Whilst I don't want this to be mistaken in any way as support for the Howard Government (see for example my article "The myth of the Howard Government's defence competence" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6665, "Mark Latham's politcal gift to John Howard" at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2195 ) I agree that Rudd's plan will be largely a waste of taxpayers money as it now stands.

The money spent on laptops may be largely wasted as few are built for durability and may be made obsolete in a few years as a result the way Micro$oft designs newer operating systems so that older hardware and software applications can no longer be used.

What Rudd shoud do instead is procure on behalf of school students a basic and robustly designed laptop that is optimised for use with the Open Source Linux operating system. Thus, we as a national community, would pay far less, being able to derive the economy of scale and not be obliged to buy expensive proprietary software, whether out of our own pockets or through our taxes.

Straight away you see the problem. All schools will not apply for the maximum grant (a) because they won't all need it (e.g. many schools are relatively small) and (b) because any sensible policy will not have the Federal Government paying the full cost of the computers. Hopefully schools will require a co-payment from students to put some integrity into the demand. Rudd may in any case be thinking of a co-payment from the States or from the schools. An average grant of $400,000 will see Rudd staying within budget even if all 2,659 schools apply

I'm not hugely impressed the computer policy the way it is either, but it's a little unfair to suggest this is simply the outcome of a "Labor-thinks-it-knows-best" mentality: from what I understand, it was the direct result of interviewing hundreds of schools all around the country.

FWIW, I'd be interested if anyone considered a scheme where all schoolchildren were simply *loaned* laptops for school use only.

What so we shouldn't give kids a laptop. I guess those kids who haven't got access to one mustn't need one. As technical manager in a global IT company (software)I can dispel a few non-truths told in as well. Laptops are very robust, if looked after they can last for 10 years. Ever the software can last that long and longer. It all depends on what choices you make, how generic you go. Any system adopted by the eduction system would mean a slow turn over just from a logistic pov. Replacing your computer every three years or so has more to do with tax then anything else. Some of our clients have computer systems over 20 years old and software even older.

I'll tell you what though these Authors are doing the best to make sure that economist get ranked below lawyers as the least trusted professions.

Rudd’s “education revolution” is vacuous rhetoric and a HOAX REVOLUTION and he knows that. There is no dearth of computers in Australian schools. On the contrary Australia rates as one of the top countries that provides computers to its pupils and students. Hence to provide laptops to the latter is no revolutionary action. The genuine revolution lies in the quality of teaching. And in this area Rudd remains silent because he knows that this area is forbidden area decreed by the education unions which protect a large body of mediocre teachers whose minds are draped in postmodernist clothing.

It’s by such hoaxes of “education revolution” and “new leadership” that Rudd, who has copied during the campaign so many of the liberal policies including their economic conservatism, hopes to con the electorate to vote for him next Saturday.
http://kotzabasis3.wordpress.com

Schooling in Australia will not improve until the loony left is thrown out of curriculum development, and as far as possible out of the schools themselves. Computers play very little part in any Education Revolution". This is a political stunt of the worst kind - particularly coming from the side of politics which has done the most to degrade the education system in this country.