I feel a bit vindicated via this New York Times story about how some schools are starting to reassess or cancel their student laptop programs. I have been writing for years in this blog about how the squishy, poorly stated goals, and terribly measured outcomes of giving every student in a school or class year a laptop computer was a terrible misuse of funds. Yes, computers. Yes, education. Yes, even some business training on standard principles, operating systems, and software. But, no, no, no, on integrating a laptop into general classes. Far better to buy textbooks that can be used and shared among many students. Far better to improve lab equipment. Far better to reduce student to teacher ratios.

The Times article cites a number of studies as well as experiences at individual schools that show no improvements in grades, performance, etc., and a lot of additional costs in dealing

Alexandria, Virg., doesn't view laptops for every student in a high school as unalloyed joy. As usual, those trying to gain or continue funding state vague, unsupported details about advancement. I love how Don Knezek, chief executive of the International Society of Technology Education "cited statewide programs in Maine and Michigan, among others," which is hilarious, because every single result I've seen out of Maine--including in-depth studies--has inconclusive or subjective results.

And, as usual, teacher training has come long after computer deployment. "...some teachers say they have felt pressured to emphasize laptops, even when using them might not be the best approach."

Hazlett says eloquently in the Financial Times what I believe. Pushing technology at children with no goal, no measurable (objective, social, or subjective) results, and little training for teachers is a waste of money unless you're training drones for office jobs. Which maybe we are and don't want to say.

I'd rather my son spend years learning to draw than years learning to PowerPoint, a restrictive interface that limits everyone's thought processes and creativity by defining one path for communications.

The folks who defend the program to spend tens of millions of dollars in a largely rural state to provide loaner laptops (not ones they eventually own or keep year to year) to middle-school students are still squishy. I've written about this in years past, with my disappointment that there is no quantitative improvement, no objective measure that the program provides to show that laptops help in any regard.

The person they hired to evaluate the program bemoans that he has no measures by which to show the program has shown improvement for students because their tests show only memorization results. Sure, but if there's no item in the budget to create tests that show other kinds of analytical improvement you are left with $37 million spent and no proof whether it was spent well.

Most good programs are designed with feedback built in to understand whether a given change