Inventions that were going to change the world – but didn’t

2. One Laptop Per Child

Martin Mejia/AP
A group of children read on their laptops during a math class in Arahuay, an Andean hilltop village in Peru, Dec. 2007. Since Peru decided to invest in the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) program in 2007, the program has seen mixed results.

Bring the Internet and computers to children in developing countries, improve the quality of education, and connect them to the formerly inaccessible outside world. This was the noble premise behind One Laptop Per Child (OLPC), an invention by MIT Media Lab founder Nicholas Negroponte.

At first, the project seemed like a great way to help figure out failing education in the developing world. Started in 2005, laptops were durable, could be recharged via hand crank or solar panel, and could connect to low cost Internet (plus came in a fun green color). Major players, such as the UN Development Program, got on board to help distribute the laptops, and countries such as Peru made huge orders to help floundering education systems.

Then the issues began. The laptops were never supposed to cost more than $100, but as of 2013, the price still has not dropped below $200. Teachers in classrooms weren’t always trained to use the tools in a specific way, so laptops were used like notebooks for copying down assignments rather than complex learning tools, and often children weren’t allowed to bring the computers home. In addition, some critics say sending laptops, rather than food or books or medicine, ignores the more pressing issues in some developing countries. A recent study by Inter-American Development Bank found the laptops had little, if any, effect on test scores; did not increase reading habits; and did not improve school attendance.

Despite this, OLPC is still going today, and recently introduced a tablet computer that dropped the price to $149 and, in addition to being shipped around the world, is being sold at Target, Walmart, and on Amazon.com.

2 of 7

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.