Computer Ed: Far From Hopeless, Far From Perfect RW1, Profs. Hancock and Chan December 3, 1996 Eric Prideaux and Members of the RW1 Class Most kids at Harlem’s P.S. 125 went home more than an hour ago, but Adam Anthony-Pyndell, 9, is still in the school’s computer lab. As his mom holds a notebook up for him to read, Adam steadily types an essay on a state-of-the-art Macintosh. The precocious fourth-grader said he doesn’t mind plugging away at computers while other kids play, because “education is more important than fun.” Likely story, but one shared by the other 20-or-so grade- schoolers also contentedly experimenting with computers in the lab. “Here’s the thing,” he continued. “On a computer, when you’re typing, you’re doing your own thing. In a book, you’re reading something that another person did.” Educators across the country are scrambling to act on what Adam pointed out: children like learning from computers. They’re interactive. The main obstacle to making computers the primary tool of education is, of course, their cost. Government spending for computer equipment is a political affair, and no surefire correlation can be drawn between need and supply. Federal Title I funds do provide educational computer systems to schools whose students’ scholastic scores fall dangerously below grade-level. However, situations exist where one school’s principal can use political connections to, in essence, swipe a $200,000 City Council grant from another school. Building computer labs is labor-intensive and extremely costly. According to one nation-wide study, the average school can only afford to buy one computer for every 35 students. Harlem’s public schools can afford, on average, about one machine for every 57 students, and one school reportedly has only one computer per 468 students. Adam’s school, P.S. 125, is uncommonly well-equipped, with one computer for every eight students. Nowadays, the New York City educational system is under pressure to give its students the computer skills that even the most mundane entry- level jobs now require. Ideally, the schools will teach children much more than how to enter data. It would be a daunting task to expose children to the full spectrum of tools computers can offer, even if the school system didn’t also have to contend with massive budget cuts, overcrowding, a crumbling infrastructure, administrative inefficiency and patronage scandals. Remarkably, despite these problems, many computer labs around the city show that there is hope that children from all New York City neighborhoods, not just the most affluent, will receive computer training. Indeed, some public school computer labs rival those at heavily-funded universities and major newspapers. P.S. 321 in Park Slope, Brooklyn is model of computer education. The school can boast of some of the best reading scores in the City, as well an unusually good student-to-computer ratio: 10 to 1. The school can thank an aggressive PTA for the school’s success in providing technology to its students. One member donated 33 IBM computers, in good condition, when his firm upgraded its system. The PTA knew that having the equipment didn’t guarantee that it would get put to constructive use. It wanted someone enthusiastic about computers, who could bring technology to the children on a shoestring, and know what to do when system crashed. They found their person. When the mother of some of P.S. 321's students showed interest in becoming the school’s computer coordinator, the PTA went to bat for her. Before the Board of Education put former corporate computer programmer Mary Sue Landley on the payroll, the PTA footed her salary. Now, the children use the IBMs and Macintoshes set up by Ms. Landley to learn word processing, math, and social studies. Computers arranged in networks in which each “workstation” communicates with a queen bee “server” can be extremely useful tools for teachers of almost any academic area. Students take diagnostic tests on the workstations, and results are analyzed automatically and related to the teacher. She or he can quickly and accurately see each student’s strengths and weaknesses. Automated grading frees up time for personal interaction. While computer drilling programs are useful, they still don’t teach children the logic that makes computers do what they do. That’s why students at P.S. 321 use LOGO Writer, a simplified programming language that enables them to manipulate geometric figures on a computer screen. Using the program, children gain an intuitive grasp of basic programming logic. Therein lies one of the central issues of computer education: to what degree can schools give students computer skills for the good jobs? The lion’s share of New York schools do not have parents with 33 computers to spare, former programmers applying to fill teaching vacancies, or corporations willing to hand over hundreds of thousands of dollars for technical education. Will those