Evil Laptops

There was an article in Slate a couple of days ago suggesting that laptop giveaways don't raise scholastic performance, and are therefore not the best use of resources to boost the schooling of low-income students. Kids, being kids, tend to use the laptops for recreation rather than for schoolwork. The author based his conclusion on a few studies on the subject (which have generally had conflicting results), as well as his own childhood, when he and his siblings somehow turned a PET computer into a toy.

Even if you grant the fact that laptops aren't going to improve grades, I don't think it follows that laptops aren't going to have a positive impact. Computer literacy doesn't necessarily translate into scholastic performance, but it is still an important skill in and of itself. If computer literacy is learned on facebook or searching the web or writing stupid love notes, I'm not sure that makes it any less valuable. (I recognize that "computer literacy" is a pretty vague concept, but I refer to typing ability, internet navigation, familiarity with Word and Excel, and general confidence in learning new programs.) It's possible that, thanks to One Laptop Per Child, a poor kid in Chiapas will be entirely proficient with all of the essential functions of a computer and still struggle in school. In such cases, I still tend to think the program is validated. It would be great if every recipient could turn the laptop into a 4.0 GPA and a scholarship to Harvard, but that's not realistic, and a student's academic difficulties don't make his computer knowledge worthless.

A sort of similar example from my own life: I don't think I ever read all of an assigned book in school until I got to college. Instead, I passed the time with Sports Illustrated. Reading profiles of Ty Wheatley and Dean Smith instead of A Tale of Two Cities certainly hurt my English grades, but that's not to say my subscription was without value. Indeed, I learned to write in large part thanks to Frank Deford and S.L. Price.