them). My father, on the other side, was an island in a sea of apathy from the people that were supposed to drive the change. I think the biggest issues with the "Plan Conectar" were mainly four: - The government on average thought was that it was enough just to drop the computers in the kids' lap. - There was a big disconnect between the main drivers of the program and the "lower ranks" of the educative establishment. - A HUGE percentage of the educative workforce was computer illiterate, and both passively and actively rejected the program. - When the program was crafted, it was not visible defined (Nor there was anybody / anything actively defining it nor enforcing it) who's responsibility was to implement the program from the top to bottom, so basically everybody's attitude was "Not my responsibility". I'm friends with the person that was responsible for the program from the whole of my province, and I know for a fact - I even once applied for a position with them - how much of an effort they were doing for the program, and how excellent they were at doing that. I'm also aware of how much of a fight they were presented against, and how it felt like a lost cause from them start.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  > - The government on average thought was that it was enough just to drop the computers in the kids' lap. An relevant quote on technology and education [1]: > You might have said "What is the role of computers and bicycles in education?" Then I would have said, "Why the bicycles?" and you "Why the computer?" Efforts like OLPC seem to start from wrong place: presupposing that access to technology will be good for education and then figuring out how to solve that, rather than looking at what educational issues actually exist and determining the problem from there. [1] http://tech.mit.edu/V105/N16/weisen.16n.html http://tech.mit.edu/V105/N16/weisen.16n.html
coob 7y ago
> A fundamental aspect of the project was to rethink education in relationship with technology. Disclaimer: I worked on early software for the OLPC (had an original dev board) for a group that (long after I left) went on to win the Global Learning X-Prize [1]. I actually think the issue with the OLPC not achieving its goals is that they focused too much on the hardware and not what software was on the device and the learning outcomes the software delivered for children. The classic "here's some tech go figure out what to do with it" approach doesn't work. There was more interest in teaching to code and open software rather than basic numeracy and literacy. Content is king here. That's why initiatives like those of the winners of the Global Learning X-Prize[1] have shown measurable impact on learning outcomes. [1] https://www.xprize.org/prizes/global-learning https://www.xprize.org/prizes/global-learning
- cptaj 7y ago
  I work in education technology as well and I definitely see what you're saying. There is always a focus on more and more tech... but content remains shitty across the board. Youtubers are lightyears ahead of content providers in the education industry.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  Completely agree! We started playpower.org to build 8bit learning software for existing $10 tv-connected computers because it seemed like the OLPC didn't get that the market would happily make dirt cheap hardware, but wouldn't produce the software. At the time, we thought an open-source approach could work for content production, but gradually shifted into a for-profit funding mechanism. We still contribute to open source education (such as one of the global xprize finalists) but see our best work in helping commercial education companies produce better digital experiences. It is slow, incremental and often frustrating (working with textbook companies), but the scale of impact is enormous. Bottom line: market forces can easily support cheap hardware but not support educationally effective software (since edu markets don't pay for efficacy)
- inimino 7y ago
  I disagree. Access to understandable technology is more important than content. These are not mere content delivery devices. Unfortunately, decision makers are poorly informed, and people are lazy, and prefer something already polished over a box of pointy tools.
Analemma_ 7y ago
> A fundamental aspect of the project was to rethink education in relationship with technology. But if you learn a little bit about the history of education in each country, you’ll see that education is closely related with politics ... if you want to change the education system including how teachers teach... technology alone is not enough. Careful now, Jason Palmer was anathematized by the Valley elite for saying exactly that: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/style/oh-behave.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/style/oh-behave.html
rbanffy 7y ago
> The pressure from Intel/Microsoft to no adopt it was incredible. At that point in time, the OLPC was perceived as an existential threat to Microsoft and, to a lesser degree, to Intel. Intel because it had nothing that could be used in them (which was solved to some extent by netbooks and Atom processors). For Microsoft, it meant a whole generation of kids could grow up having never used Office or Windows, something that Microsoft would not be able to counter unless OLPC failed. Brazil was pretty much the same. They made an incredible effort to push Atom-based computers running Windows that had none of the more interesting aspects of the OLPC - not the sunlight-friendly screen, the mesh network, the software for group activities, the openness to tinkering... I don't think the OLPC team realized its mere announcement would be a declaration of war. They'd need Intel's buy-in (at least to cut Microsoft lose) and they'd need to quickly mass-market the tech through someone like V-Tech in developed countries to get funded through hardware licensing and financial commitment to get software and content developed. Then they could properly scale up to government level and demonstrate the Microsoft argument that the kids wouldn't be prepared to join the workforce (and enjoy the Microsoft lock-in) was void. Now, imagine the colossal power it would be to be able to help shape the content kids all over the world would use to learn. I would expect the US government to get interested in that, but it didn't.
- fragmede 7y ago
  I think there was a missed step between the original concept and the step to productionization. Recent scandal aside, MIT's Media Lab has been a pivotal force in technology, but sometimes the world at large isn't ready for pivots. In this case, fighting both Microsoft and Intel (with the full benefit of hindsight) was unfortunately and ultimately foolish. My outsider perspective is parts of the Media Lab had an ivory-tower, idealized view that Thinkpads running Linux are the proper way to compute (no judgement, I still believe that), thus the OLPC should resemble that, but childlike. One route to productionization would have been to move the platform to existing expensive Windows(/Intel) laptops after the first production run proving that a $100 BOM was quite possible. Moving to Windows laptops would have been a very large compromise to the original project's high-minded, ambitions goals, but one that would have preserved the project. The Windows kernel and Explorer isn't open but that wouldn't have prevented porting the Sugar interface to Windows and kept the main UI software goals of the project open source and editable/"compilable" directly on the laptop.

