Disruptive Leadership

Recently I participated in an online debate sponsored by Infodev and UNESCO on technology in education with Walter Bender, CEO of Sugar Labs, the non-profit organization that provides the software for the XO laptop of One Laptop Per Child.   The debate was focused on which model was better for schools in the developing world.  I am re-publishing my part of the debate here in two  parts.  This is part 2.

In Walter Bender’s post, For Real Learning, Mobility and Saturation Matter, one of his concluding statements was:

“I echo Dukker in being supportive of whatever means we can deploy to get great software into the hands of children, inexpensively.”

I completely agree.  Shared computing vs. 1:1 is a false dichotomy. Is it better for every student to have a computer at their fingers at school and at home? Absolutely. But pushing 1:1 as the short-term objective vs. long-term goal sets up unrealistic expectations with schools and governments that just don’t have the funding.

Is increased saturation of computing devices better?

Yes, but that can only happen with ultra low-cost solutions. Mr. Bender commented that he would leave the math to me, so let me provide a few tools and references (there are many available).

Vitalwave Consulting, a research firm that specializes in information and communications technology (ICT) in emerging markets, produced a report titled Affordable Computing for Schools in Developing Countries: A Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Model for Education Officials that compared TCO for various platforms. Below is a summary:

The key is the Total TCO, which ranges from $2.6K to $2.9K per seat over five years. This dwarfs the acquisition price of $285 to $750. That is why many have criticized Nicholas Negroponte’s infamous target of a $100 laptop as unrealistic and misleading.

Unfortunately, alternative computing models such as virtual desktops were left out of the report. According to a Vitalwave source, they included NComputing in the initial analysis but the sponsor of the report asked to keep these results hidden.

NComputing also has a comprehensive TCO Calculator (.xls file). It shows:

• The initial cost for a virtual desktop solution (assuming 16 seats) is about $4,500, which is about 60% below a mainstream desktop and about comparable with an “ultra low-cost” platform (e.g., a netbook).
• NComputing devices consume 1 or 5 watts (significantly lower than desktops and comparable to netbooks)
• Maintenance and support savings are significant. With only 3 PCs supporting 16 users, savings are about 80%,or about $550 per seat over 5 years. That’s another 20% savings vs. netbooks.

Conclusion: The math matters. To increase saturation, whether through 1:1 computing or shared access, alternative computing models must be considered.

Is mobility essential?

I think that’s debatable and really depends on the age, level of education, specific learning application required, and, most important, where the school and community are in the spectrum of funding and specific needs.

In Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs, basic needs such as for food or water must be fulfilled before other things are needed. For example, if people are starving (Physiological), they have no interest in things like self-esteem or achievement (Esteem). They just want food.

Mr. Bender said,

“21st century computer skills” seem to be about the acquisition of some specific knowledge – necessary but not sufficient. Learning is about the acquisition of a new “outlook” – what we are capable of doing with that knowledge .

Again, I would look to a hierarchy of needs based on key demographics to see if acquiring “a new outlook” is truly necessary. I’d argue that, in some areas, just getting access to a computer gives a student an advantage over someone who leaves school to start working without ever having that access.

Mr. Bender uses examples where netbooks can be more advantageous in music, nature, gym, and photography. These are wonderful examples. But are these subjects relevant when we’re talking about kids that can get a great advantage just by improving their math, reading, and writing with computers?

Students in a particular location can get a big benefit just by being exposed to computing for the first time which allows them to:

• Learn how to use computers.
• Get access to the information economy.
• Improve the quality of their learning experience through a computer-based learning solution.

Can desktop solutions and mobile solutions co-exist?

Yes, and there are many examples where schools deploy both. In Macedonia, NComputing deployed over 100,000 virtual desktops, which made Macedonia the country with the greatest density of computers to students. But Macedonia also issued a tender to deploy a smaller quantity of netbooks. They cannot afford mobility for all students, yet even with 1:1 desktop computing they see the advantages of mobility. But emphasizing mobility is misleading and can lead public officials to trade higher saturation and access for a mobile solution.

Sugar desktop

For this article, I downloaded Sugar on Stick on loaded it on my laptop. I was impressed. I commend Sugar Labs for developing a remarkably simple, clean, robust learning platform. Its simplicity reminds me in many ways of Google Chrome.

I can see the benefits of the enhanced analytical learning that could take place with this platform. But since Sugar is platform-agnostic, you don’t need a mobile solution to get it’s benefits. It could be just as easily deployed on desktop computers or virtual desktops.

The one drawback I see with Sugar is that unless Sugar becomes pervasive beyond schools, students will have to learn a a lot of new skills when they use the omnipresent Windows PC’s outside the classroom (although cloud computing in the next ten years could make this point moot).

Conclusion

To summarize my overall points:

• Access to a computing device can enhance education.
• The computing device is merely a tool.
• Affordability and economics are critical elements to maximize saturation.
• Increasing saturation is a good thing.
• Mobility is also beneficial, but can be expensive.

I think Walter and I share the same simple goal: improving lives and education through increasing access to ICT. This implies increased saturation.

To achieve this goal, TCO costs of deploying computing devices must be significantly lowered by 2X to 3X, and private and public sectors must collaborate. More time collaborating and less time debating or competing would clear the way for significant progress.