Jennifer Bowden

University of Illinois 

The McDonaldization of Society 6 by George Ritzer.  California, Pine Forge Press, 2010, 328 pp., £27.99 (paperback), ISBN-10: 1412980127; ISBN-13: 978-1412980128

Ritzer’s sixth edition is a current analysis of a ubiquitous structure he calls “McDonaldization” that leads to the mundane routine, irrational standards, homogenized culture and dehumanization that now invades almost all areas of society worldwide. Ritzer argues that no social system is immune from this fast-food phenomenon that is serving to elevate quantity over quality, fast over slow, and nothing (lacking unique substance) over something (rich in unique substance). Ritzer argues that this system is one of the processes brought on by globalization, shaped by the compression of space and time and leading to a world that is growly increasingly similar (Grobalization). In the book, McDonaldization is used as a tool to analyze suburban housing, online dating, supermarkets, mega churches, health care, shopping malls, entertainment, hotels, etc. While the book was originally published almost 20 years ago, the concept remains especially timely and relevant as McDonaldization threatens to continue its expansion and is more deeply ingrained in the cultures of the world than ever before.

The book is a successful social criticism and is accessible to college students of multiple disciplines, scholars, and the average person through its informal tone and readable style. It provides information about society that could lead to a stimulating debate. The first two chapters provide an introduction to McDonaldization and its past, present and future. Chapters three to six describe the key elements of McDonaldization and focus on many of the seemingly positives and negatives created by this system. Chapter seven and eight discuss the irrationalities caused by McDonaldization. Chapter nine and ten provide a ‘practical’ guide for dealing with McDonaldization and the possibility of a backlash to McDonaldization thereby providing humans to live up to their potential. Even though Ritzer admits that the trend reversal isn’t likely, the book is meant as a successful warning to counteract the surface advantages provided by McDonaldization and makes the reader think about something that has become so embedded in our psyche.

Ritzer states that McDonaldization is primarily composed of four elements that allow for speed, quantity, and expected processes and people management. They are: Efficiency, Calculability, Predictability and Control. These elements are based on the idea of rationality created by the German sociologist Max Weber. Using McDonalds as the example, efficiency refers to getting the customer from hungry to full as quickly as possible.  Calculability refers to the impression of getting a lot of food for a small price. Predictability offers the same hamburger anywhere in the world with no surprises. Finally, control provides customer management through lines, limited menus, self-service and measures to keep the visit short. This system offers perceived rational advantages in speed, price, tradition and stability for customers and profit for companies.

McDonaldization provides a product and stream-lined service in society’s just-in-time culture that people have come to rely upon, yet it counter intuitively hurries people even more. Ritzer argues that these seemingly advantageous and rational outcomes and actually quite irrational. These outcomes can create a decrease in product quality, false friendliness, unhappy workers, health and environmental damage, a consumer culture, a homogenized society and dismantled families. These outcomes waste people’s time (10 minute wait at the drive-through), put customers to work (the empty cup and drink station) and aren’t as affordable as one might think ($20 for a fast food family meal is more than what most dinners at home cost). Ritzer states that the only people that these ‘rational’ outcomes benefit are the people pushing them in the first place.

Ritzer encourages perceiving the four elements of Weber’s rational theory not as an “Iron Cage”, but as a “rubber cage”  where people can bend the bars effectively choosing which portions of McDonaldization they accept. He offers suggestions on how to limit the negatives effects by creating reasonable alternatives such as: Slow Food, avoiding superstores, avoiding daily routine, and other, as Ritzer admits, often time-consuming techniques. Chapter ten is new to this edition and covers what he calls “deMcDonaldization” or the countertrends to McDonaldization.  He believes deMcDonaldization is a possibility and that many of the trends such as Web 2.0 actually fit into both schools of thought. Ebay for example, is both consumer driven yet highly regulated and what Ritzer calls “Sneakerization” or mass-customization in computers, sneakers, etc. is a slight pushback, yet really much more of the same.

