We may want to dismiss the criticisms with easy excuses, but if we think about the issues that are raised, and think about them without whining or raising our defenses, then we can honestly say that the article makes many valid points. We would go one further to say that the criticisms have sparked many vigorous debates among those of us who have been using computers with children for many years.

If we were even a bit more honest, as users and believers that these technologies can and do provide important positive benefits for children, we would agree that we have not done a good job of presenting the issues to the public. Nor have we done a good job of organizing the computers to make positive educational changes.

The LA Times published a two part series on the effects of computers in K-12 education; and the series' writers, Ms. Banks and Ms. Renwick, point to the lack of credible, wide-spread evidence that the vast sums of money spent on computers resulted in higher scores on standardized tests for students.

Through a variety of examples and quotes, they demonstrate that teachers are generally not prepared to use computers in classrooms; they lack support and educational guidance, and, though the computers may be motivational and children may enjoy using them, the results have not resulted in better scores.

They conclude that there are perhaps better ways to spend our educational dollars. In addition, the writers discuss the fact that high pressure sales tactics of hardware and software companies tend to drive the
processes of placing computers into classrooms.

The article is enlightening and points to real public engagement needs - if computers are to be used for educational change, then the educators who use them need support and time to learn and to apply the learning to be able to use them effectively in class. We need to have a clear consensus as to what "effective" means and what it will take to achieve it.

We know from the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT) studies and similar studies from IBM, that the computers alone make little difference. It is when the learning environment changes that student learning changes. When teachers use the tools to engage children in active construction of knowledge, projects that are related to standards for learning; and when instruction, curriculum and assessment are tied neatly together, then learning occurs.

In the article there is a quote from a teacher who mentions that the learning that children do with computers is the same as when they use books, but it is more motivating. If this is so, then the use of computers must be wrong.

Computers and books are different animals; both should be used, and each in their right place. Books should never be compromised for the sake of computers. But teaching and learning with computers is different.

Computers provide students with an environment to model ideas and test theories. They are able to connect to resources, and to find answers that may not be in the books that are currently in the room. Computers assist students so they may model behaviors and learn more about them.

When businesses adopted computer technology, a number of changes took place: Gone are the steno pools, as many managers often type their own memos and analyze their own data.

Stores no longer close for extended periods of time to "take inventory," rather it is done at the moment of sale. In the past, inventory once lived on the shelves of 7-11 stores for as many as 45 days. Store owners used their gut instinct to make purchasing decisions and there was no point of sale information.

Today, using computer models and data from the store, 7-11 store owners make informed decisions that have increased sales per store by 2 to 3 times. These changes require owners to operate in new ways and to learn from data and from models of customer decision making.

The same is true about the adoption of computers in classrooms - using a computer with children in a classroom requires a different attitude, a different way of thinking, and different activities to be worth the expense and learning time.

The article's conclusion is right - educators need support, time and opportunity to learn and to apply their learning. Many years ago, a colleague of mine, Julaine Salem, and I wrote that without the support of time - and lots of it - and without a place for teachers to learn, such as a computer for home use, and an assurance that each machine is up and running every day for every class minute, then schools might as well buy softballs.

Computer technology needs support to be worthwhile - but so does a library, and so does a music program, and so does an art program and so does a drama program. And we know that a football team will not be successful without coaches, proper practice equipment, a stadium and knowledgeable, supportive fans.

If the authors of the article were to look at Ms. Salem's research, conducted with students in the Los Angeles Unified school district in the mid 80's, they would have found that a program directed at specific educational needs would show remarkable gains by children using two very simple programs - BASIC programming and Logo programming.

What Ms. Salem showed, and what we know from so many other educational areas, is that the way for computers to make a difference in children's learning is when they are organized to do just that.

The school must identify measurable goals for the use of computers, determine what will be learned, provide training and time for teachers to understand how best to reach these established goals, and then provide the support to carry out the plan. When a school buys computers just for the sake of a high computer count, or when they connect to the Net, without evaluating the purpose in terms of student learning, they have little chance to show much gain.

Rather, when a school or district determines what its educational goals are for students and then organizes the computers to meet those goals, we will see change. If the goals - verifiable, demonstrative goals -with measurable indicators of achievement, then it can be determined how the computers make a difference and make appropriate changes as the program is monitored.

When the Los Angles Unified School District initiated the first computer program, the Computer Education Foundation Program in 1985, the computers were purchased for the specific goals of improving students' understanding, and for the application of geometry and writing skills. These were areas in which students did not do well, and areas that the computer might be very helpful. So the goals were set and the professional development for staff was geared to these two areas. There was a specific focus.

That is the way that computers, like any other educational strategy, needs to be put in place. Once data is collected on student needs, and goals are established, then the next crucial step is the professional development for teachers that will provide them with materials, strategies and new
understanding to meet the learning goals.

Further, the support for teachers and students, once the computers are in classrooms, can be put in place. Teachers can receive support and can focus on the key goals, not on every new thing. If the goals are to improve writing, then that is the focus.

