Fullerton Parents Reject School Laptop Program
Click Here to View the Letter Mentioned in the OC Register
We were constantly told how wonderful the 1:1 Laptop program has been for the education of Fullerton school children, but something just didn’t smell right to us. Sure enough, we find out that many parents are finally saying “NO”. Resistance to the autocratic technology program has grown drastically in the last 6 months. After having a taste of the laptop program, parents at Golden Hill Elementary strongly rejected the continuance of the program at their school.
A report from the school district shows that Golden Hill parents failed to meet the 90% “willingness” threshold that is required for the laptop program to be continued. Despite ominous threats of moving children to an inferior school if the parents did not respond the survey “correctly”, only 51% of parents volunteered to participate in the program. The threshold was put in place after the ACLU sued the school district for violating children’s Constitutional right to a free education several years ago. Many parents at both Hermosa Drive and Nicholas Jr. High rejected the program as well, but the school district found enough money to subsidize parts of the program anyway.
After years of congratulating themselves for this high-tech boondoggle, the stupefied school board could only muster up support to continue the program at a single school. That’s not good, and it’s only going to get worse now that the parents are catching on.
How much longer can the district afford to keep shoveling money into the laptop pit as teachers are laid off and struggling parents stop paying their bills?
What will parents do when they find out how unsafe these Internet-ready laptops really are?
Stay tuned…
Now the YouTube generation has to get a primary education from BOOKS! Oh my!
Travis, “how unsafe these Internet-ready laptops really are?”, what do you mean “unsafe”, please explain.
admin, I think I know what Travis is referring to, but it sounds like another post.
More than just one…
What does Minard have to say about this?
I’m sure Maynard has been told to keep his yapper closed.
minard, we know you love this laptop program almost as much as you love this blog. Can you shed some light on this situation?
Berryman is the only school district trustee with any sense at all which is why she always speaks out against this stupid program. These other morons on the board couldn’t turn on a computer to save their lives, so they end up taking the advice of some teknogeek who wants to preserve his job, most of which is deleting hip hop mp3s off of 4th graders’ laptops.
berryfan, you’re on to something. The Observer just mentioned that the district had to re-image 4,000 laptops this summer, presumably because they fill up with craploads of non-educational material. How many man-hours did that take? Couldn’t someone have using that time to actually TEACH instead?
the coercive tactic of FSD threatening to remove students from their home school if their parents refused to buy laptops is a good argument for privatizing education. FSD may be playing right into Obama’s secretary of education Arne Duncan’s hands.
What is disturbing about the Mother who is blaming the school district for her daughter watching porn is that she REALLY should be more concerned why an 11 year old girl is watching porn!!
Sounds like the mother is very much concerned about why (and how) her daughter is watching porn – and communicating with stalkers.
Since the school district coerced the parents into leasing the machine and told them it was safe, I’d say the school district is in a position to take all the blame.
But thanks for popping up to shill for the educrats, Susan. That’s a dirty job.
While I do find that the value of 1:1 programs are probably a bit overstated by their advocates, I have to really disagree with the mother who is blaming the school district for her daughter watching porn.
AFAIK, there was no evidence that anyone was stalking her kid. The police found no evidence to even pursue an investigation. Furthermore, the kid wasn’t using the school’s network. The school district made no guarantee implied or otherwise that there was no possibility that porn could be viewed on the laptop.
It seems to me this is a case of a parent in denial that their kid isn’t a “wholesome” kid. A lot of parents are frequently in denial of their kids poor choices unless there is irrefutable evidence that their child made that choice. This parent just seems to be looking to point fingers at anyone except themselves. They could observed their child using the computer from day 1, but decided to abdicate their responsibility of being a parent.
While the schools are certainly responsible for students on school grounds I don’t think anybody even someone with no legal background reasonably expects that the school is liable for *anything* in your house. The real reason I think that this “parent,” and I use that word loosely, doesn’t want their name to be public is because they realize or at least ought to realize that a lot of people consider this person to be making ridiculous claims.
Books don’t have pop ups, they don’t have chat rooms, they don’t twitter, tweet, text, sext, they don’t get viruses, they don’t play music & videos, and most importantly they don’t redirect you somewhere else.
Books are healthier and safer for kids period. The laptop idea was bad then and it’s bad now.
The Laptop program does not work for all the students on the campus just a selected group and that is not fair to other students in that school. I like the 1:1 computer ratio but like I said its not really a 1:1 ratio. I was asking about how it works and that’s what I was told by schools that tried the program and by the students. The schools are wasting their money for this laptop program and should really focus on providing effective computer lab environments that allow students campus wide to have access to interactive technology resources.