With our mobile society, single-parent families and woman increasingly working outside of the home, time is becoming a valuable commodity. People see what our hurried lifestyle does to the individual, family and culture as a whole. It is often upsetting and can make one wish for simpler times when people truly knew their doctor, when travel really immersed you in the place or when families ate together. But just as Ritzer doesn’t believe the McDonaldized society will end, it truly seems as though it won’t. Unless a slower pace becomes more profitable, companies won’t have the incentive to make many changes. His idea of the “rubber cage” allowing for some personal choice seems appropriate, as does his decision to abandon calling this phenomenon

“Starbuckization” since Starbucks is based on McDonald’s system even though it feigns worldliness and social justice. It is still about profit, carbon copied stores, drive-through ease, making the consumer work and predictability/control. Ritzer is quite successful by increasing awareness of the unconscious rules people are following for the benefit of companies.

As for the critique, chapter nine makes one wonder if Ritzer is able to be totally objective in his analysis since he naturally views McDonaldization from the negative perspective. Also, several of Dr. Ritzer’s points are difficult to imagine realistically. The average employed person doesn’t have time or money to follow many of his suggestions such as cooking dinner from scratch, sending their kids to private institutions, knitting clothing, avoiding chain stores or organizing protests. He mentions that McDonaldized companies offer the same product in the same way around the world yet Euro Disney had to make many changes to fit into the local market as did McDonalds in India. Another issue involves the fact that Ritzer suggests avoiding movie sequels yet his book is a sequel of itself.  He also suggests staying away from pre-packaged education, yet he sells Instructor’s CD-ROMS for this book. He also argues that it is cheaper to eat at home and which is not always true. Without buying in bulk, that .99 burger would cost more to make at home guaranteed. Lastly, society has been simplifying processes since the beginning of time. Consider an ancient Roman buying pre-caught fish from a town’s market instead of fishing for it himself. The merchant and buyer would be considering many of today’s McDonaldized elements, albeit in a much simpler way.

Unfortunately, education is not immune to McDonaldization as seen by standardize tests, limit student choice and press teachers into unreasonable molds that allow for little flexibility for students with multiple intelligences or interests. With the multiple choice tests (efficiency), quantitative grading (calculability), preset learning objectives (predictability) and regulated activities (control) we see a microcosm of the McDonaldized system. Students are taught to obey and memorize while teachers must follow the almighty clock. The current system of education was created for a time that has long since passed. It was successful in creating workers for assembly lines, but it is not optimal for the globalized world of today that requires people to be flexible, creative, and critical among many other traits. Even higher education falls to this system for fast pace and profit. Professors teach to large auditoriums and don’t know their students. Students have limited choice in their degree plan. Teachers don’t have the time to provide valuable feedback to students. Education leads the student directly from the McDonaldized school into McDonaldized work, leisure, health, family, etc. The quality and purpose of learning suffers in this environment.  Seeing learners as submissive recipients of knowledge effectively takes the human contact and fun out of education thereby creating a society that isn’t interested in life-long learning and is more likely to blindly follow the McDonaldized leader.

Jennifer Bowden

University of Illinois, USA

As the huge divide between countries that have access to technology grows, Uruguay has made certain that its citizens will not only be active participants in this new information age, but also leaders.  In fact, Uruguay’s effort has been called the world’s most radical countrywide introduction of educational technologies. This initiative, called Plan Ceibal, started in 2007 and by October 2009 had succeeded in distributing Internet-connected laptops to every public school child in its primary education system making Uruguay the first country in the world to boast full technology saturation.

