No-Tech Schools In Tech Land

manyoso writes: "This article in the Oregonian tells how some hi-tech parents at Intel are opting for a school without computers for their children. From the article: 'Conventional wisdom holds that children can only benefit from exposure to technology', but children, 'shouldn't spend first-grade skipping coloring and learning to keyboard... Emphasizing computers doesn't seem to enhance students' creativity and could even stifle it... We want them to eventually see what a computer can do for them, but only after they know what they can do for themselves.'" Clifford Stoll has argued and written along similar lines.

Comments

Curriculum vs. Tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers are useful as tools. They cease to be useful as part of the curriculum.

*stifles* creativity??

[MathJMendl]

If anything, I think that computers encourage creativity. If you have a fast mind, the computer might be the only thing that can keep up with you, and think of all the possibilities on a computer! Coding lets you do nearly anything, and you could do graphic design or play imaginative games (I still remember playing Cosmic Osmo several years ago, a game by the creators of Myst that let you explore worlds)! I think it would be ok to do other things *in addition* to computers, but definitely not instead!

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, I think that computers encourage creativity. If you have a fast mind, the computer might be the only thing that can keep up with you, and think of all the possibilities on a computer!

Take an example, such as powerpoint. Since powerpoint went mainstream, we have seen the same 50 clipart pics with the same 50 slide changes over and over again. I served as a student teacher (at an inner city Atlanta school) for about 3 months (in order to get a teaching minor), and the worst mistake I ever did was say that kids could use powerpoint for a science project (unofficial) i told them to do. The next day, 80% of my class brought something in on powerpoint. The worst part was they all expected a high grade because they used computers.

The fact is, computers are good as a tool. However, they are not good when they actually start to become the only tool. Kids these days are now thinking within terms of Power Point... "Oh cool, i can use the sliding fade here into the next scene." They are no longer thinking outside of the box.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[PopeAlien]

I dunno - I feel a lot less creative now that I use a computer all the time.. of course that could have something to do with the booze.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[gnarled]

Ummm in first grade you are learning how to write English and do very basic addition/subtraction. I don't think coding is a good outlet for a first graders creativity honestly. The even worse part of the new trend of having a computer for every student at school is that administrators and politicians believe this is actually a good substitution for good teachers. Computers are great when you are older, but I don't think you really NEED them for a good education especially in elementary school.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[FFFish]

Kids these days are now thinking within terms of Power Point... "Oh cool, i can use the sliding fade here into the next scene." They are no longer thinking outside of the box.

Worse, the time they spend thinking about sliding fades is time they do not spend thinking about the content of their work.

The most useful application of the computer in a school setting is as a word processor, and only when the students are trained to type 40wpm or faster. Yes, that's right: the best use of the computer is as a glorified typewriter.

Why? Because that properly relegates it to "tool" status, instead of "toy" status. Screwing around with PowerPoint does not add quality, detail, nor depth of thought to the content. Fast typing, however, gives the student more time for research and learning.

I would dearly love to say that there are two superb uses for the computer in school, with the other use being as an encyclopedia (ie. Google). However, I don't think the quality of information that is generally available on the Internet is typically better than that of the school library... and much of the information on the Internet is either dead wrong, or carries an agenda that isn't discernable to your average student.

(Wait, there is one other good use: computers make excellent flashcards. They can take rote learning and make it more interesting -- times tables, etcetera.)

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[npietraniec]

a game by the creators of Myst that let you explore worlds)!

There's a real world out there that's more fantastic than any imaginary world that some computer nerd dreamed up. Children need to be socialized - yes, sitting in front of a computer stifles creativity.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[zaffir]

I don't know about you, but i wasn't allowed to cross the street without an adult when i was in 1st grade. I don't think my parents would have let me explore the world.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[John Miles]

...and much of the information on the Internet is either dead wrong, or carries an agenda that isn't discernable to your average student.

Funny thing is, that's true of most books, too.

Teaching kids that 90% of everything they see, hear, and read is at least subtly wrong seems like a good idea to me. If the Net can encourage critical thinking skills by driving that point home at an early age, so much the better.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Vikki_R.]

Coding lets you do nearly anything, and you could do graphic design or play imaginative games.

Yeah, but how many K-6 or -8 grade kids do you know who can program? Granted, playing on the computer is better than laying around watching TV-- it's more interactive, and most of the time you have to have some sort of reading ability to use the computer properly. I think what the parents are concerned about is that other, more important, areas of the kids' education may be neglected in favour of computers. It's far more important for the kids to learn to count, add fractions, write letters, and colour by hand in the lines than it is for them to learn about right-click menus and mail-to links at this point . Later, after they master basic skills, then is the time to teach them about the wonderful world of computers.

I don't know how many of your parents were like this, but my parents have a rule about the calculator for both me and my younger brother. Before we're allowed to use a calculator for a certain type of math problem, we have to be able to do the work by hand, or in our heads, proficiently before they let us use a calculator. Now this rule doesn't apply to me so much, but when I was in elementary and middle school, it did. And since my parents have & enforce that rule, I know (past experience) that I can, if need be, solve almost any geometry and most algebra problems in my head. Because I learned the math myself before I was even allowed to touch a calculator. Compare that to most of the kids in my class in school-- they struggled with a calculator, forget mental math. They weren't stupid; they just never learned to function without a calculator.

So hold off on the computers till about 4th or 5th grade. And even then keep the computer time within limits. Let the kids learn to read dead-tree books first; let them learn to use their imagination, rather than use the computer to provide one for them; let them learn to do math by themselves, so that the computer/calculator only becomes an easier way to do the math, not the only way. The kids will be much better for it in the long run.

That is what the parents were getting at.

(Sorry this post was so long, but I had to say all that.)

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Quake 3 to enhance my reflexes.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[tftp]

Yeah, but how many K-6 or -8 grade kids do you know who can program?

"Programming" here is not necessarily C++ or Perl. It can be just a map design for Unreal Tournament or whatever. As long as it is a design, it is a programming - and it is as creative as any other art form.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Mudslayre]

Perhaps saying that it stifles creativity is somewhat off. Perhaps if might be better to say that it makes it more likely that students fail to recieve adequate breadth of experience to prepare them for situations where the computer is not pertinant.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[GospelHead821]

This is not altogether true. It depends on how the students approach the project. I know that I loved using powerpoint for my presentations in high school. Why? Because it was easier to hook up a school laptop to the overhead projector than it was to go through the trouble of printing out my figures on transparencies and then worrying about keeping them in order and switching them at the appropriatem time. Powerpoint makes those concerns trivial. If the students understand the importance of content and realize that the presentation of that material is secondary, then powerpoint is an extremely good tool for them to use! But I don't think that the problem, in this case, lies with the fact that the students have been trained with computers, but that their training has emphasized the wrong things. Computers can't teach creativity - that's been said a dozen or more times already. If, as early as teachers start asking students for projects, they deemphasize the "prettyness" of the student's presentation and reemphasize the clear conveyance of information, students will realize long before high school that a computer is not a shortcut to a good grade anymore than a nice binder for a report or a proessionally mounted visial-aid is.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[daddy2times]

No, that's not your problem. Computing, creativity and booze is kinda like running a marathon. You've only just approached the wall. You have increase your intake of booze by a lot (try double to start with) to get to next level. Oh, and do this often so that you can "push" the wall farther out.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Yorrike]

Don't forget the caffine. Ever since I replaced water with caffinated beverages, my creativity had dropped through the floor (I also blame the internet and video games, low drinking ages and easy access to guns, just to cover all the bases ; )

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[daddy2times]

Yeah, but yer speling is goode :)

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Chundra]

It's far more important for the kids to learn to count, add fractions, write letters, and colour by hand in the lines than it is for them to learn about right-click menus and mail-to links

Close. It's far more important for kids to learn to color outside the lines.

We have too many drones already. Kids should spend time questioning authority, breaking conventions, thinking outside the box, drawing outside the lines, and enjoying themselves. Most of them will be assimilated by The System by the time they're 10 anyway, but the few that can be reached make up for it.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[gblues]

Actually, young children are much more likely to take the Internet at face value. Critical thinking skills don't kick in until around 7th grade (e.g. puberty).

Nathan

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Anonymous Coward]

> We have too many drones already. Kids should spend time questioning authority, breaking conventions, thinking outside the box, drawing outside the lines, and enjoying themselves. Most of them will be assimilated by The System by the time they're 10 anyway, but the few that can be reached make up for it.

You don't have childre, do you ;-)? Kids do quite well in all those areas without any additional help - those are the very subjects kids seem to instinctively already want to explore.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[modecx]

I have to agree that fast and accurate typing is essential to people who actually use computers.

But I'll have to argue that having the next generation keyboarding from the age of 4 is a bad thing. As a young programmer-to-be, and a computer user who has been using computers and the internet for longer than nearly all of my peers, I'm starting to experience carpal-tunnel, or RSI (Repeated Stress Injury).

If you have the kids in an ergonomically sound environment, maybe the chanes of injury are lessened. Still, over their lifetimes, if they don't get the excercise and pay attention to their bodies (as so many hackers don't [what we call engineer ass]), the children of the future are going to be unhealthy as adults.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[bman08]

I did a creative writing workshop with fourth graders who all had laptops. It was great that I could read their writing, but overall, I think the effects were negative.

Spell check was really intrusive. Kids want to spell right and they'd waste tons of time on spelling.

Also, the delete key enabled them to destroy work beyond the possibility of recovery. In groups without computers, a crossed out page or ripped up notebook can still be transcribed. By the time I could reenforce that what they'd written was great... it was already gone.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[xconslash]

I think is shows that computers could be used as a tool. Except that only the students thinking clearly enough outside the box will be able to utilize their power to geta good grade. For example, you compare a poster to a PowerPoint presentation both about the same subject. Whichever actually presents the information better would get a better grade. That makes kid think about the content rather than the computer. It would give an outlet to those students who spent the time to learn how to present the content effectivley in the computer medium.

Computers should be used simply as a medium, another outlet for communications, not as an overall teching stradegy.

My 2 cents

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Yorrike]

shooting yore mowth, stupid weasel.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[npietraniec]

Trolling, but I'll humor you. Playing with legos is better than sitting and clicking all day. You don't need to go on adventures and kill orcs over on the other side of town.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[PotatoHead]

Good post. The do it on paper rule was the same one I was subject to. Makes a lot of sense today.

Another way to look at it: You are at your job interview and someone wants to know your opinion of some figures and graphs. As they slide across the desk you either....

1.) Panic because you did not bring your calculator because it just screamed "geek!" with your nice new suit. So you bullsh*t and hope it works. (You can always have your machine at your desk so who cares right?)

2. Calmly look things over, do some quick mental math to understand the limits of what you are looking at and make some conclusions. You say something that actually matters and that leads to an interesting conversation and your new job.

No brainer.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[John Miles]

Actually, young children are much more likely to take the Internet at face value.

Has anyone actually tried telling them not to?

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[cybermage]

Critical thinking skills don't kick in until around 7th grade (e.g. puberty).

That's funny. Seriously, most adults I know will believe nearly anything you tell them as long as its probable.

Why? Because the alternative is unthinkable. Imagine trying to function in the world if you required everyone to prove everything they told you. Even if you've been trained to think critically, you have to tentatively accept what you read or hear as true unless you have cause to disbelieve the source.

While young children may be the least capable of judging the reliability of what they read, they are far from alone in lacking that training/experience. What's far worse is that older people can do more damage with the unreliable information they embrace.

The earlier kids are exposed to the Internet, the sooner they discover that you can't believe all things you read, hear, or see. Eventually they'll embrace something that is patently false and be corrected when they repeat it. Lesson learned.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Anonymous Coward]

That game is like reading a book, but visually.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Vikki_R.]

"Programming" here is not necessarily C++ or Perl.

I didn't mean any languages like that. Heck, I'm not that advanced yet, and I'm in 11th grade. I just know HTML, a little bit of Python, and a bit of Java. I'm lucky I can identify C++ by looking at it; I can't read or code it. But what I meant was Basic or LOGO or HTML; common beginning languages.

