Guest wrote:Children without access to technology are falling way behind their peers
I'm sorry - I beg to differ on this specific point.
What kind of technology are you talking about? The technology that would make a
positive difference to these children must be germane to their studies and their intended course of tertiary studies or even career. I fail to see where technology, for technology's sake, improves the academic performance of any child. In particular, the latest/greatest cellphone doesn't enhance any child's academic life, but only exposes them more blatantly and recklessly to the dangers of crime, be it theft, exposure to unscrupulous individuals utilising social networks to prey upon the young and innocent, or even 'just' their peers using these same networks to manipulate them.
Relevance (of the technology) is the watchword and the key in this case.
Cellular communications, particularly with regards to the user-interface, are hardly the stuff of science-fiction, nor cutting-edge in nature. And when a cellular phone is used to access unsuitable material on the internet or anywhere else, to chat with friends when these children should all be sleeping, or to disseminate pictures/videos that common decency dictates should be deleted or at least kept private, then technology becomes hugely negative in its effect on the children using it, and should be removed.
Please also remember that it doesn't take years of exposure to a technology for even an averagely intelligent (South Africa's average I.Q. sits at around 91, apparently) individual to master that technology. In my technologically complex field (computing applications in the financial sector, utilising all manner of input/interface devices) I have mentored and helped train people of ALL ages who were technological neophytes, and have been pleasantly surprised to find that, with the right approach and a supportive attitude, almost NOBODY has a problem mastering even highly complex technology used for practical applications in the workplace.
And surely the workplace, where the child will (eventually, hopefully) earn their bread-and-butter, where the years of schooling and the
relevant technology they are able to demonstrate practical mastery of, is where this eventually and finally counts? To this end, and in light of my experience with training individuals who were considered 'untrainable', but who have surprised their detractors no end, I would say that the technology children need to master is already contained within their school syllabus (yup, even that of the otherwise useless O.B.E. fiasco), and that Mxit, Twitter,
et al are in fact harming their future employment opportunities by teaching them to communicate in a strangely-spelt phonetic version of the English language, known in the industry as "Ebonix". I, and several of my colleagues, have purposely NOT hired people specifically as a result of their 'insistence' on spelling in 'sms-type' language.
Teach your children to type properly (not 'hunt & peck'), and teach them to spell properly. That is FAR more important than giving them cellphones and unfettered internet access...