Maybe Computers Aren't Schools' Salvation
ALEXANDRIA, Va.
-- President Clinton has a vision of "the day
when computers
are as much a part of a classroom as blackboards."
Some educators,
however, are beginning to question the contribution
of computers
to education, at least at the kindergarten through eighth-grade
level. They
wonder whether the expensive computers are causing other
important school
services to be sacrificed.
The National
Association of Elementary School Principals supports the
President's
initiative because part of the grants from his "technology
literacy" program
can be used for teacher training. But achieving the
Education Department's
goal of having one computer available for every
five students
is just as complicated as it is expensive.
Today we have
one computer for every 10 students, according to the
department.
Providing one for every five students, the Rand Corporation
estimates, would
require an annual investment of $8 billion to $20 billion,
which includes
the wiring of schools and teacher training.
This daunting
investment doesn't seem to faze the public. A survey last
spring by the
Milken Foundation found that 61 percent of registered voters
would support
a Federal tax increase of $100 to speed technology into the
schools; 90
percent believe that schools with computers can better prepare
students for
jobs.
Principals whom
I've talked to confirm this enthusiasm. For example, a
Louisiana principal
told me that parents in his district get excited about only
two financing
proposals: for computers and for school uniforms.
Yet if computers
make a difference, it has yet to show up in achievement.
What studies
there are -- many financed by computer companies -- are not
much help. In
one New Jersey middle school, widely cited for raising
achievement
scores, the improvement occurred before computers were
introduced and
could be attributed to other changes: longer class periods,
new books, after-school
programs and an emphasis on student projects.
In the 26-country
Third International Mathematics and Science Study
earlier this
year, fourth graders from seven other countries outscored
American students
on the math portion of the test. Teachers in five of the
seven countries
reported that they "never or almost never" have students
use computers
in class. The American teachers said that 37 percent of their
students had
used computers in at least some math lessons -- triple the
international
average. Shouldn't this increased computer use by American
students have
made a difference in their test scores?
If the country
is to continue investing in school computers, we need to find
out how computers
can improve learning. We also need to make sure that
other, less
exciting educational missions are not sacrificed.
Last year, a
California school killed its music program to hire a technology
coordinator.
Another freed up money for computers by replacing its
librarian with
a part-timer. A district in Massachusetts dropped proposed
teacher slots
in art, music and physical education to spend $300,000 on
computers.
Is expensive,
top-of-the-line technology necessary at every grade level?
Must every child
have access to computers with CD-ROM drives,
fax-modems and
links to the World Wide Web, or can such equipment be
deferred until
the upper grades?
Are we willing
to go to bat for teacher and principal training? A recent
report by a
Presidential committee warned that our investment in computers
"will be largely
wasted" if teachers are not given training in the new
technology.
We must have the courage to resist the public's enthusiasm for
sexy hardware
and argue for the money to train our teachers. We cannot
send them into
the computer room with nothing but a user's manual.
Samuel G.
Sava is executive director of the National Association of
Elementary
School Principals.