I have been away for a few weeks, but the last few meetings did not have any great controversy. If anyone would like to comment on the September 7 meeting please send it in. When I left, the majority was refusing to re-equip the elementary schools computer labs with new computers. (In the original vote Mrs. Sunday broke ranks with the usual majority and voted in favor of the plan. However in a later meeting she recanted and said she would now vote against it.). To understand the effect this refusal will have on our children’s education, we need to examine the two different ways computers are used in education.
One involves instruction in the use of the computer itself. This can be anything from keyboarding to programming depending on the level being taught. It is done in a computer classroom, usually called a “computer lab.” In the beginning of the computer era, these labs often had fewer computers than students, requiring two or three students to share one computer. Speaking from my own experience, that never worked well. Computers cannot really be shared; only the student hitting the keys is actually learning.
The second use of computers involves employing them to aid in the instruction of the normal classroom curriculum. In my science courses I used them to gather laboratory data in a more accurate and efficient way than more traditional methods. In Language Arts, the continuous revision, editing, and improvement involved in the “Process Approach” to writing is ideally suited to composing on a computer. Use as a research and presentation tool should be obvious. Computers also provide individualized access to remedial and enrichment tutorials. I am sure that since my retirement more creative uses have become available. This use of computers is best done within the normal classroom. Trying to schedule classroom instruction around the demands of the computer lab is almost impossible.
Presently, each elementary school’s computer lab is adequately equipped with MacMini computers. However, they are four years old and out of warranty. Any machines that might need major repairs will be taken out of service. Admittedly, there is a good chance the labs will have enough computers to get through this year. It is in the classrooms that we are lacking.
Kutztown Elementary School has a supply of these computers within the normal classrooms, but they too are out of warranty. Albany Elementary School has several of the pastel colored iMacs that are 10 to 12 years old. The classrooms at Greenwich Elementary School have even fewer of these, and many of those are used for “gifted” education. (There are several newer computers in the buildings, but aside from one in each of the Kindergarten classrooms, these were purchased with a grant that limits their use to serving students with special needs.)
As a result of the Majority’s action, our elementary students will not have access to the software package that would have come with the newer computers. The classrooms will not get the computers now in the lab where the less vigorous use would prolong their life. The enhancements to our children’s education that computers make available will be left to antiquated, slow, and unreliable machines. Although I am sure they will try, it will be almost impossible for our teachers to incorporate into their curricula a program that would utilize them consistently.
I find the most disturbing thing about this situation is that the proposal was not rejected because the Majority believed we could not afford it. The cost of this proposal was already contained in the zero tax increase budget. Their objection, as Mrs. Bealer remarked, was, “Philosophical, not financial.” I find this rationale very troubling.
The remarks of our teachers and administrators attesting to the value of computers as an aid to our children’s learning were completely ignored. The six people in the majority seem to think that they know best how to educate all our children. The fact that their “knowledge” is limited to their own experience as students or that of their children does not seem to trouble them. The small scope of these “experiences” invalidate any conclusion they can reach. Based on thirty-two years of teaching over four thousand students I believe I can state with some authority that every child learns differently. In this era of “No Child Left Behind” -- every teacher’s goal but a very new mandate in public education -- no teaching tool or method should be rejected for “philosophical” reasons. Computers may not benefit every student equally, but there will be those, perhaps many, for whom it provides an opportunity to be found nowhere else.
I am not sure what the Majority means by a philosophy of education. I have always believed it referred to the purpose or goals of the education being provided – valid concerns of a school board. However, as they have used that term here, it would seem that their philosophical objection is actually to the manner in which instruction is delivered, not its outcome. We ignore the advice of our teachers and administrators, who by training and experience are professional educators, at our peril. The Majority seems to believe our teachers want computers in their classrooms so that they woul not have to work as hard. It was remarked, at least three different times, that elementary education should be based on the interaction between teachers and students. Somehow, the Majority believes, two or three computers in a teacher’s classroom would reduce the obligation of our teachers to engage in that interaction, that children would be left alone in front of a computer. The ignorance of the Majority as to what actually happens in a classroom is again apparent. They are probably unaware that developing an effective use for computers is extremely work intensive. Further, learning centers are already used in our classrooms. These allow the interaction that the Majority correctly believes to be important, to be with small groups of students at a time, rather than the entire class. A computer based learning center would be another such center, but one that would be interactive and potentially personalized. Teacher – student interactions would be enhanced, not reduced.
Another “philosophical” objection was made by Mrs. Sunday regarding the danger of introducing the complexity of a computer to children who are too young to deal with it. She quoted accurately some of the findings of research into what is called learned helplessness. I have read many of these same words, and in fact, I may have written some of them in my dissertation. Unfortunately, Mrs. Sunday makes real the expression about the need to “Drink deep from the well of knowledge” and the danger of a little learning. It is not the complexity of a task which induces a sense of helplessness, but rather a lack of control over its outcome. One of the great values of a computer as a learning tool is that its interactive nature allows the user to have a sense of control over the process.
In order to see the value of computers in our classrooms, one must assume that our teachers have the experience and ability to select appropriate tasks for our children, and trust them and our administrators to see that computers are used appropriately. The essence of the difficulty the Majority seems to have with our professional staff is that they lack that trust. The controversy over computers may be symptomatic of a much greater problem, but that will be a topic for a later post. I will conclude this post with an e-mail the Board received from a parent, Melissa Leiby.
In the interest of fairness, I hope the enclosure link above will provide you with a recording of the Board’s proceedings, in which you can hear, in Mrs. Faust’s unedited words, the rationale for her opposition. I cannot promise this will work. I am very new to blogging, and, unlike our kids, "digital" is not my native language.
FROM MELISSA LEIBY
Good Morning to you all.
I would like to ask the board to reconsider the vote on the Apple lease for computers to be used in the middle and elementary schools. At Monday night's committee meeting an informative presentation was given on the way technology is currently being utilized in our classrooms. I have no doubt after hearing this presentation and talking with my own children that the use of computers in NOT interfering with learning the basics, or interacting with the teacher at the elementary level. Instead the use of technology makes learning more engaging and addresses different learning styles.
If equipment that is currently being used is in need or repair or replacement to continue providing the level of education we are providing to our students, and would not result in an added expenditure to an already approved budget, why are those of you who voted against it, doing so? I realize there is probably information that we in the public are not aware of regarding this matter that has an influence on your decision making. I feel it would be good of you to explain this at Monday night's school board meeting since this decision is important to the continued quality of education provided at our district.
I would also ask that you remember that this issue is separate from that of the one to one laptop program which many ( including myself) question the value and benefits of. Please keep in mind that the issue of the lease for use in the elementary and middle school involves using computers on school grounds, during the school day, under supervision. I'd like to believe that these computers are NOT being misused for the downloading of music or chatting on social networks which is a concern of some who question the one to one program. Again, to me, this is a separate issue.
Computers and technology are a part of society and education. We need to make sure we continue to provide our students with the equipment and tools needed to move forward, not backward. Please reconsider your decision.
Respectfully,
Melissa Leiby
