COMPUTERS IN OUR SCHOOLS - TOO MUCH, TOO SOON by Karl Forsyth, Anchorage The imminent vote on the Anchorage School District's $35 million technology bond proposition has been generating a lot of comments and discussion lately, as well it should. When the school district budget is unable to provide funds for more fundamental and arguably successful programs, this kind of request should make us all sit up and take notice. Computers are here to stay, and therefore must become a part of the school curriculum at some point. I suggest the way to determine this point is to ask the question: When are children naturally ready to learn to use these machines effectively, without cheating come other natural and fundamental development process in the child? Therein lies the rub - I am convinced that we are not examining this question deeply enough, and as a result, are introducing computers into the curriculum and lives of our children much too soon. There is compelling evidence, from a variety of sources _not_ affiliated with the computer industry, that the appropriate time to introduce the learning and use of computers is at the high school level. We have become a society of technology worshippers, literally believing that technology will be our savior, oblivious to the indirect and unintended consequences of a host of new technologies. The automobile, for example, has profoundly transformed our society. The benefit of increased mobility caused the automobile to be all-but-worshipped in our culture. We allocated huge percentages of our farm land and our national and local budgets to create roads, parking lots, malls, suburbs and more roads. It took us some time to see the downside: air pollution and accompanying health problems, urban sprawl and freeways (which directly contribute to the decay and destruction of inner cities), maiming and deaths from accidents, a slavish pursuit of oil production at all costs, and the steadily increasing percentage of our already tight budgets to maintain the automobile and it's infrastructure. Is it a good trade-off? It depends on who you talk to, but a good many think we are paying a very high price indeed. This appalling lack of discrimination in things technological is nowhere more apparent than in the current ASD technology bond proposition, where the most controversial questions being asked are: "How many should we get?", "What brand should we get?", "How will training be handled?", etc. The larger and more urgent question that has not been answered truthfully yet is: Why do we want to redirect such a large amount of our time and money to do this to our [younger] children? Unfortunately, the answer comes in half-baked platitudes containing some grievously faulty assumptions, or we don't even think about it at all. The basic assumptions underlying this initiative, while based on some fact, are faulty, and as the saying goes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Our underlying assumptions about childhood development and computer technology (indeed, all technology) desperately need to be reexamined. We are preparing to shift huge and precious resources into a misguided program of 'computer literacy' that will not get us where we want to go. A little critical examination of the hype surrounding this proposal is called for: Assumption #1: The world is computer-intensive, and our children cannot compete if they are not fluent with computers. Response: The computer skills that our high school children need are vocational skills -- as important, and as intellectually shallow, as driving a car. While we will all be using computers, this does not justify our indiscriminate fixation on bringing computers into the lower grades. What we really need in our public schools is more art, music, drama, natural sciences, languages, provocative questions, critical thinking, and a greater focus on moral and aesthetic sensibilities. On the other side of the equation - at home, we desperately need MUCH less television (none is best). If our goal is a 'marketable' adult in a computer-intensive world, don't we want to encourage and develop in our children the flexibility, broad perspectives, critical thinking and creativity that the world desperately needs? These types of skills and capacities are NOT enhanced, but are diminished when operating a computer. Assumption #2: Computers are patient teachers, and can be a powerful educational tool; Response: On the contrary, the computer imposes a structured type of thinking that is completely inappropriate for the young child, diminishing their potential. Additionally, text editors for example allow a lack of discipline in writing, which is extremely bad for children. They need to develop the ability to compose and write in a disciplined way - correctly, effectively and aesthetically - not just for the old-fashioned notions about 'neatness' (although in the real world, neatness counts!), but because the output is qualitatively better. It is impossible to develop these finer writing and thinking skills using a computer! Computers also induce a mentality of doing everything fast and efficiently, which serves to cheat the slower and finer thought processes, the ferment if you will, required to produce something truly creative and worthwhile. Finally, computers produce a tension, due to the possibility of losing the whole work in one instant, that further restricts the creative juices. All these prob lems and more conspire to cheat the developing child out of an important and subtle dimension of their early development. The child is immensely flexible, to a point. They can respond to external pressures and learn to do any number of things and/or activities at a premature age. The larger question is not can Johnny be taught to use the computer at age 5, we know he can. Rather, we must ask what is lost by diverting the energies of that child from what they should be doing at that stage of their development, to what we impose on them? With many of the more powerful artifacts of our culture, including television, computers and video games, the price of premature exposure is great, and certainly not worth the questionable 'skills' and 'knowledge' acquired. It is outside the scope of this essay to fully justify the claims that television, computers and video games are hazardous, but facts are clear. For those interested in pursuing this, a recommended reading list is provided at the end of this essay. A recent editorial in a Maine newspaper glorifies the internet hookup that may link Maine schools and libraries: "In this one giant leap", it claims, "Maine students ...will be on a par with the best and brightest minds in their nation and all over the planet.". The more grounded among us already know that being able to call up vast amounts of data on computer terminals won't make this happen any more than swimming in a bucket of paint makes one a great artist. An educated society has the capacity for critical thinking, understands literature and history, can look to the arts for inspiration and guidance, and has a deep moral sensibility. These things are learned from wise teachers (not computers), in supportive schools. Assumption #3: Therefore, the sooner we introduce computers to children the better; Response: For the first fourteen years, the natural rhythms of free play, person-to-person interactions and the development of critical thinking, reading and writing are infinitely more important and useful capacities and skills than the superficial and distracting skills required to run a computer. To substitute the one set of skills for the other in the name of 'computer literacy' (and substitution does occur) is foolhardy. Here's a little exercise to illustrate how poorly computers function as a vehicle of communication, especially for children: Express a heartfelt personal feeling, then give the person you are speaking with a hard copy "printout" of your feelings. There's not a more a dramatic demonstration of how poorly computers convey something beyond the strictly intellectual. Now, consider the need children have for personal contact, along with the fact that more and more children are experiencing disassociation from each other and society. Finally, imagine how adults exacerbate this alienation from children's true feelings of contact and connection by introducing computers as a means of interaction! It is unbelievable how short-sighted and potentially destructive for the young child this computer and Internet mania is. And to add insult to injury, the skills taught today in so-called 'computer literacy' courses will be largely worthless in twelve months time. The current rush to computers is an act of desperation: people are angry, disappointed, and confused that public education seems to be failing so dismally in many areas of the country. Thus, they hope computers will be the answer to this failure. As with most acts of desperation, it is poorly thought out, and will only exacerbate a bad situation. There are many good sources of information on the hazards discussed here. The following are particularly relevant and highly recommended: -'Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology' by Neil Postman; -'Evolution's End: Claiming the Potential of Our Intelligence' by Joseph Chilton Pierce; -'Endangered Minds' by Jane Healy; -'The Hurried Child' by David Elkind; -'Dumbing Us Down' by John Taylor Gatto; -'Computers in Education: Why, When, How' by V.W. Setzer/L. Monke * * This article can be downloaded as a text file from the following Web site:http://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/comp-in-educ.html, and is most directly relevant to the issue at hand. There ARE larger issues that need to be recognized and incorporated into a proposal as powerful as computers in our schools - we ignore these larger issues at our peril. I sincerely hope that everyone interested in this bond issue will read about and consider these larger perspectives, and in the meantime, vote NO on the technology bond proposal as it is currently structured. Our young children deserve better.