[Vision2020] support (but how?)

[Tim Lohrmann]

Visionaries,
    Tina C.'s observation that "Computers cost money"
is indisputable. Computers and internet use are darned
expensive.
    But is the education establishment's rabid(and
costly) drive to stress computer use at every turn
necessarily helpful for learning basic skills such as
reading and analytical thought? 
    David Gelernter, a professor of computer science
at Yale University(and coincidentally one of the
victims of the notorious "unabomber")thinks not.
    Below is an article Dr. Gelernter wrote a few
years back. 
    Maybe the current "sacred cow" of the
educators----using computers as much as possible---is
one area where cutbacks would not only save money but
help our kids learn to read and think better.   
    Isn't teaching kids to use technology a waste of
time if they can barely read or think analytically? 
   TL



Should Schools Be Wired To The Internet?
No--Learn First, Surf Later
By David Gelernter
 
(TIME, May 25) -- Quack medicine comes in two
varieties: "irrelevant but harmless" and "toxic." The
Administration's plan to wire American classrooms for
Internet service is toxic quackery. Four-fifths of
U.S. schools have Internet access already; instead of
wiring the rest, we ought to lay down a startling new
educational directive: First learn reading and
writing, history and arithmetic. Then play Frisbee, go
fishing or surf the Internet. Lessons first, fun
second. 

I've used the Internet nearly every day since
September 1982. It's a great way to gather
information, communicate and shop. And in one sense,
the Internet is good for the American mind. Up through
the early '90s, everyday written communication seemed
to be dying out. Thanks to e-mail and fax machines,
writing has come back. In this respect, the Internet
could be a fine teaching tool--a way to share good,
scarce writing teachers. One teacher could manage a
whole district of students if they were all connected
electronically. 

But the push to net-connect every school is an
educational disaster in the making. Our schools are in
crisis. Statistics prove what I see every day as a
parent and a college educator. My wife and I have a
constant struggle to get our young boys to master the
basic skills they need and our schools hate to teach.
As a college teacher, I see the sorry outcome:
students who can't write worth a damn, who lack basic
math and language skills. Our schools are scared to
tell students to sit down and shut up and learn; drill
it, memorize it, because you must master it whether
it's fun or not. Children pay the price for our
educational cowardice. 

I've never met one parent or teacher or student or
principal or even computer salesman who claimed that
insufficient data is the root of the problem. With an
Internet connection, you can gather the latest stuff
from all over, but too many American high school
students have never read one Mark Twain novel or
Shakespeare play or Wordsworth poem, or a serious
history of the U.S.; they are bad at science, useless
at mathematics, hopeless at writing--but if they could
only connect to the latest websites in Passaic and
Peru, we'd see improvement? The Internet, said
President Clinton in February, "could make it possible
for every child with access to a computer to stretch a
hand across a keyboard to reach every book ever
written, every painting ever painted, every symphony
ever composed." Pardon me, Mr. President, but this is
demented. Most American children don't know what a
symphony is. If we suddenly figured out how to teach
each child one movement of one symphony, that would be
a miracle. 

And our skill-free children are overwhelmed by
information even without the Internet. The glossy
magazines and hundred-odd cable channels, the
videotapes and computer CDs in most libraries and many
homes--they need more information? It's as if the
Administration were announcing that every child must
have the fanciest scuba gear on the market--but these
kids don't know how to swim, and fitting them out with
scuba gear isn't just useless, it's irresponsible;
they'll drown. 

And it gets worse. Our children's attention spans are
too short already, but the Web is a propaganda machine
for short attention spans. The instant you get bored,
click the mouse, and you're someplace else. Our
children already prefer pictures to words, glitz to
substance, fancy packaging to serious content. But the
Web propagandizes relentlessly for glitz and pictures,
for video and stylish packaging. And while it's full
of first-rate information, it's also full of lies,
garbage and pornography so revolting you can't even
describe it. There is no quality control on the
Internet. 

Still, imagine a well-run, serious school with an
Internet hookup in the library for occasional use by
students under supervision who are working on research
projects; would that be so bad? No. Though it ranks
around 944th on my list of important school
improvements, it's not bad. But in reality, too many
schools will use the Internet the same way they use
computers themselves: to entertain children at minimal
cost to teachers. If children are turned loose to
surf, then Internet in the schools won't be a minor
educational improvement, it will be a major disaster.
Another one. Just what we need. 

Gelernter is a professor of computer science at Yale.
His 1991 book, Mirror Worlds, predicted something like
today's Web.






--- Tina Cunningham <kittz_cat@yahoo.com> wrote:
> People.....
> 
> To better prepare our k-12 students for the future,
> we
> must spend money.  
> 
> Computers cost money.
> Lab equipment costs money.
> Books cost money.
> 
> NONE of these items are on *sale* at a discounted
> price for our future.
> 
> In fact, all of these items have INCREASED in price
> every year. It's called inflation.
> Our children need to be prepared for college. In
> doing
> so, we the people must spend a little more money,
> whether we want to or not.
> 
> I went to Salmon River High School in Riggins, ID.
> SRHS shares a school district with two other high
> schools.  Not all of the high schools in this state
> are as fortunate as Moscow, Boise, or Lewiston
> schools, simply because they have to share the
> wealth.
> 
> The amount of kids enrolled has gone down, you've
> made
> that point over and over again.  But the COST OF
> LIVING has increased yearly aswell.
> 
> I believe that we spend too much time bickering, and
> not enough time supporting.  Our kids see us hemming
> and hawing about their future, and how much it is
> costing us.  How does that make them feel?  Do they
> feel we support them? Maybe the test scores reflect
> the negative impact our bickering is having on our
> children.
> 
> Just my opinion...
> Tina Cunningham
> 
> 
> =====
> "Would you not like to be.....sittin on top of the
> world with your legs hanging free....."  **Dave
> Matthews Band
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
> 
>
_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step
> Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
>  
>                http://www.fsr.net                   
>    
>           mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com