I also didn't say programming wasn't creative or an art form. That's exactly what I like about it-- the creativity. I'm just saying that in school kids in elementary school have more important things to learn than programming. Like learning to read on grade-level. Or learn basic math. Or, especially, learn basic science. Look at the statistics of any testing done in these 3 areas, and you'll see the scores are atrocious! But, on their own free time after school, if they want to program, go ahead! Wonderful! They just have better things to do *in school*.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Vikki_R.]

It's far more important for kids to learn to color outside the lines. We have too many drones already. Kids should spend time questioning authority, breaking conventions, thinking outside the box, drawing outside the lines, and enjoying themselves. Most of them will be assimilated by The System by the time they're 10 anyway, but the few that can be reached make up for it.

Oops. You're right. Jeez, that's what I've been saying for years, now, and usually no-one pays attention. The one time I slip (I think they're finally wearing me down...), someone corrects me. *Sigh* Anyway, you're right, thanks for picking that up ;).

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Peyna]

For as young as you sound, you should check our your typing style if you are experiencing RSI symptoms already. I've been using computers intensively for about 12-13 years now, and only at one point in time did I ever begin to feel pain in my hands and wrists (which coincided with working in a factory, since I left that job, the problems stopped.)

I'm sure I don't need to tell you how to properly type, sit, etc. to avoid RSI, but if you are already feeling symptoms, you should look into how to improve your environment, etc. to prevent these problems.

Other options include ergonomic keyboards, dvorak layout, etc. Anyway, I'd just hate to see an aspiring programmer have to change their career because they have RSI.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the professors at my university won't let you use a calculuator period in any math class. There really isn't any need for it. The ones that do let you use a calculator only allow arithmetic ones, just so you can make sure you carried that 2 =]

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[HanzoSan]

Most information in text books are wrong.

Most information in the world is wrong.

By giving a kid the REAL information, alot of it which is wrong but alot of it which is right, you teach your kid how to think. Theres more than one side to every story. Textbooks in highschool never teach that, if you look at a history class using text books, on say cowboys and indians, the indians are the bad guys not the cowboys, but go to an indian reservation and get the other side of the story.

Compare the two sides, the truth is usually a mixture of both.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're saying 'give me the smart kids and let me turn them into fucking hippie losers.'

Guess what, dude?

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[NotoriousQ]

Well I guess that explains the post, which by the way had no creativity behind it. Of course, I am afraid to ask how much booze did the moderator have. He must have been really enibriated to laugh at that.

I suggest more booze, that could possibly help.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[markj02]

So? That would seem to be a problem with PowerPoint and the way it's being used, not with computers in general. You can goof off with a bunch of pens and some paper as well. As for your students expecting a high grade on day n+1--it would seem to be easy to have cured them of that misconception by day n+2.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[HanzoSan]

Skills dont kick in, they are taught.

I was taught critical thinking, its not like it just kicked in.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[HKTiger]

Remember that we're talking about small kids here: anyone familiar with Piaget's stages of development? It's been several centuries since my university days, but I picked up a smattering, and what Piaget was essentially saying was that there were stages in the mental development of humans.

"Fascinating stuff," I hear you cry, "but exactly what is its relevance to the discussion?" Or less gentle words to the same effect. Well, what I'm getting at is that children have stages where they *can't*, for example, learn abstract concepts and have no real working concept of time (that's why it's hard to get them to do anything for a putative future payout). They just don't have the abilities yet: think of it as a sort of long-term boot, where each learning stage prepares the way for the next. You can't use your UML modeller until you've loaded your device drivers, and it's the same with kids.

And this means that kids need to learn about things like spatial relationships, the laws of physics as they apply to children and sports equipment, and Why You Shouldn't Flush Your Little Brother Down The Toilet. They need to learn about human relationships, themselves and their limits (physically and socially and I don't know what-all else), and about just generally being human. And computers are not at all helpful there: computers don't teach developing human minds anything other than interacting with computers.

Trust me, I'm not a doctor but I *was* a teacher (and oh my am I glad I'm out of that thankless game). Kids need to know about life and other people and fire and why cats bite and stuff like that before they start discovering the wonderful world of Nude Teen Cheerleaders (how *do* you know they're cheerleaders?).

That Myst-ish game? Those kids aren't exploring worlds, they're sitting (or more likely slumping) in front of a glass tube looking at pictures. They're not using any creativity, they're not writing or painting or otherwise creating their own worlds: they're just sucking up somebody else's.

And as for the "you can't get a job without computer skills" rationale, well, how many kids want a job? Time for learning useful job skills once they've learned some rudimentary social skills and why it hurts to jump off the shed roof. Leave the tedious advanced stuff for high school, and let them climb trees and get dirty and pretend to be aliens when they're young.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[stretch_jc]

That sounds exactly like one of my favorite teachers in high school. His favorite saying was "50% of what I tell you are outright lies, and the other half just hasn't been proven wrong yet." His philosophy was too teach us how to question what we are taught and think for our selves.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[jantheman]

Skills dont kick in, they are taught

Not taught. Learned.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[electroniceric]

Fair enough, but creative thinking skills take time to develop.

Books have two levels of editing:
1) Editing and publication, which removes much misinformation, and at least some disinformation, because you can't push a hollow rant through publication as easily.
2) You as a parent can get actively involved in what books your kids read, at least before puberty.

The Internet, on other hand is a wellspring of mis- and disinformation, and it's much harder to take an active role in what your kids surf through.

Start em on books, but more importantly, start by asking questions and challenging their intellects yourself. That's the quickest way to have bright inquisitive kids.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[ncc74656]

Yeah, but how many K-6 or -8 grade kids do you know who can program?

Has it become that uncommon? I was writing stuff in BASIC by fourth grade and started trying to pick up 6809 assembly language in sixth or seventh grade (didn't get to do much more than clear the graphics screen on a CoCo really fast). There are almost certainly other people (maybe they need to be over 25 or maybe even over 30) here who could say the same thing for themselves.

Then again, all the old 8-bit machines I grew up on had some sort of language (usually BASIC) built in. Where's the free (or nearly so) language today that's simple enough for kids to start it up and get the computer to do something useful? I don't think starting them on gcc would be a bright idea...hell, maybe the answer would be to get an Apple II or whatever from the nearest Goodwill for a couple or three days' burrito money (it's cheaper than VB, at least) and give that to some kid who might be interested.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Grab]

Nope. Colouring _inside_ the lines teaches hand-eye coordination and an appreciation of visual shapes. Until you can colour inside the lines, you're not ready to express yourself by colouring outside the lines.

It's the difference between someone who drives 100mph bcos they know the road perfectly and are a good driver, and someone who's only had a half-dozen lessons driving 100mph bcos they don't know to look at the speedometer. Or the difference between a kid hitting random notes on a piano, and a great jazz musician hitting apparently-random notes on a piano.

Until you've got an appreciation of what the conventions are and why they're there, breaking them is NOT good. Conventions like "don't drink the results of a chemistry experiment" for instance have a very good basis - it isn't until you have enough knowledge of chemistry to know that the substance you're producing is harmless (or a recreational substance ;-) that you should break it! That's where adults have to provide some control over kids - children are born literally unable to associate cause and effect, so they cannot associate shooting their little brother with their little brother dying, it's just not in their range of experience.

Grab.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[God! Awful]

Actually, young children are much more likely to take the Internet at face value.

Has anyone actually tried telling them not to?

You can teach a dog to sit and you can teach a dog to roll over, but you can't teach a dog to think critically.

I mention this because folklore science tells us that a dog has about the IQ of a 4 year old. Kids aren't just minature adults with less knowledge; they also have different winring in their brains.
By all means, you need to teach your kids how to think critically, but not until they are ready.

On another note, there is also a difference between computers today and computers when you grew up. When I got my first computer at age 5, you had to type in the programs from a book. It was tedious (and ridiculous, in hindsight), but you did learn something.

-a

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Anonymous Coward]

have you people ever used computers to do anything than make meaningless posts to /.?
if you are considering powerpoint to be the most creative thing available to people then you are just a complete idiot.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Anonymous Coward]

ive spent most of my time in front of computers since i was about 6, and i am pretty sure that i am far more creative than you could ever be if you take such a narrow way of thinking, comps shouldn't be taken away, just get decent teachers so ppl know how to use them...

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Anonymous Coward]

6th grade is when i started playing around with BASIC systematically(had done the old programs in the back of magazines long before then, remember those anyone?), and HTML soon after(with my friends, at school, so don't even give me the antisocialization crap. its not true. my best friends were those who had a similar interest in computers, and they have been lasting friends, even from grade school). Many of the "natural" programmers(those of us who just pick up coding very easily and naturally) I know, now that I'm in college, started out in the same way. I think having access to computers at school is very important. However, I would agree that emphasis should be placed on them as a tool. Some kids will have an interest in playing around with them further, let them do so. But don't shove it down anyone's throat.

At high school I had a problem with too many teachers requiring the use of web pages or powerpoint for presentations. I was fortunate not to have any of them, but I saw what it did to the freshmen's study habits(it was a boarding school, btw. we actually had to study). That was bad.

So have computer available, have basic typing classes, but don't shove it down their throats.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[a random streaker]

> drawing outside the lines,

I got spanked in first grade because I colored outside the lines.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Rydia]

I doubt that raising them on the internet will really help any more than the TV... and even worse, I should think. Just think about all the 12-15 year olds running around on the internet right now. Are they really gaining anything useful, learning wise, by looking at all the drivel the internet has to offer? I should think that the sheer amount of biased information and sites shoving their opinions down users throats would either make them incredibly jaded, or incredibly gulliable. Lots of adults believe everything they read on the internet... why should we think that anyone, especially a child, could separate bias and error from the block of information? The internet may be a good tool for kids, but not for that reason.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[gfxguy]

So are you saying there's no chemical processes in the body that might have an effect on how people think?

The answer is "all of the above", certain skills do just start "kicking in", but when they do, having been taught how to use them in a meaningful way is as important.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[gfxguy]

Compare the two sides, the truth is usually a mixture of both.

I'll agree with that sentiment completely. However:

Most information in text books are wrong.

Is most certainly misleading... I'd say most, close to 100%, in fact, of the information in text books is correct - it's just written from one point of view.

For example, all the facts about Abraham Lincoln in text books used in the southern U.S. might be 100% correct - what little there is of it.

In your example, text books about the old west are written and relayed from people who witnessed what happened on our side of that "equation". In other words, a battle may seem to unfold differently from different sides of the battlefield, and a reporter (or recorder) on each side is going to record how they saw it. They are not wrong, it's just one perspective.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[gfxguy]

I agree 100% - if anything's more of a vast wasteland than TV it's the internet.

Frankly, while my kids are way too young (although we do go to nickjr.com and disney.com), my nieces and nephews all think that the internet is there for downloading music and IM'ing with their friends.

WTF's a "buddy" list they keep talking about? And for crying out loud, don't put me on it!

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[think_hard]

Wait, there is one other good use: computers make excellent flashcards. They can take rote learning and make it more interesting
-- times tables, etcetera

This is a very narrow view of the role and possibilities for educational computing use. I agree that we don't need our children sitting in front of computers instead of engaging in creative, hands-on activities that push them to develop mentally, physically, and socially. However, I also see that computers can offer opportunities that are simply not available or feasible in any other form. As just a few examples:

• Dynamic geometry software like Geometer's Sketchpad offers learners (middle school through death) the opportunity to "construct" (which is significantly different from "draw") geometric shapes to explore mathematical properties. Through these constructions, students can develop an understanding of geometric concepts and relationships in ways that are not practical otherwise.
  
• Spreadsheets can be used as a scientific and mathematical modeling tool. Students have to develop an algorithm for exploring a phenomenon and enter it into the spreadsheet, but once it is there, the computer takes care of the "Plug and chug" work that would make a single problem too big to be feasible in a typical classroom setting.
  