clueless123 7y ago

Exactly the same for Peru where I live.

jseliger 7y ago

I think that the project failed because it ignored the political aspects of the education system. The $100 laptop was a distraction. A fundamental aspect of the project was to rethink education in relationship with technology. I suspect 1/100 or 1/500 or some similar number of people will be extraordinary autodidacts and, if you give them sufficient baseline education and an Internet-connected computer, they will get extraordinary results. I've worked on numerous 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) proposals that were supposed to get computers and the Internet in US schools from 2000 onwards. That effort has largely succeeded and not been a panacea. Today I still ban laptops in class: https://jakeseliger.com/2008/12/28/laptops-students-distraction-hardly-a-surprise https://jakeseliger.com/2008/12/28/laptops-students-distract... because they seem to detract from learning, on the net.

ericol 7y ago
At the time of the program in many areas of Argentina it was rather internet was not really widespread enough. And when the kids would go in the internet would be either to play Counter-Strike or log into Facebook, that was taking over the world at the time. > if you give them sufficient baseline education That didn't happen. I think even 1/500 is too optimist. Anecdotally, there were some security measures implemented in the netbooks in Argentina that would require periodic re-enabling (So as to prevent kids for quitting school?) and the only "smart" thing I saw coming out of the netbooks was kids finding out how to circumvent those measures (That in this age and time means just googling it)
lukego 7y ago
I'm an "autodidact" programmer so I feel like I should discount myself as an outlier in this discussion, but I'm amazed to see my kids just spending time on their computers at age 4-5. They are learning really complex problem solving in Minecraft, learning to sound out words when searching the inventory for items, and learning a little geometry when trying to predict the right coordinates to teleport to. They learn fluent English with an advanced vocabulary automatically too. I love to watch it and it reminds me of how I engaged with computers as a kid too. They learn all this stuff independently on YouTube tutorials. I just join in their games and play along and ask for help when I get stuck. Or help them with sysadmin tasks like installing the "mods" they want to try. So I feel like my kids are living the dream and engaging with computers in a positive way, regardless of whether it improves their grades in school, and to me the purpose of OLPC was to spread this self-directed play-learning opportunity much more widely. Isn't everybody a bit of an autodidact in the age of YouTube, podcasts, blogs, and forums?

agumonkey 7y ago

every good will project ignore politics, marketing, and reality and fails miserably tough

justaguyhere 7y ago
It is hard enough to get good projects going, especially something involving hardware. They have to think about funding, manufacturing, shipment, spreading the word out ... In addition to these, if they also have to think about politics - especially against those with insane resources like Intel or Microsoft, it is almost an impossible fight. It says a lot about our society as a whole that good projects face such miserable odds

ericol 7y ago

I wouldn't go as far as saying that it was a lost for the future of children, but I'm all in for saying that it made no difference. I have 3 daughters between 25 and 18. The 3 of them received a netbook from the plan. My father was a teacher both at secondary schools and at a university at the same time that the program developed, and he was a serious and dedicated proponent for the use of the netbooks on class; so, I kind of have a first hand experience on 2 sides of the dice ;) From the side of my kids, it was just a way to be able to connect to the internet 24/7, with absolutely no effect on their academic performance (I'd dare saying it had a negative effect; not trying to diminish my responsibility, but it was rather difficult as a single father to policy 3 young girls while at the same time the example set on the contrary by their friends was rather strong: Most father would just let the kids use the computer all day, as that meant not having to care for them). My father, on the other side, was an island in a sea of apathy from the people that were supposed to drive the change. I think the biggest issues with the "Plan Conectar" were mainly four: - The government on average thought was that it was enough just to drop the computers in the kids' lap. - There was a big disconnect between the main drivers of the program and the "lower ranks" of the educative establishment. - A HUGE percentage of the educative workforce was computer illiterate, and both passively and actively rejected the program. - When the program was crafted, it was not visible defined (Nor there was anybody / anything actively defining it nor enforcing it) who's responsibility was to implement the program from the top to bottom, so basically everybody's attitude was "Not my responsibility". I'm friends with the person that was responsible for the program from the whole of my province, and I know for a fact - I even once applied for a position with them - how much of an effort they were doing for the program, and how excellent they were at doing that. I'm also aware of how much of a fight they were presented against, and how it felt like a lost cause from them start.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
> - The government on average thought was that it was enough just to drop the computers in the kids' lap. An relevant quote on technology and education [1]: > You might have said "What is the role of computers and bicycles in education?" Then I would have said, "Why the bicycles?" and you "Why the computer?" Efforts like OLPC seem to start from wrong place: presupposing that access to technology will be good for education and then figuring out how to solve that, rather than looking at what educational issues actually exist and determining the problem from there. [1] http://tech.mit.edu/V105/N16/weisen.16n.html http://tech.mit.edu/V105/N16/weisen.16n.html

