Big surprise in education policy: laptops don't make people smart?

After many schools across the country rushed to bring the Digital Age to every child, many are abandoning their laptop programs. But weren't computers supposed to bring the miracles of technology and efficiency to brighten the prospects of students?

The students at Liverpool High have used their school-issued laptops to exchange answers on tests, download pornography and hack into local businesses. When the school tightened its network security, a 10th grader not only found a way around it but also posted step-by-step instructions on the Web for others to follow (which they did)...

...school officials here and in several other places said laptops had been abused by students, did not fit into lesson plans, and showed little, if any, measurable effect on grades and test scores at a time of increased pressure to meet state standards. (emphasis mine)

There's been plenty of research on what kinds of investments in schools actually work. This study and this study show that teacher credentials and knowledge are some of the best predictors of higher classroom performance by their students. In other words, instead of buying laptops for kids, we could be paying for school for teachers and be seeing results.

Other programs are also showing evidence of success by investing in better methods of teaching, such as this "SMART classroom" in suburban Minneapolis.

Hula hoops hang in one corner of the room. A climbing gym stands in the middle. Bouncing balls, gym mats, trampolines and vibrant colors fill the rest of the room. SMART stands for "Stimulating Maturity through Accelerated Readiness Training." It's a program made up of physical activities that stimulate brain growth in children...

...During the first year, DeCorsey said, teachers could already see a difference. Only 52 percent of third-graders were reading at grade level at the beginning of the year. After four months of the program, that jumped to 90 percent.

But what about cost?

Farnham estimated the district had to spend about $1,000 for all the supplies involved, and training each teacher cost more than $400.

So how about it? You could pick up 4 inexpensive - and completely useless - laptops for education users through Dell for $3,400 or you could buy supplies for two, effective SMART classrooms and train 3 teachers. Oh, and did I mention that teachers don't go obsolete in 3-4 years?

Drug companies and patent law, part 2

Thanks to G$ and Rick for their comments on my drug patent law post. Their thoughts were provoking enough to get me to write on the subject again, no doubt to the dismay of my two other readers...

I think the point of patent law revision is that the public good is served by developing drugs that treat the most prevalent illnesses or diseases that post the greatest threat. Repackaging an antacid drug to treat a stomachache by varying the dosage, on the other hand, doesn't really represent the innovation that patent law exists to protect. Nor does developing drugs for "restless legs" or erectile dysfunction serve the public in the same way that an AIDS vaccine, a malaria vaccine, or a staph antibiotic could.

In other words, the public policy should reflect (as Rick noted), the desired public outcome.

The problem presented by the GAO study is that drug companies are a) making money hand over fist b) pouring money into R&D, but c) not developing these new molecular entities (NMEs) that can provide the substantial human benefit.

One solution is to amend patent law so that there's less of an incentive to focus on modified or marginal drug improvements. I'm not suggesting that patent terms on new drugs be reduced, but that companies be sent the message that we value (legally) developments of new drugs, not repackaging of old ones.

Another solution is to (as G$ recommends) increase federal R&D budgets. This is undeniably a good thing, because the results of federal research are public, adding to the body of general scientific knowledge. Additionally, the kind of general research done with federal dollars often serves several scientific disciplines and not just the goals of a particular industry.

My final thought is this: drug companies are constantly researching new or modified therapies and are still making profits, so their research costs are part of their bottom line. Yet they are still making record profits. To me, this makes the argument about recouping research costs inane. They're doing research and making millions!

Maybe they're paying down debt from 20 years ago when they started developing the drugs that are paying off today. But that's all the more reason to make sure patent law offers advantages for companies seeking the most promising and novel drugs, to keep the health benefits (and profits) flowing.