• Various java and flash-based simulations can allow students to experiment with the world around them in a safe environment. Through the wonder of the technology, sixth graders could easily investigate how to maximize the efficiency of an engine (a lesson full of scientific possibility for the teacher to build from). In real life, they could never build an engine or interact with it because it would simply be too dangerous.
  
• For social studies (as well as many other topics), the Internet can serve as a primary research tool. Most of the laws and court decisions, policies, etc. are online. Online communications can allow students the opportunity to learn about the government or other people by actually interacting with them.
  
• For younger children, software can be used to support writing, counting, adding, subtracting, place value, etc. (And, I'm not talking about calculators that do it for them - I'm talking about programs that provide a visual representation and numeric representation side-by-side to help students move from concrete to abstract as they move from manipulatives to numeric representation.)
  
• In the area of information organization, technology allows dynamic concept mapping, outlining, sorting, sharing, etc. These are all tools that can help students better learn to look at and deal with a variety of information - just like people have to do everyday in their adult lives!
  

In short, the possibilities for computers in education are limitless. Even the research done on computers in education points to the potential of these tools to support learning as long as they are extending beyond drill and practice (which does not help them at all.) The key is how the technology is used. As with any educational innovation, the way the teacher or parent sets up and supports the interaction with the tool is vital to the learning experience. Kids need adults to work with them, to frame their learning, to ask questions that help them tie what they do to other things they know. They need to be allowed to explore things, then have to tell someone how they explored those things and what they learned from the exploration. Kids have to be able to ask their own questions and follow-through to get answers to those questions. In this area, computers offer tremendous possibility. It's all about how they are used!

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[King_TJ]

IMHO, this "problem" could be largely rectified by adding rules to the project.

Simply require that all Powerpoint presentations use original graphics, and teach the kids how to create new GIF, BMP, JPG (whatever) files using a freeware or shareware drawing package.

This little lesson applies to most modern software tools anyway. (For example, look at FrontPage for web design. Everyone who is serious about building a quality web site with FrontPage skips all of the default templates and starts with a blank page. Otherwise, you just get a cookie-cutter site that looks like thousands of others out there.)

If your primary objection to letting kids use a computer to build presentations is that it distracts them from the real focus of their work (a science course) - then I think the concern is unwarranted. It might initially do so, but after they learn that they're being graded on the material they present, and not on the "flash" and "glitter" of the presentation, they'll quickly learn to spend less effort on the unimportant parts.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[47PHA60]

I agree. Teach critical thinking, which is at the root of all creativity, whether artistic or logical. When I went to school, I could type or hand write my papers. No graphics unless I drew them myself.

Teachers, in order to properly judge performance, need to see evidence of a mind at work, not evidence of facility with a tool.

The student who will write it again and again to get it right, or who will work on a math problem over and over in order to understand it will not be afraid of computers.

I went to "manual" schools from 1973 - 1990, never took a class with a computer in my life, and now I work as a UNIX administrator and database systems architect. I learned to do this by reading books, testing authors' assertions on real computer equipment, and so on. Plus, when I have burned out on sql performance for the day, I can read a book.

I worry about children who may be subtly and unintentionally taught that knowledge from a computer is somehow worth more than their own thoughts, simply because it is more polished in appearance.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[FFFish]

The key, of course, is whether the computer is used as a tool, with a clear and purposeful goal in mind, or as a toy, as a way to avoid having to work as a teacher.

I've worked as a teacher. I've worked in school computer labs. I've worked in many, *many* classrooms.

And except for the computer lab I ran, on decrepit Apple ][s using mostly Broderbund educational software, for which I wrote lesson plans and objectives, I've yet to see any teacher really put a computer to good use.

The fundamental problem being, of course, that most teachers don't understand computers at all well, and aren't trained to use them as a learning tool.

All that you said can be true... but in the vast majority of cases, it isn't. There might be one teacher in a hundred that can use the computer as an effective learning tool.

And so I stick to my conclusions: the most appropriate use for computers in the schools is as a glorified typewriter. If a teacher can do better, by all means they should -- but we should quit forcing teachers into computer labs. The greatest majority of them are better off staying in their classrooms with kids doing pencilwork.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[HanzoSan]

I dont know any skills that just kick in.

They are developed, just because your brain is wired for it, doesnt mean you use the wiring.
Also usually the brain wires based on what you use.

You learn to think, and your brain becomes better at it, like a muscle, your brain develops.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[Anonymous Coward]

An obvious troll but for the sake of moderation I want to comment on that "hippie losers" comment. If I had to take a guess I'd say you came from either a) a well moneyed background in which money was the measure of all things worth or b) you come from a money deprived background in which money stood for everything you didn't have. In either case the counter is the same, you can't take it with you. Anyone who has the power to make themselves happy has achieved more in life than most. If they don't need money or material posessions it makes their happiness that much less dependent on the rest of the world who doesn't give a damn anyway. Teach the kids to be and to make themselves happy and whatever it is they do for the rest of their lives will be that much more worthwhile. Being "poor" is not a character flaw.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[t482]

Take this one step further. Remove all tools in the classroom. We should be like the greek philosophers. Walking, talking and ... nothing more.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[MrResistor]

Has anyone actually tried telling them not to?

"If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?"

I'll bet almost every mother in the world has said something like that at least once in an attempt to get their kids to think critically. Kids don't develope the ability to think critically until around puberty, and there are very good reasons for that. Small children are excellent mimics; that's how they learn the basic skills they need to survive. In order to be good mimics they need to believe that the things they see and hear are important, useful, and correct, and thus their brains are developed in such a way that they do just that. Only after learning the skills they need do they develope the ability to question what they know, which generally leads right into good old teenage rebellion as they explore alternatives to what they've been taught.

It isn't a matter of simply telling kids not to believe everything they see. I think we all know how effective the phrase "Do as I say, not as I do" isn't, and that's essentially the same as what you're suggesting.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[FFFish]

Er, no, dumbass, no one's saying that tools should be removed: rather, that toys should be removed.

The computer as a toy does little to nothing to help children learn. The computer as a tool is very useful.

Of course I'll have to make a disclaimer, because sure as god made little green apples, some other dumbass is going to say something stupid like "You can't remove toys from kindergarten! Children learn through play!" Yes, bub, you'll be correct: but in that situation, the toy is a learning tool from the perspective of the educator.

Re:*stifles* creativity??

[modecx]

Yeah, thanks for the input! I did have to change the way I work, and my symptoms have largely gone away.

Sometimes my wrists still get a little inflamed, but it's usually from working on a laptop, or school computers, or just plain not getting away from the computer as often as I really should. I think that some of my symptoms may have been due to excessive archery practice, and I've kinda' slowed down on that. (Doing my best to be in the Athens Summer Olympics eh!).

In the past I've scoffed at people who whine excessively(or so I thought) about RSI. It sure wasn't funny when I felt the pain. I just think that it's important that others do what they can to avoid it completely, it's no fun to be in pain whilst you do something you love!

I agree.

[Wakko Warner]

By the time we finally learned how to use a computer (in 7th and 8th grade, and we learned BASIC programming on TRS-80s), anything we'd learned was already obsolete. Those of us who already knew computers couldn't care less about what we were "learning" in class, and everyone else just saw no point to it. All it really did was take time away from actually learning real shit. Teaching kids how to use a word processor or "research" things on the Internet gives them no advantage at all over somebody who's spent most of their school life in more creative endeavors.

I'm glad I didn't bother learning how to use a PC until I felt like it.

- A.P.

Re:I agree.

[Jack_of_Hearts]

Well...I agree with you to an extent. But by the 7th or 8th grade, the kids should definitely be taught how to search the internet and use it as a reasearch tool. This, however, should not be a major activity, and (i think) should be thrown in for an hour or two - much like how kids are taught to use the library.

Re:I agree.

[ElOttoGrande]

you said it...

All we ever did in the elementary schools I went to was stupid crap that could have been done easier without a computer or was a waste of time.

here's a timeline of what i can recall:

-Simple math on the commodore PET
-Fractions on a TRS-80
-Oregon Trail on Apple IIe

at home i had a commodore 128 that I used to play games, dial interesting BBS's or practice BASIC programming. It was far more interesting and useful than anything the school could offer.

and the few times i tried playing with the BASIC interpreter on the Apple IIe's (instead of playing Oregon trail like a good little boy) resulted in me getting yelled at. go figure..

Re:I agree.

[Wakko Warner]

Oh, and who could forget LOGO?

They actually started teaching LOGO to kids in 3rd grade, when I was in the 6th or 7th grade, *well* after most of the other schools had thrown out their LOGO cartridges.

Man, what the hell good was LOGO???

- A.P.

Re:I agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people seem to be assuming using a computer means lack of "real" experiences.

My (homeschooled) kids, 4 and 6, play on the computer 1-2 hours/day. Anything from typical kid stuff, to MS Paint, to that Atomic puzzle game included with SuSe/KDE. The main reason I have no objection is because it's FUN for them. The secondary reason is that some of the games are decent. Oh, and my 6 year old is in Little League, Boy Scouts, camps out, goes on orienteering hikes, and has a left handed pitch that brings a tear to grandpa's eye.

Like everything else in life, 'computing' is fine in moderation at any age.

Re:I agree.

[ncc74656]

and the few times i tried playing with the BASIC interpreter on the Apple IIe's (instead of playing Oregon trail like a good little boy) resulted in me getting yelled at. go figure..

In their ignorance, they probably figured they were keeping you from turning into a proto-1337-h4x0r or something. For that, I'd give them this:

CALL -151
300:A9 0 A2 0 2C 30 C0 CA D0 FD 3A D0 F5 60 N 300G

:-)

Re:I agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Last year I was thinking of becoming an ITC teacher in a UK school and was
going around some schools finding out what teaching ITC was like and exactly
what it involved.

I asked one poignant question and made one comment the answers to which
basically put me off the whole idea.

The question was "At what stage do pupils learn to program?", the answer to
this was "They don't, they may do a little VBA in word if they really need
to but other than that programming is not taught". I couldn't believe this,
this was my main reason for wanting to teach and it wasn't even on the
curriculum.

The point I made was that as an ICT teacher, I would still like to set
homework that would require children to submit handwritten and hand drawn work.
The reason being that they were less likely to simply cut and paste into a doc
without actually reading the content. Not all homework, just some.
The chap taking us around said "Ah, but what about those children that have
PCs at home and would otherwise not do the homework because they feel their
handwriting wasn't good enough or can't draw as well as the others or have
trouble with their spelling?"

My conclusion is that, Britain at least, is turning out useless microsoft
oriented drones that will make great secretaries and little else. Yes,
once the brighter pupils go to University then I'm sure typing and formatting
in word will be very useful and they will learn many other things too but
anyone that thinks that computers in UK schools encourage creativity are
in for a rude awakening

Re:I agree.

[Bugmaster]

anything we'd learned was already obsolete

This is actually a difference in philosophy on education that is causing lots of debates today. What is the purpose of schools ? Is it

1. Teaching specific skills to students to make them more employable, or
2. Teaching general science concepts, critical thinking, etc. ?

Learning BASIC fails criterion #1 spectacularly - no one uses qbasic for anything useful anymore. However, things like variables, loops, if statements, subprograms, etc. will be in use long after any "language of the day" crumbles to dust. So, learning BASIC can help schools achieve #2.

So, it all depends on what you view as being more valuable - specific skills or abstract concepts.

Re:I agree.

[quintessent]

Twenty years ago kids developed all sorts of physical and mental skills playing baseball in vacant lots. Today, they develop highly coordinated thumbs and A.D.D. playing ever-more-life-like baseball video games.

Re:I agree.

[theCoder]

LOGO was awesome! It was probably my first trip into the wonderful world of programming. My school even had a little mechanical turtle we could hook up to the computer and command through LOGO (even a pen to draw with).

LOGO was one of the best programs that my school had!