Teachers need not worry about new ways to use computers for math or to find the neatest multiple- media reading program, or even how to search the Internet. The focus is on writing.

In this way, the computers are never obsolete, as the Times article, and so many others have described. Today's computers may not be right for future goals, but a computer purchased today with appropriate software designed to improve students' ability to write, will not become obsolete - unless we
never want students to write again.

An educational goal for the students in my sixth grade class was to learn the math concepts of variables, negative and positive numbers and coordinate points. To meet these goals, in 1983, students developed programs in BASIC on $99 Timex Sinclair computers. Sixth grade students in 1997 could do the same. They do not need a $4,000 multiple media computer connected to the Internet with a T1 leased line.

If the educational goal is to have students learn a variety of scientific concepts, learn to analyze data and draw conclusions about the data, and demonstrate a number of other cognitive skills, then they may do so with much more sophisticated equipment.

They could communicate with children and adults around the world to collect data on river water quality and to compare water samples and rain ozone factors in various industrial sites around the world. They may then compare the weather patterns and the pollution levels of manufacturing plants to determine why
water quality is different in various parts of the world. They could read about such an experiment in a science book, and then write a report.

Educators and students would argue that the first learning environment described would be far more engaging and, ultimately, more meaningful. But such a project requires a more expensive machine. However, as educators analyze their goals, they know there is a need for both kinds of machines.

When students are preparing the local service club's annual 24 page, multi color holiday brochure with pictures and other visual images, then a Timex Sinclair will not do. But in preparing the written materials they do not need a $2,000 machine, when a $200 Dreamwriter or other simple text processor will do.

The key is to determine what the educational goals are and then to organize the resources in such as way as to meet those goals.

When a basketball team is 2 and 20 one year and a new coach is hired, the expectation is for continued growth, not a miracle turn around to a championship team in one year.

The same is true with computers - pick reasonable goals, measure your success against those goals, communicate the results to the public, and build slowly as everyone on the staff learns new skills and applies them in the classroom. School district personnel also must assess and reassess every year to keep what works and improve on it, while getting rid of those strategies and practices that do not work.

The writers point out that many educators, parents, and other interested parties seemed to think that just placing computers in a class or in a lab would somehow produce students with higher test scores.

Learning requires good teaching. Computers can simulate multiple behaviors - a computer can become a musical instrument, and it gives learners the ability to manipulate graphical images, to edit and change words, to create animated objects, and to communicate with people around the world.

Computers can be used by students to search for and analyze data or to write a report that uses visual images. But alone, a computer will not make students smarter, or better able to score higher on standardized tests.

A piano in a home or classroom will not teach a student musical concepts or how to produce recognizable music. No matter how great the book, text or otherwise, the majority of children need teaching to learn from them. I do not know the statistics, but I would guess that it is hard to find research data that proves that a particular text book will improve a student's grades on annual assessments without good teaching.

The criteria to judge the educational value of the use of computers is not against a text book, or against a music program or an art program or the marching band (where has it been shown that new band uniforms help children score better on math assessments?). Kids need all of these to thrive.

All kids should have the opportunity to play a musical instrument, to conduct authentic scientific research in a lab , to play a competitive sport, to spend time deep in the stacks of a library, and to search the net to find a copy of a book on a computer in some other world computer.

And these need to be done under the guidance of a teacher who has learned how to integrate assignments in such as way as to produce student learning that matches already determined educational needs and assessments.

The article in the LA Times and the many other articles critical of technology use in the schools, must be used to keep educators honest. The sole determiner for buying and using computers should be to improve student learning.

If a part of that improvement means to motivate students to come to school early and stay late, then let's state this, measure it, and share it with the public. If a step on the way to improved student communication is to have students collaborate on a research project where information is gained over the Net, then let's state this, measure it and share it with the public.

Further, let's ensure that teachers have the learning time and the support to enable them to make the changes in their classrooms, and in their teaching styles to foster the growth and learning that we know computers, in whatever form we use them, can provide our children.

When General Motors set out to build a new motor car, they spent over $3 billion to study, plan and create a new way to work. GM spent thousands of hours studying car models and the design and manufacturing processes.

They created not only a new car, but a new way to think about building, selling and supporting the manufacture of a car. They designed a team system for manufacturing and the structures to support team development.

They understood that learning new skills and the application of those skills was a key, so now each employee spends no less than 7 percent of the work time in paid, ongoing training to upgrade manufacturing and people skills. Each employee must upgrade their skills and abilities continually.

As the makers of the Saturn cars focus on established goals for design, manufacturing and customer satisfaction, they consistently seek to improve, using public opinion, manufacturing and repair data.

We should do no less with the use of computes in classrooms, and we should communicate to the public what it is we do, how it is working and why it is important.


Dave Mintz
National Alliance for Restructuring Education
National Center on Education and the Economy
dmintz@ncee.org