Teachers versus Technology in Peru

Education in Peru: A disappointing return from an investment in computing
Apr 7th 2012
http://www.economist.com/node/21552202

GIVING a child a computer does not seem to turn him or her into a future Bill Gates—indeed it does not accomplish anything in particular. That is the conclusion from Peru, site of the largest single programme involving One Laptop per Child, an American charity with backers from the computer industry and which is active in more than 30 developing countries around the world.

The April, Americas edition of the Economist reports that the Inter-American Development Bank has published a paper entitled Technology and Child Development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child Program in which after an intensive 15-month, 319 rural school study, researchers have found no "empirical" evidence of the programs' success (Download full report here). The article explains that the researchers also found no correlation, or rise, in reading or math scores, improvement in homework, classroom attendance, nor did it find an increase in motivation, as was initially hypothesized. The article states that although Peru has "one of Latin America's worst education systems," an increase in the country's revenues from mining operations allowed for a $225m investment in 850,000 basic laptops. Yet, as touched on above, test scores and literacy rates remain low throughout the country. Of course, as you may or may not know, the model is supported through the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative, whose website illustrates:

Roughly 2 million children and teachers in Latin America are currently part of an OLPC project, with another 500,000 in Africa and the rest of the world. Our largest national partners include Uruguay (the first major country in the world to provide every elementary school child with a laptop), Peru (our largest deployment, involving over 8,300 schools), Argentina, Mexico, and Rwanda. Other significant projects have been started in Gaza, Afghanistan, Haiti, Ethiopia, and Mongolia. Every school represent a learning hub, a node in a globally shared resource for learning.

See video for more information:

Other sources, such as PC Mag cite a lack of internet connectivity as a central issue and links the results to a lack of "high quality, complementary" education. However, the Examiner says it best, I believe, with their title: Technology doesn't improve education, Teachers do. Also, see Mashable and ZD Net for further commentary and information.


Initially, I have to admit, I was surprised by the results of the study. I anticipated that the implementation of computer technology in Latin American classrooms would surely bring much-needed changes that would hopefully level the playing field for students who have not grown up with a "computer lab" or "computer class", as I myself did, and many students in the First World, or developed countries, had in their early primary years of study. Nonetheless, it makes perfect sense as to why this program is not succeeding at this point in Peru. It seems that you cannot restructure current education systems by simply dropping materials into the classroom. It appears to be a false expectation/misconception that was not clearly organized or addressed at the onset in order to "make a real difference." I put those words in quotation marks because of course, these differences are going to be interpreted differently across participating countries, cultures and people.


This blog entry is unique in that this is the first time Sigue is writing on Peru -- hopefully we can continue to examine this program and its progress in Peru. Certainly this is interconnectedness at its central core, however, a quick look at the people involved in the operation and development of OLPC initiative screams: where is the educational component and where are the education experts? Of course laptops are not a "magic cure-all", as one blogger laments. Shouldn't interconnectedness involve a greater listening process? I propose a more flexible model that takes into account already existing structures in order to build on already-exisitng education systems with the use of technology and not through it. Additionally, it is possible, gasp, that economic investments would be better off in other sectors rather than technology, such as continuing education/training for teachers.


On a personal note, I have taught in a Montessori school where I have had every tool at my disposal -- a dream classroom for some. However, as readers are aware, I currently work for the Barrio Planta Project (BPP), which does struggle in terms of materials and supplies. I must say that my current work has forced me to be more creative and dynamic in not only lesson planning and curriculum, but in the general way in which I teach and reach students. That, I believe, the core of quality education and while we would certainly welcome a computer lab, we know that strong, educated and motivated teachers make for strong, educated motivated students -- period. What are your thoughts?

Local Business Investment in Education in Nicaragua

The Case for Local Business Support for Education in Nicaragua
The Brookings Institution

By Justin W. van Fleet

March 6, 2012
Citation: http://bit.ly/edunica

Given this bleak assessment, the time for the Nicaraguan business community to step up and support the government’s provision of education could not be greater. The business case is simple: investing in education in Nicaragua is an investment in both current and future employees, the safety and stability of the communities where businesses operate, the potential purchasing power of consumers, and a company’s reputation.

The author, Justin W. van Fleet, writes that an investment in childrens' education from inside of Nicaragua is the next important step in supporting the quality of learning. A survey of business leaders, as part of the World Economic Forum, indicates that the current opinion of the “quality of Nicaragua’s primary schools education ranks among the lowest in the world: 134 out of 142.” This extremely low perception definitely screams crisis, and as van Fleet points out, that certainly might have something to do with the fact that public and private donor financing is low.  The author claims that Nicaraguan businesses need to step up and show more support for education in the country by giving economically to projects that promote education. Two companies have stood out as leaders in the private sector in terms of giving back: Telefónica and Plasencia. The former provides technological resources (computers, internet, etc.), professional development programs, with a focus then on teacher development in general. Telefónica Foundation Classroom has a group of participating “marginalized” public schools. They are committed to expanding to more schools, and the latter, Plasencia works in the town of Esteli, in which the company piloted a “full-scale education program for its employees”, and an early education development program for employees’ children. Working with groups like Empresarios por la Educación, Plasencia provides a range of educational support, such as the all important university tuition. While some groups see the need and importance in community development and investing in local education, the author states that without working together as advocates, we won’t see the changes that the country's young population needs. 