Keywords: Plan Ceibal; Uruguay; One Laptop Per Child; OLPC; technology; laptop; internet; reform; education

Plan Ceibal

As the huge divide between countries that have access to technology grows, Uruguay has made certain that its citizens will not only be active participants in this new information age, but also leaders.  In fact, Uruguay’s effort has been called the world’s most radical countrywide introduction of educational technologies (“One Laptop per Child,” n.d.).  This initiative, called Plan Ceibal, which, in Spanish, stands for Basic Educational Connectivity for Online Learning.  Ceibal started in 2007 and by October 2009 had succeeded in distributing Internet-connected laptops to every public school child in its primary education system making it the first country in the world to boast full technology saturation at this level.  This equates to approximately 400,000 students, 18,000 teachers and over 2,000 schools grades one through six and Uruguay is now planning to extend the program to secondary schools (Derndorfer, 2010).

Basis of Initiative

Due to its small population and high literacy rates, Uruguay was the perfect country to instigate such an ambitious program.  Uruguay has a stable democratic government, a relatively low level of corruption, infrastructure and a decent compulsory education system, which possesses an impressive 82% approval rating (Warschauer, 2010; “Legatum Prosperity Index,” 2010).  It has a strong middle-class and leaders like former President Tabaré Vázquez (2009) who initiated the program to “promote equal access to information and communication to all our people”.  This strategy, based on economic growth and social justice, is summed up by his quote, “Development is a right, not a privilege.” (Vázquez, 2009)   Both Vázquez and the new president, José Mujica, envision Plan Ceibal to be the tool that will involve their citizens in the country’s public policy, create a competitive future for the nation’s children and help Uruguay take its place as a global information technology leader (Vázquez, 2009). 

The government program has received broad support from the public, NGOs and businesses as well.  It is a joint effort of the National Agency for Research and Innovation (ANII), the Agency for the Development of Government Electronic Management and Information Society and Knowledge (AGESIC), the National Telecommunications Administration (ANTEL), the Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), the Primary Education Council (CEP), the National Public Education Administration (ANEP) and is led by the Technologic Laboratory of Uruguay (LATU).  The LATU is charged with assigning and identifying the computers by matching serial numbers to a child’s national identity number, logistics, follow-up, technical support and connection (“One Laptop per Child,” n.d.).  Most laptop repair is free through LATU and computers can be mailed at no cost through the post office to service centers if local tech volunteers are unable to solve the issue (Linn, 2009).  The program started in the western and central areas of Uruguay, then moved to the east and lastly to the southern capital of Montevideo (Monroy, 2008).  The launch of the program in the poorer regions of Uruguay helped to strengthen community acceptance (“One Laptop per Child,” n.d.).  Miguel Brechner, coordinator of Ceibal, recently stated that Uruguay has invested close to 100 million dollars in the project which is less than 5% of the country’s education budget and that each laptop costs $188 with $60 additionally going to parts, servers, tech support, and networks.  Plan CEIBAL estimates the machine’s life to be four years with $75 annual upkeep (Camfield, 2010).  Over one thousand citizen volunteers that essentially create "a top-down initiative, turned bottom-up movement", provide much of the upkeep (Monroy, 2008).      
One Laptop per Child Background

The laptops, called XO, are manufactured by a Taiwanese company called Quanta Computer for One Laptop per Child (OLPC) which is a non-profit organization created by MIT Media Lab Director, Dr. Nicholas Negroponte.  Seymour Papert, another MIT Media Lab professor, describes school computer use as “an opportunity for the children to experience the thrill of chasing after the knowledge they really want…they begin to control their own intellectual activity” (Setzer, 2000).  The five core principles behind OLPC and Uruguay’s Plan Ceibal are: Kids get to keep the laptops, start young, whole schools outfitted at one time, connection to Internet and free open source software that adapts to the needs of the child (“One Laptop per Child,” n.d.).   Uniquely designed for developing countries, Uruguay’s little green XO laptop is like nothing that has come before it.  It is shockproof, waterproof, dustproof and low cost.  It can handle a drop from five feet to a hard surface below.  The screen can be seen in direct sunlight, it can be solar powered, battery life is extended, it requires little power and the user has access to the programming code.  There is no CD/DVD player yet kids can take photos and movies, video chat and link their computers together through mesh networking.  Internet filters are also available to block content (“One Laptop per Child,” n.d.).  The XO is fully recyclable and is the first laptop to receive a gold level rating from the Green Electronics Council.  It is fairly easy to fix and is equipped with a device that locks down the laptop if it is reported lost, stolen or if the child stops coming to school.  The XO laptop does not have a hard drive but instead is equipped with a flash drive, wireless and an open source Linux operating system with a user interface designed to be more intuitive for children. It allows Uruguay’s children to work at their own speed and includes symbols to represent the programs like journal, Internet browser, draw, write, record and create music, read, memorize, chat, and measure.    Plan Ceibal is supported by grass-roots efforts of volunteer translators, software developers, fundraisers, and support technicians through the volunteer program in Uruguay is called Rap CEIBAL (Hirji, Barry, Fadel & Ganin, n.d., p. 4).

