[Mpls] School district cuts and computers

[Heather Martens]

Discussing allocation of school resources is especially important right now, as our district has been forced to cut $25 million and now has to cut $30 million more. I’d like to give a piece of my mind to the legislators and governor who made THAT happen. In the meantime, I’m glad to see that the school board has looked critically at some big-ticket items, like administration and transportation costs.   Now that the board has reached the level of closing individual schools and having schools cut art and music again, I see that one possible big-ticket item is not being examined AT ALL. The item is computers in the elementary schools. Lest I be dismissed as a Luddite or an ignoramus, let me establish some credentials: I use computers all the time. I have taught computers in grades K-3, and I have taught elementary and middle school. I have done course work on using computers in the elementary school. And my gut STILL says computers are not worth the time and money spent on them for young children.   I am willing to be convinced otherwise. In fact, PLEASE convince me that our schools are not wasting money and time on computers. But I’ve started doing a bit of research, and the results aren’t hopeful so far.   First of all, it is clear why we have computers in our elementary schools, and why few people are questioning their merits – because many parents clamor for them. The marketing of computers for kids has been absolutely brilliant. You can’t open a parenting magazine without reading about computers, and you can’t even get your hair cut without getting a kids’ computer game  called something like “Smart Start.”   While I’ve got to hand it to the marketers, I worry about the effect of computers on elementary schools’ finite resources. My understanding is that there is a vast body of research that says art and music improve young children’s achievement overall. (Maybe some of you know about these studies.) At the same time, there seems to be no research that shows computers improve young children’s achievement. One pro-computer-for-youngsters person referred me to “Do Computers in the Classroom Boost Student Achievement?” on www.heritage.org, but that didn’t help her case; the answer was “no.” It is hard to find any studies on this topic that are peer-reviewed. One recent report that pointed this out is called “Fool’s Gold: A Critical Look at Computers in Childhood” and can be found at www.allianceforchildhood.net. If this report is correct, the reason I can’t find any studies showing academic benefit is because there aren’t any. (And, although “Fool’s Gold” was signed by Diane Ravitch, Raffi, and boatload of academics, nobody I’ve spoken to at the district has heard of it.)   I tried calling a couple of experts to see if anyone was working on a study or interested in doing one. So far, nobody is. The head of the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the U wasn’t surprised about the conclusion of “Do Computers in the Classroom Boost Student Achievement” – she said computer use wouldn’t show up in improved NAEP scores. It would just show up in kids’ “ability to use technology.” So we put computers in front of Kindergarteners so they will be able to use computers? That’s an academic objective in elementary school? It sounds like vocational training to me, which has no place in elementary school.   The director of the Center for School Change referred me to some very pro-computer researchers who have done studies that show computers are not “well used” at most schools. It seems that many experts agree on that. This makes me wonder -- if computers aren’t well used now, what additional expense will be required to make sure they are well used?   Before deciding how much we should be spending, we should know how much we ARE spending. A friend and I tried to find out. The finance director of the Minneapolis Public Schools doesn’t know how much is spent on computers and can’t find out because the amount spent on computers is scattered across so many different line items. Well, I think the district has got to figure this out.   (So far, the best information I have is from Robert Schmid’s post, which says the money that buys 2/3 of a classroom math books buys one half of a computer. Maybe Robert could try to come up with an estimate of total district spending on computers. As part of the first $25 million cut, the district eliminated its computer repair department. That will have some implications, too.)   Some people may gasp at the idea that money being spent on computers for little kids may be a waste. But when I bring it up with people, I find that they’re not all as unquestioning of computers as I thought the public was. There are other parents out there who have scratched their heads in puzzlement when their kids brought home “artwork” drawn with a mouse (isn’t a paintbrush a better choice?) Some parents do question the premise that typing is a necessary skill for five-year-olds. Many experienced teachers I’ve spoken to think computers probably are a waste of young children’s time. And nobody my age really believes that if you don’t use a computer by the time you’re eight, you’ll never get it.   In the early grades, the single most important academic achievement for kids is learning to read. We want kids to learn to love reading and to read in their spare time. Does splitting library time with computer time further this aim? Reading is more attractive when the books are new and beautiful. Are those gleaming $1,200 computers the reason my daughter’s school has no money for new library books? We need to meet the needs of kids in poverty, who I find especially crave time with caring adults. Do computers help these children?   When half of our students don’t graduate from high school, we ought to expect our district to examine EVERYTHING it does. Everything should be required to prove its merit, ESPECIALLY expensive things.   “Fool’s Gold” calls for a moratorium on further introduction of computer hardware and software in elementary schools until someone can show that they confer some academic benefit. This seems reasonable, doesn’t it? And as for time, how about having little kids use computers whenever their teachers have an age-appropriate ACADEMIC objective that can’t be achieved as well another way? This would eliminate the waste of trying to fill scheduled computer time, and replace it with activities proven to benefit kids.   So, list members, can you help? Let’s hear what you think about this.   Heather Martens Kingfield