Re:I agree.

[debiansierra]

Man , I got banned from touching any computer in my school my sophomore year because i had circumvented network security (oooh, i used a msdos boot disk and a righteous use of the F8 key to bypass boot sequences) and was "writing hacker code" in BASIC!!!! In reality, I had not bypassed any security other than to have access to executing files and was trying to learn how to perform complex math functions in BASIC to expediate the electronics equations I could do on paper bu was trying to save time and redundancy. Schools are actually TERRIFIED that you will learn something other than the lies they teach you.

Re:I agree.

[Elbow Macaroni]

Oh yeah right they are terrified of you learning MORE than what they are teaching, not of you friggin up their computers...nope.

What's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Schools that abandon reading and writing, because pencil and paper just distract students from the oral tradition?

Re:What's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite extreme, but it wouldn't hurt for North American schools to expect kids to be able to memorize facts. Supposedly, memorization went the way of the dinosaur in favor of analysis. Unfortunately, analytical thinking was never really required in the typical NA school, so now the kids just waste time.

Computers are narrow windows to the world

[bobetov]

It seems to me learning how to do things "the old fashioned way" is how we broaden our minds. A computer is a tool, and a narrow one, for interfacing with and manipulating certain types of information. As much as I love my Athlon 1800+, Photoshop is no substitute for for learning how to paint.

You exercise different parts of your brain doing different things, and much of art and engineering are built on the lessons we learned playing with clay, Lego's and blocks as children. Actually dissecting a frog teaches a hell of a lot more than using an "interactive" multimedia CD on the subject. Doing long-division by hand is the only way to really understand what that division key on the calculator really does.

Let's keep it real, folks. :-) That being said, typing classes should be mandated by law. Heheh.

Re:Computers are narrow windows to the world

[Anonymous Coward]

ally dissecting a frog teaches a hell of a lot more than using an "interactive" multimedia CD
anyone actually dissecting a frog should be shot, and dissected them-selfs.

Re:Computers are narrow windows to the world

[bobetov]

Tell me how you really feel? :-) Ok, pick a less gruesome example then. I'm not a big fan myself. How about, "really going to see art in a museum teaches a hell of a lot more..."

Re:Computers are narrow windows to the world

[Anonymous Coward]

> Tell me how you really feel? :-) Ok, pick a less gruesome example then. I'm not a big fan myself. How about, "really going to see art in a museum teaches a hell of a lot more..."

It may be gruesome (to some), but it's the same idea - the real world examination of something often has aspects not present in a picture on a monitor - the actual insides of the frog (often looking a Lot different than the pictures), or the texture on a painting or sculpure (none visible in those graphics).

Re:Computers are narrow windows to the world

[Anonymous Coward]

They are mandated by law in TN. I am a freshman, and I am stuck in keyboarding this semester even though I type 80 gwam average and > 115 on sprints.

couldn't agree more

[seinman]

I totally agree with the idea that computers only lessen a student's creativity. When I was in 6th grade, if we had to do a project, not only did we have to research the subject, but create a poster as well. By cutting out pictures and gluing them on. My brother, who's in 6th grade now, just did a power point for a project. Sure, he still had to do all the research, but he didn't design anything. He just used a template.

Computers may make things easier, but there are some things that they just shouldn't be used for in elementary school.

golly gee

[llamalicious]

dem dere komputers gonna put the sin of satan in you Boy!
Now pick up that pitchfork an' git back out to tha field b'fore you makes me unleash an asswhoopin on yer fancy-shmancy komputer usin' arse.

Yay, let's not embrace technology. Shun it! For it is bad!!

Sure, you don't have to teach your child how to use a railgun before they can spell gibs... but c'mon, don't tell me you can't see the benefit of exposing youngsters to computers early on.

I said "computers", not "pr0n". Repeat, "computers", like "mag-ma"...

I agree.

[www.sorehands.com]

How many times have you run into cashiers, tellers, etc. who need computers or calculators to be able to do math?

Learn the basics first. The computer should suplement, not replace.

Familiarity Breeds Contempt

[GlobalEcho]

I've noticed that the more a parent spends time with computers, the less important they think it is for their children to use one.

As a parent who spends all day on the computer, I feel they are nearly useless as teaching aids (except for programming, naturally). That's particularly true for small children.

People who don't spend time with computers tend to (it seems) mystify them. Perhaps they think there's some profound skill in moving a mouse around.

B

Re:Familiarity Breeds Contempt

[Peyna]

Yes, it makes more sense to use a computer as an assistance to learning, but I don't think it should be the primary tool for learning.

IANAChild Psychologist, but I think that there are many important skills that you need to learn that a computer cannot teach you/help you with, such as creativity, imagination, etc. Sure you can use some paint program or whatever, but it is very different to create something on paper with finger paints than it is to move a mouse around then print it out.

Besides, the kids don't get to eat glue if you only teach them using a computer. I don't think we were exposed to computers at school until maybe 2nd or 3rd grade (I'm a junior in college now), and even then it was just simple learning supplement programs on a black and green screen apple of some kind. I think my home computer ruled compared to what we had at school =]

Re:Familiarity Breeds Contempt

[halo8]

i work in techsupport.. and you have no idea (well... actually ya i guess you do have an idea) how right you are.

and im not talking advanced programing stuff.. im talking basic stuff.. like clicking on options or advanced settings.. no i dont have a doctorate ma'am just 2 years in a local college (that im still trying to pay off)

Re:Familiarity Breeds Contempt

[InferiorFloater]

I don't think it's contempt that techies feel towards computers as learning aids... it's a realization that there's just not as much there as some might think.

The need to teach "computers" to kids from day one is a direct result of a subset of parents feeling inadequate with their job skills, and trying to vicariously compensate through their kids. They don't seem to get that all the familiarity anybody really ever needs with a computer comes from just having one in the environment.

Re:Familiarity Breeds Contempt

[dytin]

People who don't spend time with computers tend to (it seems) mystify them. Perhaps they think there's some profound skill in moving a mouse around.

You said it right there. This shows that kids should be exposed to computers. Sure, computers probably shouldn't be learning aids, but kids need to be exposed to computers or else they will "mystify them."

Re:Familiarity Breeds Contempt

[usb47]

"As a parent who spends all day on the computer, I feel they are nearly useless as teaching aids (except for programming, naturally). That's particularly true for small children."

Unfortunately, most stores where parents shop (even geek parents) don't carry the best software. Most retail software is drill 'n' kill which is better done with a 79 cent pencil and paper. Stores can't move product if it requires serious support -- the best stuff for teaching comes from academic publishers that don't sell high volumes. Some of the best software I've seen is written for elementary mathematics. http://www.sunburst-store.com/ sells one of my favorites http://www.enc.org/resources/records/0,1240,000855 ,00.shtm For the truly geeky, check out http://webassign.net/pasnew/aboutpas.html. Electric Field Hockey is a hit even with the 9th graders!

Back to the hardware issue: My students are dependent upon my geek skills to keep viable an ancient lab of PowerMacs, circa 1996 (no flames please) for data collection and analyzing. I don't have the time to breathe during the day, much less build my own computers on my few measly dollars (compared to my pre-teaching days of working in materials science).

Computers are critical as is the gear to hook into the box to collect data. Check out http://www.pasco.com or http://www.vernier.com. I use photogates and motion detectors primarily; I can't afford nifty gadgets like force probes or 3-D accelerometers but I can dream.

Technology is often read as "computers" but items like CBLs (calculator based labs) that use a TI or Casio to accept data input are often overlooked. .

That said, the value of a computer is not much if the curriculum is just collect more data with no deep analysis. Check out http://modeling.asu.edu. Excellent curriculum which can be done low tech, but often more effective (and easier from a teacher's point of view) with the high tech gear. Collecting one set of data with a stopwatch is fine. Collecting multiple data sets with multiple variables is niftier.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Re:Familiarity Breeds Contempt

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have to say that I (sophmore in college) have been lucky in that my high school had all of the above available for different science and math classes of varying levels. I have to say that these tools greatly helped me to learn some of the concepts, while also being lots of fun to do. =) No info about this at the school's website, but it's Punahou School (http://www.punahou.edu); of course, this shouldn't surprise any of the Hawaii Slashdotters....

Re:Familiarity Breeds Contempt

[5KVGhost]

"I've noticed that the more a parent spends time with computers, the less important they think it is for their children to use one."

This attitude is not limited to the IT field. I think we'd see the same pattern with virtually every profession. We shouldn't dismiss this, of course, but just because a parent may have become cynical and bored with a particular topic doesn't mean that children shouldn't be exposed to it.

You also have to consider that the children of IT professionals will likely have a much greater exposure to technology outside of the school environment. All the tech stuff that you and your kids may take for granted simply isn't there in some other home environments.

Re:Familiarity Breeds Contempt

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people are not child psychologists yet they make much more important decisions than if computers are good. You just have to use common sense in raising a child.

I guess common sense is really not so common.

I agree

[lowtekneq]

I agree. Computers shouldn't be part of school for your average kindergardener, but they school be used somewhat in elementary school. We live in a world of computers so our children school be cofortable around them. Im in the 8th grade at a school with a wireless lan and a T1 (wireless for laptops that the school has in carts for each building/floor). At my point and more in the grades above me, computers are needed to write papers and what not. But before that they are worse then usless at times. A few years ago a teacher of mine decided to do a little teaching on computers. He told the class that the "computer" (box, machine, whatever) was the CPU, and explained other stuff completly wrong, luckly i knew better. Yet this year our admin is doing an A+ class for middle school and highschool. What it comes down to is, no puter until your need it.

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to attach anyone personally, but this post is perhaps an example of the problem. Obviously, the /. interface does not have a grammar or spell checker, so your post is barely intelligible, and yet you advocate the use of computers "to write papers and what not". Perhaps we should advocate the use of IBM Selectrics instead of a word processing program, so that spelling and grammar become innate skills rather than a button in the interface.

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

And, naturally, I misspelled a word in the first sentence. I meant to say "attack" rather than attach.

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a good look at all the spelling errors that made it past your spell-checker. Notice how easy it is to tell that you _do_ use a spell-checker, because most of the errors are properly spelled words used in the wrong context.

_That_ is why you should learn to do things with your brain, rather than relying on voltage levels emanating from a little slice of refined sand!

--AC

Think About It

[Ashcrow]

Crayons (sp?) are an invention. So is the idea of the coloring book. Before all that what kids do at school/for fun? I don't think taking the newest technology away from kids is a good idea, but it shouldn't be their only outlet for creativity.

I remember when my school got Apple ]['s and we all had to start learning how to type and program in BASIC. I thought it was the greatest thing ever. Given, I was in 3rd grade, but it was more rewarding than coloring, running around, doing algebra homework, etc...

Re:Think About It

[Anonymous Coward]

you did algebra in 3rd grade, huh? impressive.

Re:Think About It

[Anonymous Coward]

I remeber doing BASIC in 3rd grade on an apple 2 to create a picture out of dots and lines. We had to code them in one line at a time, and by the time I was done it was something like 1800 lines of code. And I was only 8 years old, and it was my first time programming. Now I'm a software engineer.

applies to even younger kids too...

[ekephart]

I'm a little frightened for young kids today. I know too many parents who will buy a beeping thing with buttons before they throw a ball back and forth with their child or at least supply Legos. Even "educational" games and television programming will drain you if its ALL you do. I'm almost 22; thank god I grew up before most of all these beeping gadgets were on the market.

Re:applies to even younger kids too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to that! I will always cherish my non-beeping legos and software-free green army men.

Already Exposed

[quantaman]

The kids of these Intel workers probably get lots of exposure to technology at home. Perhaps they feel that the schools are mearly teaching their kids to use computers rather than learning with them, kind of redundant if the kinds are already experienced with technology. They probably feel the need to ensure that their kids can write essays and do research without computers rather than locking them into this medium for life.