Advantages of Initiative

When properly integrated into schools, computers can improve learning, strengthen teacher effectiveness, build partnerships, improve management, and address student disabilities and multiple intelligences.  It can encourage teachers to act as facilitators to improve learner-centered education, increase critical thinking skills, enable creative expression, teach research skills, increase inquiry and collaboration, provide real world relevance, individualize instruction and foster a love of learning for life.  A 10-year Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow research program demonstrated that integrating computers into learning improved student behavior and attendance, students wrote more effectively, group work increased, students mastered information more quickly and attitudes improved about themselves and learning in general.  The study found that students became more socially aware, represented information in different forms, improved communication, became more self-motivated and developed a positive orientation towards the future (Rusten, n.d., p.4).

Uruguay currently serves as the only model of full technological saturation at the primary level; therefore the evaluation phase is still in its infancy stages.  However, so far findings from Uruguay are primarily positive.  Teachers, parents, children and administrators have overwhelmingly been optimistic.  Part of Ceibal’s success is in its adaptation to the Uruguayan educational system and society.  OLPC provides some support but leaves most of the teacher training and software development to the purchasing country thereby letting Uruguay integrate the laptop as needed (Stables, n.d., para. 47).  Teachers report that children expand their social networks, engage more intensely in reading, math, and science activities and spend more time overall on education than before Ceibal (Warschauer, 2010).  Teachers report that the educational games help the struggling learners and students with hearing, visual, and mental issues and have their needs met with special Ceibal programs (Vázquez, 2009).  Schools can localize the technology and use the computers to create programs that address specific needs.  Seventy-five percent of Uruguay’s administrators say boredom decreased while participation in class and motivation to do homework increased.  Students that were once hesitant to ask a question aloud in class can now find the answer online.  Evaluations have noted that attendance increased (decreasing dropouts in the long-run) and that the laptop was a cost-effective way to ensure that all children have access to updated online textbooks and information.  Eighty percent of these administrators report that children’s self-esteem increases as they take pride in their laptops and customize them.  Many teachers say the laptops help parents to see the importance of their children’s education and that communication and involvement by parents has increased.  Teachers report that student collaboration has increased through the use of mesh-networks linking laptops and children have developed a drive to assist others.  Students often learn computer programming and create their own content thereby taking more ownership of their learning.  Teachers report a higher level of satisfactions with their job, a decrease in discipline problems, and that they are better able to record and monitor their students’ success.  New evaluations have found that when every child is given a laptop not only was the bar raised overall, but advantaged and disadvantaged students were able to learn and adapt at almost the same rate (Hirji et al., n.d., p. 21).