schools, working with modest resources, be satisfied to churn out the next wave of so-called “data-entry specialists” who know little more about computers than how to type on them, or will they graduate students able to use them for research, number crunching, or advanced communications? Paul Reese, P.S. 125's computer teacher par excellence, helps his students gain the advanced skills. In an area like Harlem, where many children’s chief concerns too often are day-to-day survival rather than scholastic achievement, children run the risk of ignoring education. Children need extra encouragement to learn, and not fall by the academic wayside. “We use [computers] to support general goals of literacy; we need to teach students how to write,” said Reese, who has taught computers at P.S. 125 for 11 years. Besides reinforcing the nuts and bolts of phonetics and arithmetic, however, computers bring out the best societal traits in children, Reese said. Many kids who don’t fit in under regular circumstances suddenly become sociable when working with other students around a computer. One student in Reese’s class, a child the teacher said suffers from feelings of alienation, overcame his inhibitions to help a classmate who couldn’t figure out a program. “We try to engineer this kind of thing,” said Reese. The result can be seen every month. Students produce a monthly website newspaper whose web address is http://mac94.ralphbunche.rbs.edu. Reese has managed to procure a total of 90 cutting-edge Macintoshes despite yearly state grants of only $2000 to $2500. (P.S. 125 stands out in Harlem’s School District 5, which has the second worst computer-to- student ratio in New York City.) The secret? To charm corporate contributors. He has earned the pet name “grant hustler” for his ability to attract private donations. “I do relatively strong grant [proposal] writing,” beamed Reese. Assisting Reese in P.S. 125's classroom is Michael Hauben, 23, a graduate student from Columbia’s Teachers College. He is studying ways to introduce children to usenet newsgroups, topic-based discussion forums where anyone on earth with access to a modem can add their two cents. Hauben said that the internet presents children with an opportunity to join the fray of communication often dominated by adult voices. By participating, children can become excited by issues otherwise beyond their reach. “I think the connection with the live world as it’s developing would bring something to the classroom,” said Hauben. One fourth-grader working alongside Hauben discovered how to join a discussion group in Australia. “I didn’t point him to the information on the newsgroup, but it caught his interest,” said Hauben. He, as well as Reese and other teachers pointed out that children are naturally attracted to computers. In schools whose teachers are not as adept as Reese in grant raising, or which are still waiting their turn to receive computer lab money from the City Council, computers are very few in number. Students get few chances to do anything as exciting as send messages to friends in Australia. Harlem’s P.S. 175, poorly funded by government, faces a strange predicament. The school received federal Title I funds to establish a computer system help its underachieving students bring up academic scores. Paradoxically, funds just aren’t sufficient to buy enough computers for everybody and higher achievers seldom get to use computers, many of which are about 10 years old. The student-to-computer ratio is 56 to 1. Even the children for whom the computers were intended don’t see them much. Several months into the school year, many students using the school’s modest computer lab were unable to turn consoles on. An assistant teacher, poorly trained in computer education, barked orders at the children as they grew frustrated with the old technology. “Have you every used a computer before?” asked the assistant. “Y-e-e-s,” droned the students. “Well, there you go then. Get busy!” P.S. 175 Principal Carole Forster said that the computers markedly helped raise her students’ scholastic scores. Still, it was difficult to see how students could pioneer the outer realms of cyberspace when the inner realm of their classroom was as noisy as a kennel. The school’s head computer teacher, Winston Duckett, admitted that children in his school won’t have enough access to computers to gain high-end skills any time soon. Spending patterns are complex, and the computer education market is young. Few experts in the field can say with certainty which cross- sections of New York City children will be better prepared for the automated workplace of the 21st century. Private donations have evened out socio-economic disparities in computer education. All the same, many teachers eager to bring computers to their classrooms have a wait ahead of them. P.S. 175's Duckett lamented, “You just don’t get funded with the kind of dollars to do what you want to do.”