Re:Already Exposed

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe computers are great in schools. Maybe grades 6-12 do best with them. If Mr. Stoll gives every teacher in the US a stick to beat the bad kids then I might agree with him on his specious musings about schools that is not back by any research data.

The parents at Intel are probably driven by a need for meritocracy in their schools more than anything else. They want to know "how does my child rank with other children when all they have is a book, a pencil and an exam". Or, "I want my kid to have a rounded education with actual experiences touching things, making things" etc. ad naseum. Many of these parents want academic winners and losers in school. Computer in classroom learning make this harder to do. Besides, as a teacher, I would rather have kids drawing with photoshop than cleaning up their mess after class. Think computers = better class management and I think you'll begin to see their value.

It's a wonder why US schools want computers for teaching kids when computers in schools could be used for better administration and class management more than anything else. It's ashame to have schools schools operate like a 19th century factory. Schools need a paperless environment more than any other government institution.

Computers in schools make the meritocratic system of ranking students a little more uncertain. I personally don't care about kids feeling proud about their school work, what is most important important thing is that they have the ability to learn something new, not necessarily how well they learn it compared with other kids.

Re:Already Exposed

[NDPTAL85]

What is wrong with having "winners or losers" in school? Is that just your way of sensationalising those who get good grades versus those who don't? What's wrong with being able to tell which kids are doing better than the others?

The Oregonian?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Oregonian is staffed by a bunch of republicans.

Re:The Oregonian?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why did they endorse Gore? Wake up and take a look at their editorial page, man!

Re:The Oregonian?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone who isnt republican should burn in hell...democrats rule, dude! lets be a democratic dude because its the cool thing to doooo duuuude!!!

[Reply to this] [Parent]

Keep those tools away until they get creative!

[RedOregon]

By gawd, we damn well better keep them damn tools away from those kids until they can larn creativity on their own! If they use pens instead of good 'ol charcoal, how they ever gonna larn to wash their hands? If they ride that there dern schoolbus instead of walking uphill thru the snow 5 mile both ways, barefoot, with barbed wire wrapped 'twixt their toes fer traction, how they ever gonna larn the value of hard work??

**note to the humor-impaired: this is sarcasm.**

BTW: I grew up in southern Oregon.... they're not *all* bumpkins. I still remember, appreciate, and respect my 6th grade science teacher; Richard Bagley was one of the bright spots in my childhood.

Re:Keep those tools away until they get creative!

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW: I grew up in southern Oregon.... they're not *all* bumpkins.

The ones that work at Intel sure aren't. I now have my doubts about southern Oregonians though.

Re:Keep those tools away until they get creative!

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW: I grew up in southern Oregon.... they're not *all* bumpkins.

The parents mentioned in the article are Intel engineers. You don't have to be a 'bumpkin' to have doubts about the value of computers in education, you fucking idiot technophile triumphalist.

Re:Keep those tools away until they get creative!

[RedOregon]

Big words.

I was referring to an earlier comment referring to Oregonians; so sue me for not quoting.

Importance of Creativity

[Zipster]

I think the foks there have finally grasped the one important thing in a childs development. It is vital to develop a sense of self and also to learn to interact with others.

Now don't get me wrong, I love sitting at my keyboard every chance I get, but for a child I feel it is more important that they develop they're interpersonnel skills (ack, too many PR meetings I think).

When I think back to my childhood, I don't wistfully reminisce about playing my first game of Asteroids on a 2600 but I do remember climbing a tree with my friends.

Thats what primary school should be about, then drop them into writing code in high school.

Yeah!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 2.89, and if I didnt spend all my damn time on the computer, I would have a 4.0!

Well, back to my homework....I have to try this year

Calculators for Basic Mathematics

[chrisgon]

While I don't really agree with delaying computer usage until high school, I can certainly understand a backlash against techno-overkill.

Take calculators for example. I was exposed to calculators but was NEVER allowed to use them for homework until advanced math in high school - long after I had learned basic math. Now, I see my 3rd grace niece using a calculator given to her by the school for her homework and tests. When I ask her if they teach her the multiplication tables, she says "we just use the calculator".

What a gross misuse of technology! The kids need to learn basic math so symbolic algebra makes sense, so trigonometry makes sense, so calculus makes sense... etc.

Without a solid foundation, things later on will be much more difficult to learn.

I think the school in Oregon had this very thing in mind in limiting computer exposure, but they also need to remember that a lot of people who never received any exposure to computers until late in high school are also suffering in the job market.

Re:Calculators for Basic Mathematics

[Whardie Jones]

Thats where the TI-89 comes in. I think it even has an impressive symbolic integrator.

Re:Calculators for Basic Mathematics

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm the operator with my pocket calculator"

Guess what? The operator doesn't get paid shit.

That's tape-mount-monkey in the olden days, 'sysadmin' in this day and age. Basically a stiff who does the grunt work.

Develop humanity first

[heretic108]

As a former software engineer, and now a counsellor helping people to resolve childhood issues, I feel that the very first years of education should be devoted to helping children develop their humanity.

Time after time I've seen the permanent foundations of human character being laid in the first 5 years of life, even by the events surrounding birth.

In this early time, it's crucial that young people learn to:
* interact with the real world
* acnowledge the full spectrum of human emotion
* relate meaningfully with other people
* distinguish at depth between people and objects
* nurture their faculties of creativity and imagination

While computers have come a long way in recent decades, they still lean heavily on the left-brain, and encourage their users (particularly children) to 'objectify' other people in their lives. Yes, there are nerds/dorks (as opposed to 'geeks' - humans with technical expertise), and many of these nerds/dorks got introduced to technology later in their childhood. But is this something we want to exacerbate by exposing people to technology even earlier?

One of these days, it's possible that computers may achieve genuine sentience, but in the meantime, I feel strongly that children should only be introduced to computers once they've mastered basic human and cognitive skills, and can recognise a computer as just a tool, instead of jumping into it as a reality in itself.

Re:Develop humanity first

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

But just about *everything* important is learned during the first five years of life - after that, it's just a bunch of fleshing out. If you want your child to have an innate understanding of *anything*, it's best to start early. I think the basics of computers, math, spelling, and yes, "humanity" should all be taught in pre-school - even if it's only in rudimentary forms. That's what provides a base for everything else children will learn in their lives.

Re:Develop humanity first

[funky womble]

Well said.

In addition I think that exposure to non-linear onscreen editing at an early age may cause some difficulties with normal speech (although it might have benefits in other areas).

Really, this is quite true

[parliboy]

I spent my "formidable years" in small religious private schools of varying quality. The one consistency amongst them was the shunning-upon of calculators and other such aides. The forced development of street math and the fast thinking that comes with it carried over very well to other parts of my life.

Re:Really, this is quite true

[Anonymous Coward]

"formidable years"? By "varying quality", you must mean "ranging in quality from shitty to absolutely mind numbingly pathetic". Try "formative years" next time, shitlicker.

Re:Really, this is quite true

[parliboy]

no, formidable. I was a completely overagressive asshole. That's why I kept winding up in private schools.

not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[xeeno]

It completely ruins the ability for a student to do basic math skills. I teach college-level classes in which lots of math is involved, and I've seen kids use a calculator to add 50 to 50.

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[MathJMendl]

I've seen kids use a calculator to add 50 to 50.

Nah, I'd have to say that the stuff about calculators ruining people's math abilities is a bunch of hype. I mean, I don't have my TI-89 with its Computer Algebra System on me, but it doesn't take a calculator to tell me the answer to that is 200.

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[Chundra]

Computers definitely trivialize the importance of arithmetic skills, but they don't ruin the ability to do basic (or not so basic) math. I have a masters in in math and am horrible at simple arithmetic. In fact, I'm so bad at it that as an undergrad I'd have professors pen comments like "What!!!??" in regularly on tests. Give me some symbols to manipulate and abstract concepts to ponder, and I do fine. Give me numbers and I can't handle them. They're too trivial to bother with I guess.

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps you're just an idiot?

(how's that for some symbols?)

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[gutigre]

I've seen kids use a calculator to add 50 to 50. Nah, I'd have to say that the stuff about calculators ruining people's math abilities is a bunch of hype. I mean, I don't have my TI-89 with its Computer Algebra System on me, but it doesn't take a calculator to tell me the answer to that is 200. Are you crazy? It's 2500!

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have to agree with this completely!

I was never really great at arithmetic, although as I went higher in the math world, I got better. Once I gained a higher understanding of what was going on behind the scenes, the simple stuff was just that : simple.

I think the way I was tought to do arithmatic when I was a child was contrary to the way that my brain works.

I plain just can't do long division. I forget the rules! But, I can factor that number in my head, and obtain an approximation. There are other techniqes to arrive at the same answer, and I have used those much to my agreement. I've learned that the way I think of math is very much opposite what everyone else is thinking when doing a project.

That said, even Einstein had troubles in arithmatic. His brain just wasn't wired to do that type of work, in the manner that they (tried) tought him to do it.

Imagine that, one of the most respected mathematical minds in history, and he couldn't add shit as a child.

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[evilmrhenry]

Actually, you are all wrong. The answer is exactly
199.9997485632235785756543

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[PugMajere]

Well, I can explain why *some* people do that...

When I was taking college physics (the calculus variety, for engineers, math majors, etc), I discovered that occassionaly, in the middle of a long problem, involving lots of simple calculations, I'd be thinking about how to solve the problem, and accidentally take something like 2+3 and multiply instead of add.

Yes, that would be the *only* thing wrong - but once I realized what I was doing, I tended to use a calculator for *all* the arithmetic in the problems, because I didn't trust myself to not screw something like that up.

Now, using a calculator in elementary school to do 50+50 is bad, because you never learn the skills. Using it in college for the same thing seems to be different, because it's assumed you can add, and you're just being absent-minded.

At least, that's my take on it.

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[HanzoSan]

so? Maybe the kid doesnt want to add 50 plus 50, honestly, that skill is no longer a needed skill to get a job.

Why focus on what ifs, focus on whats needed for a person to be sucessful, knowing how to calculate 50 plus 50 doesnt matter, what matters is knowing how to get the answer of 50 plus 50, if you cant do it on paper, use a calculator, if you cant use that use pen and paper, if you cant use that, then use an abacus or whatever they call it.

But really, this is not something that you need to do in your head, the workplace does not care how you get solutions to problems, they just want solutions.

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[funkman]

If your kid ever works as a cashier for any amount of time - let me know - I can use the extra money.

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[blkros]

so? Maybe the kid doesnt want to add 50 plus 50, honestly, that skill is no longer a needed skill to get a job.
Learning math isn't about getting a job, it's about developing the ability to think, to organize, etc. When a grade school tells you that students in 4th grade need a calculator there's something wrong with the curiculum. Yes, most of math is memorization, but being able to memorize stuff is an essential skill also. If we make/let the kids use tools, intead of their brains, to do their thinking for them, there will be a lot of problems down the road.

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the kid doesnt want to add 50 plus 50, honestly, that skill is no longer a needed skill to get a job.

Your basic assumption here, that the primary (or maybe even sole) purpose of education is to get a job is really fucking pathetic.

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[MrResistor]

Exactly.

I used to tutor college level math, and I lost count of the students I tutored who said "I got A's in math up to now, why is this so hard?" as they're pulling out their calculator to multiply by 10s. I used to wonder why until I found out that my little brother (he'll be 12 next month) is allowed to use a calculator on tests.

People wonder why US schools are falling behind in math and science, but the answer is simple: we don't make our kids learn it. We gloss over the topic and then hand them a machine that will do it for them before they've even devoloped the skill to do it themselves. If you don't understand Multiplication, how can you possibly understand the Distributive Property?

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[Preposterous Coward]

Adding 50 and 50 may not be a great example, but I really believe that people should be able to do some basic math in their head simply because it improves their ability to understand the world. Being able to handle percentages in particular strikes me as important, because they occur in so many everyday scenarios. What does it mean if that shirt is 20% off the marked price? What does it mean if a presidential candidate was elected by 26% of registered voters? What does it mean if the rate of inflation is 2% and your certificate of deposit pays 3.5%?