Additional advantages were initially unforeseen in Uruguay.  First, the discovery of thousands of unregistered children now eligible for government services and support that they had never received increased (Derndorfer, 2010).  Documentation for children is on the rise because as children wait for their national identification number, they are loaned a laptop (Monroy, 2008).  Next, there was an underestimated amount of grassroots support and involvement of people working together to strengthen the community (Derndorfer, 2010).  Schools have become the center of the community since they have Wi-Fi access (“One Laptop per Child: Wikipedia,” n.d.).  Furthermore, children are becoming agents of change as they teach their parents how to read and write and how to use technology.  Sixty-three percent of students in Uruguay report having taught someone in their family to use the laptop.  Parents are now using the Internet to further their own education, to search health-related information for their family, and to do business online.  It is also reported that many parents feel a sense of joy and gratitude for this education and opportunity.  In addition, the government has created online portals to help people learn about government services and participate in government as active citizens.  Now that the infrastructure is in place, organizations such as the Uruguay National Archives have digitized primary documents that are then added into the primary curriculum.  Lastly, Internet connectivity will allow people in countries with few higher education options more choices for flexible degrees from schools around the world.  Despite minor setbacks that will be addressed in the next section, Uruguay considers Plan Ceibal a major success for the country.  Recently, Plan Ceibal’s Director said, “A lot of the data we gathered points to one thing: it was worth it.” (Camfield, 2010).

Criticism of Initiative

Not everyone is quite as sold on the success of Ceibal or OLPC in general.  There have been several stumbling blocks and critiques.  The first problem arose when English language software was loaded instead of Spanish on the first 50,000 machines (“Education in Uruguay,” 2009, para. 4).  Some argue that Ceibal implementation in two and a half years was overly rushed and that the timeline did not allow for adjustments where needed.  They contend that President Vázquez wanted Ceibal to be his lasting legacy and that he hurried the implementation before leaving office (Warschauer, 2009).  One of the biggest challenges facing the program is the extent of XO breakage.  As of April 2010, it was estimated that 27% of the laptops in Uruguay were not usable due to problems such as cracked screens and broken antenna.  Originally, only about one-third of laptops were sent by post to the free repair centers.  This was due to the reluctance of parting with something of so much value to the family and also fear that costs would be associated with repairs.  Due to concerns, Ceibal implemented mobile repair teams that visit schools and started holding parent information events before handing out laptops so the family would understand the importance of the laptop as a learning tool and not a toy (Derndorfer, 2010).  Connectivity is also an issue in certain rural areas where only half of the students can be online at one time (“Education in Uruguay,” 2009, para. 5).  Some critics argue that the money would have been better spent on teacher salaries, professional development for teachers, better educational infrastructure and computer labs.  Others argue that programs like Plan Ceibal will lead to Internet addiction, less social interaction, increased childhood obesity, wasted time on games, potential exposure to predators, conspiracy theories, and inappropriate content like pornography and extreme violence (Oppenheimer, 2010).  Some parents report that the laptop leads to fighting amongst siblings and several teachers say that the laptops can be a disruption in the classroom and can lead to a chaotic classroom (Sasaki, 2008).  Other experts argue that computer use in primary school goes against the very nature of childhood and that it limits imagination, forces kids to sit for long periods, provides too much freedom of choice by allowing kids to decide what they think is best to spend time studying, and takes away the human feeling component of learning thus leading to “machine-think” (Setzer, 2000).  A major stumbling block is the quality of teacher training which is questioned in almost all articles about Plan Ceibal.  In 2007, when the program was implemented in Uruguay, no teacher training was provided.  In 2008, the training was too focused on computer literacy and not on how to use the machine in the learning process.  In 2009, the focus moved to teacher trainers that were also not often effective.  Now in 2010, the training is still being manipulated but currently consists of support teachers, group collaboration, the start of a television show called Canal Ceibal to help teachers integrate new ideas in the classroom, distance learning built around Moodle, and a redesign of Ceibal’s Education Portal used to distribute new software.  Teacher training appears to still be in the experiment stage and lacks a comprehensive plan (Derndorfer, 2010).  Therefore initial teacher reservations should have been expected.  Plus, many teachers were overwhelmed by the broad variety of choices instead of relying on one textbook.  Some felt they were too old to adapt their methods and learn something new or feared looking unprepared in front of the class.  It is noted that many of these teachers were won over by the students’ enthusiasm for the program but the numbers using the laptops on a regular basis are still fairly low (Hirji et al., n.d., p. 13).  In Uruguay, only about 1 in 5 teachers use the laptops for individual student work on a daily basis; only 1 in 8 use it daily for group work and only 1 in 30 report assigning homework through the laptop (Warschauer, 2010).  Lack of software could be part of the issue.  As Rizvi and Lingard (2010) note, much of the content on the Internet is in English and there is a huge gap in online content for marginalized people of the world that could serve to increase social disparities.  There have been competitions for teachers and businesses to create new material and the country’s largest university has outreach programs for this purpose.  An independent NGO called CeibalJAM has even been created to develop high-quality software for Uruguay (Derndorfer, 2010).  Additionally, certain skeptics believe that it should be called “One Consumer per Child” and that it is just a neoliberal act that is to benefit the industrialized countries (“From Uruguay,” 2007, para. 6).  Often these same people worry about culture shock.  They say that the Internet will change the values and culture of the country and that there will be no point of return once this new world knowledge enters their borders.  They are concerned with what they believe is an overly U.S. mindset not appropriate for other regions (“One Laptop per Child: Wikipedia,” n.d.).  As the Ceibal administrators consult for other countries wishing to follow a similar path, some worry that the Uruguay program is not suitable in countries with a huge population like India or those that cannot provide needs like food, electricity or safety to their citizens (Oppenheimer, 2010).  It is suggested that any country hoping to implement such an ambitious plan first have the right infrastructure, ability to maintain the equipment, have created content/materials, secured community buy-in, provided teacher training, and have a mode of evaluation (Derndorfer, 2010).  Lastly, the question arises of how to even begin to evaluate the success of programs like Ceibal when some studies show that computer use does not necessarily improve test scores.  A fair mode of evaluation displacing the regular standardized tests must be used to get an acute assessment of these atypical programs (Camfield, 2010).