coob 7y ago

> A fundamental aspect of the project was to rethink education in relationship with technology. Disclaimer: I worked on early software for the OLPC (had an original dev board) for a group that (long after I left) went on to win the Global Learning X-Prize [1]. I actually think the issue with the OLPC not achieving its goals is that they focused too much on the hardware and not what software was on the device and the learning outcomes the software delivered for children. The classic "here's some tech go figure out what to do with it" approach doesn't work. There was more interest in teaching to code and open software rather than basic numeracy and literacy. Content is king here. That's why initiatives like those of the winners of the Global Learning X-Prize[1] have shown measurable impact on learning outcomes. [1] https://www.xprize.org/prizes/global-learning https://www.xprize.org/prizes/global-learning

cptaj 7y ago
I work in education technology as well and I definitely see what you're saying. There is always a focus on more and more tech... but content remains shitty across the board. Youtubers are lightyears ahead of content providers in the education industry.
dr_dshiv 7y ago
Completely agree! We started playpower.org to build 8bit learning software for existing $10 tv-connected computers because it seemed like the OLPC didn't get that the market would happily make dirt cheap hardware, but wouldn't produce the software. At the time, we thought an open-source approach could work for content production, but gradually shifted into a for-profit funding mechanism. We still contribute to open source education (such as one of the global xprize finalists) but see our best work in helping commercial education companies produce better digital experiences. It is slow, incremental and often frustrating (working with textbook companies), but the scale of impact is enormous. Bottom line: market forces can easily support cheap hardware but not support educationally effective software (since edu markets don't pay for efficacy)
inimino 7y ago
I disagree. Access to understandable technology is more important than content. These are not mere content delivery devices. Unfortunately, decision makers are poorly informed, and people are lazy, and prefer something already polished over a box of pointy tools.

Analemma_ 7y ago

> A fundamental aspect of the project was to rethink education in relationship with technology. But if you learn a little bit about the history of education in each country, you’ll see that education is closely related with politics ... if you want to change the education system including how teachers teach... technology alone is not enough. Careful now, Jason Palmer was anathematized by the Valley elite for saying exactly that: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/style/oh-behave.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/style/oh-behave.html

rbanffy 7y ago

> The pressure from Intel/Microsoft to no adopt it was incredible. At that point in time, the OLPC was perceived as an existential threat to Microsoft and, to a lesser degree, to Intel. Intel because it had nothing that could be used in them (which was solved to some extent by netbooks and Atom processors). For Microsoft, it meant a whole generation of kids could grow up having never used Office or Windows, something that Microsoft would not be able to counter unless OLPC failed. Brazil was pretty much the same. They made an incredible effort to push Atom-based computers running Windows that had none of the more interesting aspects of the OLPC - not the sunlight-friendly screen, the mesh network, the software for group activities, the openness to tinkering... I don't think the OLPC team realized its mere announcement would be a declaration of war. They'd need Intel's buy-in (at least to cut Microsoft lose) and they'd need to quickly mass-market the tech through someone like V-Tech in developed countries to get funded through hardware licensing and financial commitment to get software and content developed. Then they could properly scale up to government level and demonstrate the Microsoft argument that the kids wouldn't be prepared to join the workforce (and enjoy the Microsoft lock-in) was void. Now, imagine the colossal power it would be to be able to help shape the content kids all over the world would use to learn. I would expect the US government to get interested in that, but it didn't.

fragmede 7y ago
I think there was a missed step between the original concept and the step to productionization. Recent scandal aside, MIT's Media Lab has been a pivotal force in technology, but sometimes the world at large isn't ready for pivots. In this case, fighting both Microsoft and Intel (with the full benefit of hindsight) was unfortunately and ultimately foolish. My outsider perspective is parts of the Media Lab had an ivory-tower, idealized view that Thinkpads running Linux are the proper way to compute (no judgement, I still believe that), thus the OLPC should resemble that, but childlike. One route to productionization would have been to move the platform to existing expensive Windows(/Intel) laptops after the first production run proving that a $100 BOM was quite possible. Moving to Windows laptops would have been a very large compromise to the original project's high-minded, ambitions goals, but one that would have preserved the project. The Windows kernel and Explorer isn't open but that wouldn't have prevented porting the Sugar interface to Windows and kept the main UI software goals of the project open source and editable/"compilable" directly on the laptop.