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[DerekLyons]

so? Maybe the kid doesnt want to add 50 plus 50, honestly, that skill is no longer a needed skill to get a job.

Any important job *requires* the ability to look at figures and determine their reasonableness. 'Adding 50 and 50' isn't a goal, but the foundation for a structure later erected.

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[MrResistor]

GIGO

Perhaps you've heard of it. It's an old school CS term meaning "Garbage In, Garbage Out". How do you know that the output is garbage if you don't have an idea of what to expect?

That's the problem with letting kids use calculators. They don't learn that 50 + 50 = 100, and thus they don't expect 48 + 57 to be close to 100. They learn that they can enter 50 + 50 in a calculator and copy the answer it gives them onto their answer sheet. What if they make a mistake? What if they accidentally enter 50 * 50? The unfortunate truth is that they copy down whatever answer the calculator gives them, because they've been taught to trust it. I don't know about you, but I certainly hope that the guy who designed the bridge I drive over ever day doesn't trust his calculator.

50 + 50 is a silly example, of course. In the real world they'd be dealing with something more like 12653.259 * 453.785. I know that 12199.474 is wrong, because I understand the Multiplication operation well enough to expect an answer in the neighborhood of 6000000, and I suspect you probably do as well. The problem is, half the kids I tutored as a college level math tutor didn't. These were kids that got 'A's in math all through high school and were smart enough to be taking Integral Calculus and Calc-based Physics. I certainly won't deny those are difficult classes, but these kids weren't failing because they didn't understand Integrals or Newtons Laws. They were failing because they didn't understand basic math. They were so dependent on their calculators that they had no idea what sort of answer to expect, even when doing something as simple as converting kilometers to meters, and so they were getting wrong answers on tests and it never occured to them to double check because they did it on a calculator and calculators are always right.

We aren't talking about What Ifs here, this is really happening. It's well documented that the US is falling behind in math and science. Sure, we have the some of the best scientists in the world, but our schools are producing less and less of them every year. Math is the language of science, and our kids don't even understand the basics.

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[MrResistor]

But, you understand the Transitive Property, and you understand Addition and Multiplication well enough to know that 50 + 50 should be closer to 100 than 2500, and if you got 2500 you would likely suspect that you made a mistake and do it over. Too many of the kids I tutored as a college level math tutor didn't, and the fact that they had to use a calculator to multiply by 10s is probably a large part of the problem.

Calculators are excellent tools if you already know math. If you don't, they're just traps waiting to be sprung.

Re:not only does it stifle creativity, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was "5050"

Here here!

[mcrbids]

The voices of wisdom speak!

I am a father of 5, and we home-school the children. At first, we thought that having all the computers around the house (I am a freelance programmer) along with educational videos would allow us to accelerate their progress - boy were we wrong.

Educational games do little more than encourage the kid to click on stuff randomly. They couldn't remember what they saw in a video 20 minutes after seeing it. And they lived their day around TV shows and video games... nothing much happening.

But, after we mandated "No TV - No computer games" - we saw stunning improvements! Suddenly they took an interest in their environment. We saw sharp improvements in their creativity and curiosity. They also behave MUCH better towards each other - much less aggression and infighting. Additionally, they took/take a much greater interest in reading, music (other than top 40s), etc.

Since then, we've done some research, to find that children's psychological development reaches a real understanding of abstract concepts beginning at around age 12-14.

To expose kids to abstracts, (such as the images on a TV Screen or computer) rather than "real" things (like play-dough, the sand pit, Legos) etc, deprives them of basic understanding of these "real" things then making it more difficult to understand abstracts later.

So, despite my very strong tech background, I do not feel that computers and "technology" should be introduced to kids until at least Jr. high.

-Ben

Re:Here here!

[kallistiblue]

I'm in partial agreement.
One thing that frustrates me is that most people seem to want to view it as binary.
0 Either you teach computers
1 You dont' use computers at all

I don't think that it has to be that way.
Why not allow them to do what they want to do.
that they should be taught the basics and allowed to do what they want to.

You can try to encourage, but a kids going to do what a kids going to do. I like freedom :)

I do agree they need better educational software though.A lot of the stuff out there is hard even for me to read.:)

Re:Here here!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's some more scientific information. Don't worry, I graduated out of junior high ;-)

Slashdot Commenting Study

Re:Here here!

[jacoplane]

I think it depends. Sure, I agree that the educational value "educational games" is quite doubtful. On the other hand, if your young kids are spending time doing stuff like logo or Mindstorms then you probably don't want to stop them from doing so. Since they're already playing with Lego, introducing them to mindstorms might turn out great.

Alltogether I agree with the article though. Schools teaching "how to use the internet" is a joke. And I think stuff like office, online collaboration using things like , etc. are better taught at a later age.

Re:Here here!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were such a good educator, you would certainly realize that the phrase you were searching for is "Hear! Hear!"

I pity your children. Even the dregs of public education would teach them better than you.

Re:Here here!

[system5]

I agree in some capacity with what you said, but I have to cite personal experience and disagree with waiting until Jr. high school to introduce children to computers. I started programming at the age of 7, and I actually learned the abstract concepts of computer logic a few months before that in a matter of days. You see, my father wanted me to learn how to make electronic circuits (because that's what he did), and he taught me the basic gates (AND, OR, XOR, NAND, etc.) I had little interest in electronics, but a few months later when I first started programming, I immediately applied the abstract logic. I think that children's minds at that age are ripe for understanding concepts that adults sometimes can never learn. In fact, I find myself today (at 25) having a hard time learning new computer languages/technologies, while when I was a kid (even before Jr. high), I could pick up any language or technology in just days.

Now, with that said, I do agree that video games (of any sort) should not replace legos, play-do, etc. However, I think that exposing children at a young age to computers, foreign languages, etc. is a great thing. If they show interest (beyond the entertainment value that is), then I think they should be given the opportunity to explore. We all know that computing skills are pretty much mandatory in today's job market, so imagine what it will be like in 20 years. This will also increase the demand for computer programmers and content creators over time. So why not?

My wife and I are actually expecting our first child. I am already in the planning stages for providing a Linux-based X terminal for him or her (we do not know yet :) I want to make 100% sure that my child is comfortable and competent on the computer at as early an age as possible. That does not mean, however, that I will not provide traditional toys, games, and other things. And the child will not play games on the computer or surf the web mindlessly - I expect him/her to learn their way around Linux and I will do my best to teach abstract concepts as soon as I see that he/she is ready to listen to that.

Is this selfish? Maybe. I will do my best not to force my career choice on my child(ren) But I also do not want to watch them to have their first serious exposure much later in life, when if they want to go into the field, they will regret not learning at an earlier age. There is plenty of mediocrity in this industry, and I think one great way to help it is to get children who show interest some heavy exposure as early in life as possible.

Re:Here here!

[enneff]

"I am a father of 5, and we home-school the children."

Quite frankly I find this worrying.

Re:Here here!

[pi_rules]

I agree with what you say, and I'll expound a bit based on my own experiences.

I too started fiddling with computers when I was around 8 years old and found them fascinating machines. Unfortunately it was a fair number of years before I got the opportunities to really start hounding away at them. I was 12 when my family got their first PC, so I had about a 4 year gap between initial exposure and a period where I could really start experimenting and learning for hours at a time. Sure, we had Apples and some PCs around school but you weren't allowed to actually -do- anything with them but run Works 2.0 from the Novell network.

I beleive that complex thinking starts developing in children around the age of puberty, at least for males. I'm still not sure when it develops in females, if ever <tongue in cheek>. For better or worse when I was going through this period my biggest intellectual "outlet" if you will was programming. Perhaps because of this I was hindered, if you wish to look at it that way, later in life because to grasp a new concept I had to categorize it in a series of steps that I could picture in my head as a computer program. Makes me a hell of a programmer I'd say, but terrible at calculus.

I'm all in favor of the education system making computers more accessible to students, and perhaps even providing some structured classes in how they work, but certainly not as just another tool which they're requied to used because they'll possibly have to deal with one in the workplace. Use them to teach kids how to think about complex problems -- not how to use a word processor. The same could, and I beleive should, be done in other areas too. I'm all for some robotics experiments in classes, with the ability to go "above and beyond" if the students wishes. Same for programming, or networking, or auto-repair, engineering, things like that.

Giving kids the tools and guidance to do something they like earlier on in life is something that I think is -really- lacking in the US education system. I'm often told how horrid it is in other socities where before you're even of the age of 18 you're enrolled in a vocational program of some type. Doesn't sound that horrible to me really, so long as it's -your- choice what you're studying. We're sending alot of talented people out into the world after high school here with barely enough knowledge to keep themselves employeed at any trade. Why? We don't want to pigeon-hole kids... nor do we want them to stick themselves in a pigeon hole. I just don't get it.

Re:Here here!

[HeschelsGyrus]

Just a note about the psychological research you refer to. You're partially right -- children generally develop the ability to comprehend abstract concepts around age 12-14. There's still a lot of individual variation around that age-range, though. And that also has more to do with abstract concepts such as the ability to understand variables in algebra, etc.

Kids are able to understand that pictures and video refer to the real-world at a much younger age -- around 2.5 years (look up the cognitive development research by DeLoache and/or Troseth for specifics, if you're interested). If kids can understand that a picture/video refers to the real-world, then they can learn about the real-world using the picture/video.

So computers/videos aren't quite as bad as you make them out to be, but I'm in complete agreement with you that play-dough, sand pit, and Legos win out over "high tech" toys any day.

Re:Here here!

[Arandir]

I'm quite confident that his children will turn out fine. I place much more trust in a man that will take the time to educate his children himself than in one that can only manage to drop them off at school in the morning. The latter will probably get a decent education. The former are guaranteed to.

Re:Here here!

[Anonymous Coward]

The phrase is hear hear pillock

Re:Here here!

[vlad_rodionov]

>I am a father of 5, and we home-school the children.

Gee, I sure hope their names arent Noah, John, Mary, Luke and Paul

Re:Here here!

[DodgyGeezer]

"Kids are able to understand that pictures and video refer to the real-world at a much younger age -- around 2.5 years"

When my cousin's 18 month old daughter points at photos of her relatives, some whom she hasn't seen in a while, and who she see's infrequently, and says their names... is that what you mean by pictures referring to the real-world?

Re:Here here!

[WildBeast]

I admire most parents who have the courage to home-school there children. On the other hand, will that really prepare them for a capitalist life? not sure.

Re:Here here!

[Anonymous Coward]

if you learn faster and better as a child, why not spend it learning complicated things as opposed to using computers. Some of you slashdot dorks think you are all hot stuff for knowing a thing or two about computers. However, you're doing nothing more than fooling yourself . I hate to break it to you but computeurs, programming, etc... is easy as shit. It doesn't take a high level of thinking to do these things. Now, you may say I'm just spitting out words based on zero experience. Wrong, I have a PHD in Physics and I learned enough about computers and programming on the side to write my own linux drivers to control self made pci cards used in research, and to do pretty much what ever I need to be done. I see so many students these days so dependant on their calculators and computers, they can't even solve basic integrals by hand. int(x) doesn't count. I'm talking about basic trig integrals, basic gamma functions, basic fourier transforms, etc.... it's ridiculous how "dumb" they are becoming. Students a few years ago could derive these things in the event they were unfamiliar with the exact solution. Students these days can't do calculus or linear algebra beyond what keys their fingers can type.

Re:Here here!

[Anonymous Coward]

The voices of wisdom speak!

I am a father of 5, and we home-school the children.

I sure as hell hope you home-school them to understand thet the phrase is "Hear, hear", not "Here, here" which is the standard way to make your dog come closer.

Re:Here here!

[HanzoSan]

so how do your kids learn? from the enviornment? you expect them to learn better in a classroom than on the computer?