There is an opportunity to make a sustainable difference in educational projects in Nicaragua if only more businesses take a larger role in investing. There is a shared social value at stake here that a recent forum demonstrates, as the author points out.  In our blog we have been examining news that relates to international investment, or aid, in education in Latin America. Many of us have an invested interest in Nicaragua and this article was very revealing (albeit short, but informative) in terms of expressing quite clearly not only the dire need for educational reform in the country, but a vital next step in terms of development where companies and businesses step up and start supporting educational initiatives! Although we live in a global era, it seems very little international money has actually trickled down to Nicaragua's education system. This article calls for greater local business involvement in education – an investment, as the author calls it, and an opportunity for both sides to benefit.

This article is particularly touching personally because our project, the Barrio Planta Project, relies strongly on the support of individuals and particularly, Nicaraguan businesses to stay afloat. Sadly, it's a struggle. We'd love to gain sustainability if only more corporations considered investing in local education initiatives. I think this call for a new, reformed, fairer type of aid makes sense. While other countries invest from the OUTSIDE towards the INSIDE of Nicaragua in the hopes of a return, van Fleet calls for a type of investment in development in which Nicaraguans invest in Nicaragua.

Peace Corp Pulls Volunteers out of Honduras: 1 Week Later

Honduras Peace Corp Withdrawal: Volunteer Pullout Comes as Blow

The Huffington Post

By Freedy Cuevas and Adriana Gomez Licon

January 18, 2012
Citation: http://huff.to/GJuvSp

 

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — The U.S. government's decision to pull out all its Peace Corps volunteers from Honduras for safety reasons is yet another blow to a nation still battered by a coup and recently labeled the world's most deadly country.

Neither U.S. nor Honduran officials have said what specifically prompted them to withdraw the 158 Peace Corps volunteers, which the U.S. State Department said was one of the largest missions in the world last year.

It is the first time Peace Corps missions have been withdrawn from Central America since civil wars swept the region in the 1970s and 1980s. The Corps closed operations in Nicaragua from 1979 to 1991 and in El Salvador from 1980 to 1993 for safety and security reasons, but has since returned to both countries

It is no secret that for all of Central America's beauty and mystique, it is tainted by violence. Equally, it is well-known that many US groups have developed organizations aimed to combat this issue through different, dynamic educational programs. However, a week ago the US Peace Corp made the decision to withdraw volunteers from Honduras, which as the author explains, has come as a "blow". While similar withdraws have occurred in the past, most notably in Nicaragua and El Salvador, for safety and security reasons, for now projects in water sanitation, working with youth and HIV prevention are on hold in Honduras as drug-related crime has recently spiraled seemingly out-of-control. The move comes after a 27-year-old volunteer was shot in the leg Dec. 3rd during an armed robbery, and after a robbery and rape that occurred in late January of another volunteer. It is noted that this is a difficult time for Honduran NGO's (clearly) and that additionally, aid from Spain was "drying up" due to that country's own debt issues. A 2011 UN report states that Honduras has more violence than any other country in the world! It is unclear what effect these various changes will have on the Corp agency, and no other groups have pulled out as of yet (for more info. on this topic in Central America, see this article: El Salvador/Crime/Education)

I understand that the number one priority is the safety of the volunteers, and also, in turn, the reputation of the Peace Corps however violence is crippling education efforts leading to reports of rape, robbery, and other random acts of violence that operations no longer continue on a normal basis with Honduras in its' the current state. This is a United States government organization -- it would be incredibly irresponsible, and reprehensible, to maintain operations at the current level. However, the organizations departure from the Central American nation signals a message to the government of Honduras to take action.

As history reveals, the Peace Corp has reacted similarly in other countries, for example, in Nicaragua when the government was going through sharp changes in regime in the early 1990's, and it was simply too a dangerous place to live and work for expats and international volunteers. Bluntly put, this current situation is tragic from any perspective. People wanting to help in a place that so direly needs assistance, but halted, because the situation is actually so bad, that it is dangerous: this is the Peace Corp worker reality in Honduras at the present state. The authors report from Mexico and Guatemala, which is ironic that they too are outside of the country.

We need to consider this case in context of the value of human life. For the last 2 years I have worked as a teacher and most recently, as the Director of Adult Programs for a non-profit in the Nicaragua called the Barrio Planta Project. All humans experience violence but the amount of expose can certainly increase as expats living and working in Nicaragua. For a former co-worker her experience was enough to encourage her to quit her position and leave the country. She took a job in Guatemala and is now working in Antigua, which is relatively safer than other areas of that country but certainly not immune to the same problems found throughout Central America in terms of drug-related violence. I am lucky that nothing has ever happened to me, and I continue to make what I consider to be "smart choices". However, this organization has large implications beyond the individual level and their efforts in development, as United States citizens acting as educational ambassadors with countries around the world. What is the impact of cutting services and which services are specifically affected?