Spoiler alert: Giving children laptops without empowering teachers doesn’t magically improve education
I’m shocked – absolutely shocked – to learn that providing laptops to students in Peru for 10 years had zero positive impact on educational outcomes. This groundbreaking new research following 531 schools over a decade reveals that the One Laptop per Child program failed to improve academic achievement, cognitive skills, or educational trajectories.
Who could have possibly seen this coming? Well, actually, quite a few of us did.
The Emperor’s Naked Laptop
The recent analysis of OLPC’s implementation in Peru reads like a postmortem of predictable failure. Despite distributing nearly one laptop per student to treatment schools, researchers found no evidence that the OLPC programme improved educational outcomes of students over time.
The study’s authors diplomatically conclude that this was due to relatively limited adoption of the XO laptops in schools for academic purposes.
Let me translate: teachers didn’t use the laptops because nobody bothered to properly train them, support them, or integrate the technology into actual pedagogy.
This null result was entirely predictable because critics have been making the same argument since OLPC’s inception in 2005. As I noted years ago, the OLPC organizers believed that children would learn learning on their own if given ‘$100 laptops’ to children, and for the most part sidelining teachers. The fundamental flaw was baked into the program’s DNA from day one.
The Arrogance of Constructionist Ideology
Nicholas Negroponte’s OLPC was built on Seymour Papert’s constructionist theory. This is the belief that children could teach themselves through exploration and experimentation with technology. This wasn’t just naive; it was educationally reckless. The program explicitly marginalized teachers, providing minimal training while expecting transformational outcomes.
Or as I’ve said before, you can give a child a violin, and they can play it, but will they make music?
The Peru study confirms this predictable breakdown. While teachers in treatment schools were 35 percentage points more likely to report receiving XO laptop training, this training had no significant impacts on the digital skills of teachers. Furthermore, the program generated only a relatively small increase in laptop and computer use in the classroom.
Meanwhile, students did increase their XO laptop use at home by 20 percentage points and showed large improvements in XO-specific digital skills. But this didn’t translate to cognitive improvements or educational gains because.. and this is the key point: Computers don’t teach children. Teachers do.
The Critics We Ignored
The educational technology community raised these concerns from OLPC’s earliest days. I created an entire website critique the initiative, and a second one to explore what would work. Even supporters noted that OLPC required comprehensive teacher training, ongoing support, and pedagogical integration. None of which was adequately provided.
Early research on OLPC Peru revealed similar patterns. Schools needed to install infrastructure to make laptops chargeable and connectable, and had to train teachers to help children use what they’d been given. None of this was factored into the original MIT Media Lab vision.
The most damning criticism came from within the constructionist movement itself. As educational technology researcher Gary Stager observed, even Papert understood that technology required proper implementation.
Teacher-Centered Integration Works
Current research provides overwhelming evidence for what OLPC critics predicted: educational technology succeeds only when it starts with teachers.
A recent meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of technology use in classrooms found that teacher training and support led to greater effects in ICT interventions. The study emphasized that comfort with technology is an important predictor of the integration of technology and stressed the need for appropriate training and support prior to and during the use of technology in the classroom.
Another comprehensive review found that teacher education courses focused on technology integration can increase knowledge scores by more than one standard deviation. When properly designed and implemented. The key factors include ongoing support, implementation fidelity, and recognition that teachers’ attitudes, experience, and training determine technology adoption.
This aligns with successful educational technology implementations that prioritize teacher empowerment over hardware distribution.
Successful programs like Uruguay’s Plan Ceibal evolved through community input that helped shape activities and enabled achievement of objectives.
The Pattern We Keep Repeating
The OLPC failure is a cautionary tale we’re doomed to repeat with each new technology wave. From tablets to AI chatbots, the development sector consistently falls for the same magical thinking: that revolutionary hardware will somehow sidestep the hard work of educational improvement.
I see this same pattern emerging with current AI implementations in education.
Organizations are piloting ChatGPT and similar tools without adequate teacher training, pedagogical integration, or consideration of classroom realities. They’re expecting transformational outcomes from technology deployment alone, just as OLPC did.
The fundamental lesson remains unchanged: educational technology is about empowering teachers to use technology effectively for learning. This requires substantial investment in teacher training, ongoing support, curriculum integration, and recognition that teachers, not machines, drive educational outcomes.
Five EduTech Principles That Actually Work
Based on OLPC’s failures and subsequent research, here’s what educational technology implementers should prioritize:
- Start with teachers, not hardware. Invest at least as much in teacher training and ongoing support as in devices. Teachers need to understand not just how to operate technology but how to integrate it pedagogically.
- Align technology with existing curricula and pedagogical practices. Don’t expect teachers to revolutionize their teaching to accommodate new tools. Instead, show them how technology can enhance what they’re already doing well.
- Provide comprehensive support systems. This includes technical support, pedagogical coaching, and peer learning networks. Teachers need multiple channels for getting help when technology inevitably fails or confuses them.
- Measure implementation, not just outcomes. Track whether teachers are actually using technology in meaningful ways before expecting student achievement gains. The Peru study’s finding that teachers had minimal laptop skills despite reporting training highlights this critical gap.
- Acknowledge that sustainable change takes time. The Peru study followed implementation for 10 years and found no improvement—partly because the program never achieved meaningful classroom integration. Successful technology initiatives require years of sustained support and refinement.
The OLPC program taught us that good intentions, innovative hardware, and idealistic theories aren’t enough to transform education. Educational technology succeeds only when it serves teachers and students, not when it tries to replace them.
We’ve had this lesson for nearly two decades now. Let’s finally start learning it.