Future of Initiative

The Internet has radically changed the way developed countries participate in work, family and leisure.  It has now reached the developing and underdeveloped world with unforeseen consequences.  Some say it will greatly benefit these developing countries while others are more critical.  The undeniable is that it is changing the world.  The former Uruguayan President Vázquez made it clear in his remarks that he wanted Ceibal to make his country globally competitive, create jobs for its citizens, improve the economy, and generally look towards the future.  His education plan includes what he calls social justice to bring the poor to the table with modern society and create responsible citizens.  As Rizvi and Lingard (2010) note, in a knowledge economy, opportunity is often linked to technology access.  The idea of a digital divide is now an argument about social justice.  Rizvi and Lingard (2010) go on to state that bridging this divide is now seen by many as essential to education reform and industrialization in developing countries.  USAID, The World Bank, and UNESCO either already support computers in schools projects or are exploring how to best use them to address education and development issues (Rusten, n.d., p.4).  A recent World Bank/ IFC report says for every ten-percentage point increase in Internet connections, economic growth increases 1.3 percentage points. The report illustrates that “access to affordable high-speed Internet…is central to economic growth and job creation in developing countries.” (infoDev 2010).  The same report also shows that this job creation greatly benefits youth and that technology-enabled governments are more accountable, transparent, and well organized.

Latin America leads this new technology initiative ahead of Asia, Africa and other regions with 85% of OLPC computers going to this region.  The Inter-American Development Bank estimates that 30 million children in Latin America will have laptops by 2015 (Oppenheimer, 2010).  “Some argue that digital technologies provide countries of the South opportunities to ‘leapfrog’ various stages of economic and social development.” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p.154).  All eyes are on Uruguay as this education reform experiment in total technology saturation promises to have a huge impact on how other countries proceed with their educational plans in the future.

