Chromebooks seem to be the standard nowadays. At least that is what are issued by the school around here (Midwest US).
My first thought is that if someone can't afford a computer, wouldn't they prefer to have a "lesser" computer and have the remaining difference in cash or necessities?
Maybe the donors are a little out of touch with what their recipients need. I'm sure they are appreciative of the computer, but there could be more impactful use of that money.
We took the novel approach of having the instructors choose the platform they thought would enable them to deliver the best program. Then we sought to see if we could meet their request, and we were able to. Donors had no influence over that decision.
The computers cost about 40% of the overall budget. We had enough money to fulfill other aspects of the PTO’s program, PE, Art, Music, Dance, (the ‘A’ in STEAM that LAUSD skipped over) Robotics.
This was a magnet school with widely varied socioeconomic family profiles. And the PTO is not authorized by contract with the school to engage in other social programs. But those in need were covered by a) the Federal hot lunch program, and b) LAUSD-funded anyone on campus child or adult could have a free breakfast (of dubious quality, all carb no protein and for example, a 10% juice sugar-laden drink qualified as ‘fruit’) just for being on campus. Going hungry was by choice only. And you would not believe how much food is thrown away from the breakfast program. My wife fought hard to connect with local homeless shelters to send the food but school administrators put the kibosh on that.
So why should we opt for austerity when we had everything covered? Actual parents will always choose the best option within their reach.
Good question. My elementary school/middle school had Macs. Even as a young child, I thought the appropriation of funds for that seemed wrong. I can’t think of a legitimate reason a school district needs luxury computers for children that are likely to spill stuff or otherwise ruin them.
Do the majority of MacBook Air users or customers need them?
Though it feels wasteful (making assumptions about the use-cases) I’m guessing grade school kids need them for the same reasons or non-reasons as mostly everyone else.
That these are coming from a PTO fundraiser and not a tax-funded budget makes it okay in my book (setting aside the reality that other kids might attend schools with much less productive PTOs —a problem I think for a public system).
I don't know if high school kids need macbook airs, but I also don't see how that answers the question of where "grade school" was in the original comment
At least the old design (have not seen tear down of new design) seemed purpose built for schools It was relatively rugged with key components easily swapped. It was powerful enough to do many tasks far easier than an under powered Chromebook. A pool of Macbook Airs is relatively common. Most schools in my (relatively poor) area that issue students laptops tend to offer inexpensive Chromebooks.
OP didn’t say they were required. Maybe they are just beneficial. They are light, have a great battery life, connect without many issues to the sum of humanity’s explicit knowledge, etc.
“Why do people need xyz” deserves its own form of Betteridges headlines.
My first thought is that if someone can't afford a computer, wouldn't they prefer to have a "lesser" computer and have the remaining difference in cash or necessities?
Maybe the donors are a little out of touch with what their recipients need. I'm sure they are appreciative of the computer, but there could be more impactful use of that money.