Well in a classroom you have paper and you do the same problem 10093029 times, some people learn from repetition, some people however dont need to do the same problem 3402940390 times to learn the process of solving the problem and the concepts.

Computers are for certain types of learners, learners who dont need repetition.

Re:Here here!

[uspsguy]

I was in a semi-technical maintenance job when our first child was born. We has a PC in the house, DOS 2.something, color graphics, and an amazing 10 meg hard drive. We came downstairs one morning when he was about 3. He had gotten out of bed and come down to the computer, cold booted it, gone through 2 levels of test menus, and was playing some game we had for him. It just took off from there. By 4th grade, he was helping out the first grade teachers with their old Apples. 6th grade science fair project was a working display with a poster board backdrop. No Powerpoint but all the labels and notes were done on the color inkjet and cut and pasted on the project. Now studing Cisco in high school. Guess what? He is fairly well adjusted socially, has friends of both sexes, is involved with school and church activities. To me, he typifies a modern person. The computer has always been present in his life. It is just another tool like a knife and fork or a book. You use it for what it is good for, nothing else. He takes notes in class on a laptop because his handwritting is attricious - he has a health problem that affects his fine motor control. No ammount of paper and pencil practice will ever improve that. When he turns in a printed report, it gets graded on content because the teacher can actually read it without struggling. He did have the advantage of attending a "fundamental" public school where they actually expected the students to learn the basics and do homework. Basic skills were taught and access to computers was where appropriate. This is how I thing computers should be used in education - just another useful tool, not a crutch. Always there, not abused or overused.

Re:Here here!

[CaffeineAddict2001]

I'll have you know plenty of homeschoolers are freethinkers\atheists.

Mainly, beleive it or not, because public school has too much of a white-christian centered cirriculum in some places. (Especially the south.)

Homeschool isn't a christian thing. Allthough, lots of christians do it, it's usally adopted by people who don't like the idea of the government indoctrinating and in some cases controlling their children.

The government still makes most homeschoolers take government created tests, and oddly enough, home schools do much better than public schools on these tests using their custom curriculums than public schools do with cirriculums designed specifically for taking those tests.

Re:Here here!

[TimboJones]

I agree. In my school, the entire student body started learning how to type in 7th or 8th grade. I don't think it would be a good thing to introduce computers to students at large until that point.

However, advanced students should have the option of using computers. In fourth grade, my teacher had some system of stickers on a sheet. I don't remember exactly how you got stickers; it was probably something like one for completing your assignment, one for doing a satisfactory job volunteering for some duty like blackboard cleanup or cleaning trays in the cafeteria, etc. When you filled the sheet to various stages, you had reward options like candy and crap. The ultimate was a half-day break from assignments to use the computer. The school library had a collection of a software magazine for the Apple II, I can't recall the name. It had educational games, solving mysteries and puzzles, etc. This was a fantastic way to introduce the computer, plus it provided motivation to take responsibility in order to receive priveleges.

In 3rd grade, the Talented and Gifted students at large were introduced to a computer lab. For me, at least, it didn't take. Some of the 4th graders were into BASIC, and grooved on learning to type, but the kids my age just wanted to play Oregon Trail the whole time. It is an educational game, but we learned only very little about geography and survival.

So there's a point about learning abstract concepts -- for the majority of kids it happens around 12-14, but the option of learning the computer should be available for students as young as 8 or 9. This is soft data - you need to examine each student's learning capacity to see if they will truly benefit and at what age.

Re:Here here!

[King_TJ]

Hmm..... and you don't find it worrying that most people are content to send their kid off each day to an institution that caters to the lowest common denominator of each class, and has no vested interest in your own children's success?

We have our first kid on the way (8 more weeks or so), and we intend to do home-schooling too.
The educational system in the U.S. has become a pathetic joke (minus the occasional quality teacher, fighting to stay afloat in the murk).

The strongest point I've heard made against home-schooling is a social one - and I think any social issues can be better solved by enrolling your kid in extracurricular activities. Perhaps we'll interest our kid in scouts, among other things.

Re:Here here!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm assuming that is meant as humor. If so, it's a poor attempt, and shows you to personally be someone who has an extremely narrow world view, probably one honed by years of government schooling.

Re:Here here!

[penguin_dance]

Educational games do little more than encourage the kid to click on stuff randomly. They couldn't remember what they saw in a video 20 minutes after seeing it. And they lived their day around TV shows and video games... nothing much happening.

And if they're anything like some I know, they quickly learn how to "hack" the game and get all the right answers. They learn nothing.

I think getting back to encouraging reading does more than anything to help kids and help build their brain's processing. Watching a video is not going to do that.

Re:Here here!

[MrResistor]

No, you shouldn't allow kids to do what they want, because what they want is to play games. Playing games is great for play time, and if you only have educational games available to them than it may be beneficial for them to apply what they have learned in a situation that is more interesting to them. That is an important part of learning, but it's even more important to recognize that educational games do not supply an education, they merely supliment an education gained elsewhere.

I agree that the quality of most "educational" software leaves a lot to be desired, but there are some inherent limitations in the medium that need to be recognized. The hand movements made while writing out and solving an equation by hand reinforce the memory of what is learned during that process. Computers are useless to a Tactile-Kinesthetic learner, which accounts for a fair amount of the population. Visual learners will benefit most, and Audio learners may or may not benefit, depending on the situation. Moving a mouse and typing on a keyboard are not helpful in any way to a T/K (neither does lecture, incedentally, which is why most T/Ks become mechanics and carpenters, despite the fact that they may have genius-level IQs). Solving an equation on paper by hand, however, will benefit ALL types of learners, and doing it on a black/white board provides more benefit than doing it on paper (large muscle memory is faster and stronger than small muscle memory). BTW, most people are a combination of 2 learning styles, with 1 somewhat favored. I'm one of the lucky few who's even across all 3.

There is a great deal of research which backs up what I've just presented, and when analyzed against that research the idea of using computers for education is not just ludicrous, but actively harmful to the learning process.

Idunno...

[AKA da JET]

My school is still on 68k macs, and the students seem to get frustrated with them. Everytime we have to goto the computer lab you hear alot of people saying "I hate computers" because office 98 keeps running out of memory. Not to mention the whole school shares an ISDN line which is slow, and on top of that we have this damn filter that says "Bess can't go there" on most sites. Raising kids on these things will probably turn them off to technology. :-P

So you're really...

[owlmeat]

Jon Katz?

I dont know about you all

[dknight]

But the first toy my kids get, when the time comes, will be a computer. I started on them when I was probably 5 or 6, and got my own when I was 8. Frankly, I wish I had been more exposed to them when I was younger. Technology seems to me to be the future. Granted, it cant replace things like math or art classes, but it certainly shouldnt be phased out either. I might shift the focus a bit more towards their use than is done now, but I wouldnt make it entirely computerized. There is something to be said for doing SOME things the old fasioned way.

Re:I dont know about you all

[Anonymous Coward]

I started on them when I was probably 5 or 6, and got my own when I was 8. Frankly, I wish I had been more exposed to them when I was younger.

Younger than 5 or 6? What do you want, pre-natal exposure? Computers directly in the womb?

Doctor: "From the ultrasound, you can see that you're going to have a boy, with a pentium 4 running linux. From the slashdot page here, we can deduce that he's surfing the net on a wireless connection."

Sheesh!

Re:I dont know about you all

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, a baby running Linux? He'd be lucky if his development ever got past the "well, I thought about it, but talking about it on /. rather than actually developing it seemed easier" stage.

Computers are Amplifiers

[puetzc]

From the article: "Conventional wisdom holds that children can only benefit from exposure to technology, and research shows that when the machines supplement an already strong curriculum, they can be an effective educational tool."

My children have attended a "lab school", run by a University as an extension of the College of Education. Because of the association with the university, the school has had excellent access to computers. The results have been poor. Teachers have abandoned traditional teaching methods and responsibilities in favor of "technology." The result is elementary students who cannot add, write or spell, but who can prepare PowerPoint presentations about nothing. The combination of computers and a weak program is a weak program. The combination of computers and a strong program is a strong program. The computer makes little or no difference, the program is everything.

Like most tools, a computer amplifies the skills of the user. Educated users with something to say or do can say or do it more quickly and with better results. Those without remain without. The skills needed for an average, non technical user can and will be mastered quickly when the time comes. The use of computers before that time is wasted, and detracts from the basic skills that must be mastered first!

Computers are only a tool

[joshv]

Ok, computers used to be a great motivational tool, because they were a novelty. Kids would use them because they were new and cool. Well, wake up folks, its a new century and just about everyone who wants one can have one at home. Most kids (even poor kids) grow up with one now. It's nothing new, and just because you put your stupid flashcards on a computer doesn't mean Johnie is going to want to learn.

The novelty of computers has worn off, there is no magic bullet here. Teaching is all about the basics. Lets face it, some things are hard to learn, and even harder to teach, and no computer is going to take the place of a trained and creative human being.

School districts that waste tax dollar buying laptops for every student pain me no end. These are teaching tools, no more, no less, and there is no value in a 1-1 computer student ratio, anymore than there is value in a 1-1 blackboard to student ratio.

Certainly computer skills should be taught, just like reading skills, math skills and arts are taught. But there is no value to allowing computers to encroach on other subject matters, no value in allowing computers to be the delivery mechanism for all information. A learning and research tool, no doubt, but the end all and be of education they are not.

-josh

(Over)exposure

[mlknowle]

The whole point is not that we should 'ban' computers, but they should be regulated to a role - just one skill. Computers should be a -component- of education - like art, music, etc... Certainly, it is crucial to have exposure to things 'off screen,' but it is equally important to be familiar and comfortable with computers

My ideal situation: hands on (one machine per kid) twice a week for about 3/4ths of an hour for K-3rd grade, typing and lego programming in 4-5, and use of comps for programming, research and word processing during 'free time' (and programming / literacy classes) in 6th grade untill high school

Misses the main problem...

[nebaz]

What makes the most difference in a child's education is a GOOD teacher, not a machine. This is just one more instance of society expecting a machine to do the work that people are supposed to do, just like the stupid parents who leave their kids in a store watching Barney and friends instead of arrange appropriate supervision. Anyone with a good technical background usually makes twice what a teacher makes (although in this economy that might not quite be true), but no sane person would go into teaching in the current environment...too much hassle with too little pay. And don't start with the "vacation" thing. Try teaching for a while before you even start with that--it is NOT as easy as it looks. Computers are great teaching TOOLS, but I think when our politicians clamor for "a computer in every classroom" they don't have their priorities straight.

Waldorf Schools

[dankow]

Somewhat related, but a little bit more extreme, is the concept of Waldorf Schools. Coincidentally, there was an article in today's Daily Camera about Waldorf schools in the Boulder, CO area.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/livingarts/youth/1 2p waldo.html

Re:Waldorf Schools

[Anonymous Coward]

Personal Stories of Former Waldorf Parents, Students, Teachers, Administrators Many more personal stories are currently being written and will be posted in the near future. Many others are reluctant to be so public about their experiences due to the pain that they are feeling and fear of repercusions, and remain on our waldorf-survivors discussion list to tell their stories there.

Re:Waldorf Schools

[a3d0a3m]

I live with two roommates who attended waldorf from grade K-8 and know a couple of people who went all the way from K-12. They are some of the most creative, artistic minded people that I have ever met. They don't have any weird spiritual beliefs and they aren't racist either. Maybe the man who created waldorf schools had some of these views, but that was just a reflection of the times that he lived in. Carl Jung also was a racist, but anyone who is a Jungian Psychoanalyist shouldn't be discredited because they might be racist too. The Waldorf school, while it does have some 'weird' color based painting exercises, is far from a horrible occult brainwashing education that is raising a secret army of fourth reichers. They have created a system in which kids learn to embrace more than just the 3 R's and they come out with a more rounded character that isn't just worried about what kind of job they'll get. My public high school experience was always tainted with the Job Skills/Getting into college aspect and we never engaged in any true learning or creativity. Some kids had a bad run of it at waldorf schools, so did a lot of kids in my high school, but that doesn't mean we're going to be scrapping the system any time soon.

adam

Research?