References

The 2010 Legatum Prosperity Index. (n.d.). The 2010 Legatum Prosperity Index. Retrieved from http://www.prosperity.com/country.aspx?id=UY

Camfield, J. (2010, October 7). OLPC Uruguay Doing it Right: Plan CEIBAL's Numbers, Miracles, and Measurement. One Laptop per Child News. Retrieved from http://www.olpcnews.com/countries/uruguay/uruguay_doing_it_right_ceibals.html

Derndorfer, C. (2010, October 12). OLPC in Uruguay: Impressions of Plan Ceibal’s Primary School XO Laptop Saturation - Educational Technology Debate. Retrieved from http://edutechdebate.org/olpc-in-south-america/olpc-in-uruguay-impressions-of-plan-ceibal/

Education in Uruguay: Laptops for all. (2009, October 1). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/14558609?story_id=14558609

From Uruguay. (2007, December 21). Uruguay + One Laptop per Child = CEIBAL. [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.from-uruguay.com/2007/12/uruguay-one-laptop-per-child-ceibal.html

Hirji, Z., Barry, B., Fadel, R., & Ganin, S. (n.d.). Assessment Overview of One Laptop per Child Projects. Retrieved from the OLPC Wiki: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/The_OLPC_Wiki

infoDev. (2010, April 23). High-speed Internet Drives Economic Growth. Retrieved from http://www.infodev.org/en/Article.522.html

Linn, P. (2009, January). Plan Ceibal: Technical implementation by LATU. Uruguay Ciencia,

6, 4-8. Retrieved from http://www.uruguay-ciencia.com/imagenes/sumario6/0408CEIBAL.pdf

Monroy, C. G. (2008, August 7). OLPC Uruguay/Ceibal - OLPC. Retrieved from the OLPC Wiki: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Uruguay/Ceibal

Navarro, J.C., & Verdisco, A. (2000). Teacher Training: What Works and What Doesn’t.

TechKnowLogia. Retrieved from http://www.techknowlogia.org/TKL_Articles/PDF/196.pdf

Oppenheimer, A. (2010, March 21). Latin America leads in school laptops. The Miami Herald, Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/21/1539828/latin-america-leads-in-school.html

One Laptop per Child (OLPC): Mission. (n.d.). One Laptop per Child (OLPC), a low-cost, connected laptop for the world's children's education. Retrieved from http://laptop.org/en/vision/mission/index.shtml

One Laptop per Child (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child#Participating_countries

Psetizki, V. (2009, October 16). Laptop for every pupil in Uruguay. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8309583.stm

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing Education Policy. London, England: Routledge.

Rusten, E. (n.d.). Using Computers in Schools. LearnLink. Retrieved from 
http://learnlink.aed.org/Publications/Sourcebook/chapter4/Computers_in_Schools_modelofuse.pdf

Sasaki, D. (2008, February 12). MediaShift Idea Lab. XO Laptop Turns Kids into Media Creators in Uruguay. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2008/02/xo-laptop-turns-kids-into-media-creators-in-uruguay005.html

Setzer, V. W. (2000). Computers in Education? A Review of Arguments for the use of  Computers in Education. Southern Cross Review. Retrieved from http://www.southerncrossreview.org/4/review.html

Stables, J. (n.d.). Will the '$100 laptop' project ever be considered a success? TechRadar. Retrieved from http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/laptops/will-the-100-laptop-project-ever-be-considered-a-success-688808

Vázquez, T. (n.d.). Digital Democracy. Americas Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/370

Warschauer, M. (2009, December 17). OLPC: How Not to Run a Laptop Program. Educational Technology Debate. Retrieved from http://edutechdebate.org/one-laptop-per-child-impact/olpc-how-not-to-run-a-laptop-program/

Warschauer, M. (2010, May 6). Plan Ceibal: A Better Designed and Supported XO Laptop Implementation Program . One Laptop per Child News. Retrieved from http://www.olpcnews.com/countries/uruguay/plan_ceibal_a_better_designed.html