WASHINGTON, D.C., March 21 -- Every time you pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV these days, it seems, someone's lamenting the "Digital Divide" that supposedly separates the technological haves from the have-nots. Generally, what they're talking about are people who have computers and Internet connections, and those who do not have them.
The "Digital Divide," we're told, also makes its presence felt in the area of public education. Every politician (Al Gore being the most obvious example) pontificates about the importance of getting every public school hooked up to the Internet and getting a computer on every student's desk. This, they seem to think, would magically fix everything that's wrong with public education.
Gore may be the most visible proponent of computers and Net connections in the schools, but everyone else in Washington seems to agree with him. They all think you can improve education by throwing technology at it.
In the '70s, they had us take programming classes, assuming that all future jobs would involve programming. It never happened.
I don't see it. The most valuable experiences I had in my public education revolved not around technology (which we did have at the time -- I'm not that old), but around good teachers. Education is not about looking up facts in an encyclopedia or with a Web browser -- it's about learning how to think. Software and the Internet aren't any more essential to education than television is -- which is to say, not at all.
Proteins, carbohydrates, FATS....
When I went through the Wayland, Massachusetts public schools in the 1970s and early '80s, we had film strips, movies (or small "film loop" cartridges, which were really cool at the time), and the occasional videotaped or live educational TV program to supplement teachers' lessons. Most of them were a complete waste of time. About the only thing I can remember from a film strip was a section on food, which described different types of nutrients. And I remember this only because a knucklehead classmate of mine, who was controlling the machine, cranked the volume way up on the word "fats," provoking a much larger classmate (later a defensive lineman in high-school football) to stomp over and punch him in the arm -- hard.
I can remember a lot more of what I learned from some of my best teachers. My 6th-grade teachers, Mrs. Walsh and Mr. Bennett, were of the old school, as it were (Mr. Bennett went so far as to maintain a standard-issue science-lab crewcut, right out of the 1950s).
Mrs. Walsh taught English and social studies -- and she was old enough to provide some perspective on history, because she'd lived through a lot of it. Mr. Bennett was the math-and-science guy -- he taught us a lot of physics and some simple algebra, subjects not normally covered in much detail until high school.
I'm sure Mrs. Walsh and Mr. Bennett showed us a film or two, now and then -- but that's not why I still remember them, more than 25 years later. I remember them because they knew how to teach.
Cool site? Who said cool site?
Somehow, though, it's been decided that computers and the Internet are going to be the saviors of American public education. Give every student a Web browser, say the politicians, and we'll suddenly see an exponential jump in our kids' academic achievement.
This is nonsense. Access to a Web browser is great -- I'd be the first to agree -- but it does nothing to improve the quality of a student's education. On the Internet, you can look up millions of facts. You can also find unreliable sources of information on every subject under the sun. But facts, in and of themselves, are not the essence of education. If they were, why would we need schools in the first place? Once you'd learned how to read, you could just go to the library and learn everything you needed to know.
How much computer knowledge do you need in order to use an ATM?
Sitting in front of a computer is not the same as listening to a lecture by a live human being -- not by a long shot. I've sat through many computer-based training (CBT) programs, which were supposed to teach me how to use one software package or another. I've also taken on-line courses, taught by real instructors, but on a Web site, where the instructor posts a lesson, the students read it, post questions, the instructor posts answers, and so on.
For the most part, CBT is a waste of time -- it's like watching a film strip. It's possible to learn a bit about how to use software with a CBT program, but it's slower and less comprehensive than going through a scripted tutorial exercise in a book. Try as they might, on-line training developers can't get across nearly as much information as they could with old-fashioned "treeware." Part of it is that it's just plain harder to read text on-line than on paper; that's one reason I increased the font size in this column awhile back.
On-line classes are better, because you're interacting with a real instructor, who can answer your questions -- but the reason this type of learning is better is that it's closer to old-fashioned classroom learning. The further you are from the instructor, the less effective the lesson.
Behind what?
One argument in favor of wiring the classroom is that "people without computer skills will get left behind," whatever that means. They've been saying this for 20 years or more -- and it's no truer now than it was in the '70s.
It's true that many, many parts of our everyday lives involve using computers. But you don't have to know much about computers to use them; that's precisely why they're so widespread. How much do you have to know to use an ATM, or to drive a car with electronic fuel injection?
In the '70s, they tried to have us kids take programming classes, under the assumption that all future jobs would involve programming. It never happened. I haven't written a line of code since I was in college, despite the fact that every job I've ever had has involved sitting in front of a computer all day. My work as a technical writer does involve some "computer skills," but they're not skills I learned (or could learn) in school -- I simply found that I had a modest aptitude for figuring things out, and that people would pay me to do it.
Internet hookups will not improve the education of today's students. Browsing is not a substitute for learning.
Web-browsing may be fun, and it may be cool, but it's not an educational tool. But, I hear you saying, doesn't Kafalas work for a Web company that teaches on-line classes? Yes, I do. But the classes they offer are oriented toward specific subject material; they're designed to help people gain specific knowledge about a small area. This is not what the public schools do -- their job is to teach kids how to think.
The basic purpose of the public schools is to shape young people's minds, teach them to think critically, and give them the tools they can use to continue learning on their own. The Web doesn't do that. It just throws out a bunch of information -- much of it unreliable and disorganized.
More doesn't mean better
The "haves-vs.-have-nots" argument -- that wealthy suburban schools have an advantage over poorer urban and rural ones, because they can afford more computers -- is also a lot of nonsense.
I used to work for a guy who'd grown up in Gardner, Massachusetts, one of the poorest school districts in the state, in terms of dollars spent per student. Gardner didn't have much money to spend on new books by new authors. Nor did they have much in the way of technology -- movie projectors, videotape machines, and that sort of thing. So, as my boss related, the students read old books by old authors -- like Shakespeare, Dickens, Hemingway, and so on. Growing up in Wayland, a much wealthier town, I read newer authors, like Kurt Vonnegut, in my English classes -- and watched a lot of movies, like "The Graduate." Now, I happen to like Vonnegut -- but compared to Shakespeare, he's a hack (and I doubt he'd disagree). And watching "The Graduate" for an English class? Whose idea was that?
Just as new books and videotape machines did not improve my education, new computers and Internet hookups will not improve the education of today's students. The Internet is a great place to look for information, meet people, do certain types of research, and spend countless hours in pursuit of wholesome (and not-so-wholesome) entertainment. But it's a tool -- nothing more. And it's an expensive tool that diverts time and money away from the primary purpose of the public schools: Interaction between teachers and students. Browsing is not a substitute for learning.
Copyright © 2000 John J. Kafalas
Feedback? Send in a letter to the
editor, and I'll post it on-line!