[mlknowle]

It seems quite stupid to teach kids research skills without computers! Sure, the library is important, but the computer makes using the library more productive.

Moreover, the internet is, realistically, a critical component of *any* reserach these days!

Re:Research?

[Arandir]

Sure, the library is important, but the computer makes using the library more productive.

Step back and think a moment. Why are these kids doing research to begin with? One major reason all the way up to high school is simply to learn how to do research. The productivity of the research is irrelevant. Learning how to find that information, how to found out how to find out that information, and how to put it all together, is much more important.

Kids can be as productive as they want when they leave school and get jobs. Until then they need to learn the basic skills that will allow them to be productive in the future.

Re:Research?

[frank_adrian314159]

the internet is, realistically, a critical component of *any* reserach these days!

Yes! No research paper is complete without reference to the goatse man.

Ignorance is strength?

[Adolatra]

As someone who has had the good fortune to rise up almost entirely in a school system where computers were integrated into the learning experience, I can hardly believe this rationale.

The computer is merely a tool, people. Doodling on MS Paint will no more hamper a child from developing artistic skills than stenciling with a Spirograph. For example, computers can help teach students about color, form, and layout far more easily than pen-and-ink. Computers encourage children who may just not have the physical dexterity yet to "color in the lines" to develop and appreciate any art gift they might have.

Sure, in sixth grade, we mainly played Out Of This World on the math class's computer after we finished our homework (Which, by the way, usually provided ample incentive to develop math skills so one was insured of receiving a turn). But once the bell rang for the end of class we went out and played freeze tag or touch football as well. It's perfectly possible for computers to coexist with what we would like to think of as a "normal" educational experience.

Plus, we cannot ignore the fact that the world itself is becoming more and more computer-oriented. Children should be made to feel comfortable with machines. That's why it's so great that my little sister has to help my parents with their computer problems, or how to operate MS Word. As we revolutionize the way we create, control, and communicate our lives, the next generation is assimilating the computer in the same way pervious generations assimilated the horseless carriage, or the television.

Sure, any thing that makes learning easier has its drawbacks. But you cannot dim the star of technology because a few people might be either too lazy to adapt to the new technology, or too weak to avoid growing overly dependent on it.

The times are a-changin', and the last thing we need is to shortchange our children by holding one of the best educational tools ever invented back from them.

Re:Ignorance is strength?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the point. Coloring in the lines isn't necessarily a positive thing. The creativity of learning to color anyway you want to, in your own way is important. Learning to celebrate individuality rather the homogeneity which results from computer usage. All tools, the computer included, impose limitations upon their users. These students aren't learning exercises in creativity through programming. They're using bad software like powerpoint to create presentations rather than using there own ingenuity to create the presentation. The only thing they're learning is how to create a mediocre project that looks like every other person in the class' project. While it's important to educate children in how to use computers, it's unfortuantely used all to often as a band-aid to prop-up bad teachers and failing academic programs. Additionally, there is no reason that these children with tech-savvy parents need to waste time learning about computers in class. This is assuredly happening at home.

Schools just plain suck, computers or not

[TastesLikeChicken]

Creativity? Parents are worried about thier children being creative?? Creativity in our society is a punishable offense. Creativity (at least in the artistic sense that seems to be referenced here) is a curse. How many people reading this wish they were art majors instead of computer science (zero, because another name for art major is unemployable). Our school system is still in the 19th century, it is still used to create pavlovian obedience to the bell so we can have good factory workers (even though there is no factory work to be had). Logic skills, critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, these are what children need to learn, and computers are a fine way to do it (at least in the abstract). If the school has a better way to teach those youngsters problem solving skills, great, but if they're going to teach them to finger paint, forget it.

Re:Schools just plain suck, computers or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you wish you could design a webpage? Not code a webpage, actually design one visually in your mind before writing one angle bracket.
Don't you wish you could pick out clothes that match?
Don't you wish you didn't trip over your own feet?

We're not talking about giving them a degree in Sculpture, we're talking about helping them build manual dexterity and ascetics.

Have you ever seen a child trying to color? Doesn't it seem absurd to think that even if they try, they can't seem to get the crayon inside those thick black lines? That's because dexterity is learned. The earlier it is learned the better and easier it is to learn.

When Photoshop is introduced to kids this early, they don't learn to color inside the lines. All they have to do is select one point inside the lines and click.(using a computer w/ a mouse does not develop any appreciable dexterity because anything can always be done or redone)

How about teaching kids to do things right the first time? When you've saved your document on a computer, you can always retrieve it and fix it. When you've realized, halfway through implementation, that your software design is critically flawed, that's not really an option.

Computers in the classroom isn't necessarily an inherently wrong idea. There are two essentials that only using computers can bring: typing skills and being comfortable with a computer. Arguably internet searching should be included. There are several problems with current implementation, however. Using either a computer that is at your mercy or crippled is not particularly helpful. We need Linux in the classroom if for no other reason than this one. An inherently multiuser and mostly secure system like Linux is perfect for thwarting mischieveous children, to say nothing of price. If the computer is crippled, children will learn that there is nothing of value beyond Word and Internet Explorer that a computer can offer. If the computer is at the child's mercy, the child destroys it, which is bad for the school.(The logistical problem of providing floppy and CD access to students while maintaining physical security wants to be solved)

Computers are detrimental when applied to the wrong areas, which are pretty much everything that is part of the infrastructure of school: Don't turn in Powerpoint presentations, turn in a poster. Don't turn in a Word document, turn in a paper. Don't let students access grades online(at elementary and middle school level), send home a report card(and hopefully get it signed and returned).

Computers are also detrimental when used as if they were something different from a Playstation. I still remember playing a racing game in elementary school on the old Apple. Because I was exceptional at it, I gained the respect of my classmates that until recently has been unmatched. And you can be sure that I got my classwork done if it meant I got to play.

The internet has nothing to offer elementary schoolers. It has little of offer middleschoolers. It offers a little research material and lots of pr0n for highschoolers. This will remain true until (text)books begin to be published online, in HTML format.

So really, a computer is more like a high-tech overhead projector or a blackboard with neater writing than a mysterious direct neural information transfer device, so we should stop treating it as one.

Re:Schools just plain suck, computers or not

[TastesLikeChicken]

>Don't you wish you could pick out clothes that match?
No, I wish that clothes didn't matter, that everyone wore the same thing every damn day, because most of the (US) population judges people (in large part) by thier clothes.
>Don't you wish you didn't trip over your own feet?
Ridiculous, even in elementary school children are no longer tripping over thier own feet. What they are learning to do is march lockstep to the sound of authority (or be punished). The computer takes the sole focus off of the authority figure (the teacher). It enables the teacher to spend time with individual children or small groups of them. Potentially changing the relationships of the teacher to student from an authoritarian one to a more personal/democratic one.
>...dexterity is learned
Ok, so what, if that were important we could have dexterity drills instead of drawing with crayons.
>How about teaching kids to do things right the first time?
Oh yess, I think we should teach children to do everything right the first time, and punish the little shits if they fuck up, and start really young too. If we don't start young enough they might grow up to think for themselves. (My point being that at that young age school, any school is harmfull, children should still be with thier parents if they're learning right and wrong (classrooms should be a democracy, if a student is disruptive, the other students should decide what should be done with them, not the teacher), manual dexterity, or basic safety skills [don't drink that ammonia Johnny])
> There are two essentials that only using computers can bring: typing skills and being comfortable with a computer.
Typing is essential? I think that the ability to put together a good argument is essential, the ability to think for yourself (and understand others motivation for asking you to do things) is essential, the ability to articulate what you think is essential, but "being comfortable with a computer"?? That is not essential, by the time these kids are out of schools there is every chance that computers will be ubiquitous, they will not have any choice. >The internet has nothing to offer elementary schoolers
What if the kids in the school were able to communicate to thier piers at other elementary schools and learn from one another (via computer). What if the children were able to make movies describing what they had learned rather than writing about it?
What if each child were able to each learn a different lesson from a different teacher (while edutainment has a long way to go it beats the daylights out of a lot of the teachers I had) with the computer?
What if they could learn at thier own pace instead of being locked into the slowest pace of thier piers?
What if, instead of being a grade the parents could know exactly what thier child was really interested in at an early age.

Re:Schools just plain suck, computers or not

[TastesLikeChicken]

Now this sounds like a reasonably good idea:
IMAGINE A SCHOOL
by Zoe Readhead-Neill
Imagine a school....

Where climbing trees and building dens are considered as important as learning decimal fractions.
Where you can shout at the teacher if you want to.
Where the rules governing everyday life are made democratically by the whole community.
Where the children are free to play all day if they want to......

Summerhill is such a school.

I am the current Principal of Summerhill, a school founded by my father, A.S. Neill, that has been running for 75 years on the principal of freedom for the individual. Freedom as opposed to licence.

My argument against todays Education system and popular child rearing is that they are both full of lies. Parents and teachers lie to children both with words and through their actions. They lecture to pupils, sons and daughters about what they should and should not do. By ignoring their basic right to make choices for themselves they take away their confidence and lower their self-esteem. many of these parents and teachers will themselves be guilty of using bad language, breaking speed limits, drinking and driving, cheating the tax authorities, having extra-marital affairs etc., etc. One rule for adults - another for children!
I don't think that anybody is good enough or clever enough to tell another person how to live.

I believe these lies set us apart from one another and are extremely dangerous. A child that has constantly been told No" will eventually stop
listening. In this way, children are taught by our society not to regard the words of adults or authority. If adults live as equals with children and gain respect and love because of the kind of people they are - then their words of warning or
advice will be listended to and acted upon much more readily. Children will know that they are being spoken to honestly and that the speaker has a genuine concern for them.

I don't think a parent or teacher has any right to make decisions about a child's personal life. Why should they dictate what clothes to wear or how to have their hair cut? I have heard of cases in England where boys were expelled from school
because they had a pony tail.

If adults were treated with the same disrespect as children there would be an outcry. Children in schools all over the world regularly have to do sports or go swimming or learn about subjects they do not like. I wonder what would happen at the average workplace if everybody had to go out and play football or run acroos country or learn about the meeting habits of the moth - and children do
not get paid for what they have to do!

This system of rearing and schooling will either produce obedient sheep, or rebellious and angry individuals. If people are suppressed and tyrannised they will live fearfully and harbour huge resentment. We can and have seen
throughout history the appalling results of this. Children reared with respect and self-regulation will never meekly follow a dictator - nor will they have seething anger waiting to erupt whenever the opportunity arises. I believe that the soldiers we see now committing atrocities upon the innocent have all suffered discipline and some form of degradation as children - often I am sorry to say - in the name of Religion.
To safeguard our society we need to rear well balanced, sociable children to grow into responsible, caring adults.

In Summerhill we are trying to redress the balance. In seventy five years we have learned a great deal about children and the way they like to live. We have learned that if you respect children as individuals and give them power to governtheir own lives, they will do so with sense and responsibility. This prepares them for adulthood in the best way possible. Only by having real responsibility and practicing it can you learn the true importance of your actions upon others.
I think of Summerhill not only as a school, but more a pattern for life.
Our aims could be described as the following:

To allow children freedom to grow emotionally.
To give children power over their own lives.
To give children time to develop naturally.
To create a happier childhood by removing fear and coercion by adults.

Allowing chldren freedom helps to develop self-motivation. Emotionally healthy individuals learn better and faster.
Giving children power over their own lives promotes a feeling of self worth and of responsibility to others. they learn from an early age that what they think is important and that others will listen to what they have to say.
Giving children time to develop means letting them play and play and play for as long as they want to. Only through free, imaginative play can a child develop the skills needed for adulthood. Just as a kitten learns to hunt by chasing leaves
and insects, so a child prepares for adult life by playing with other children.
Within the group are all the qualities, good and bad that will be encountered later. By making mistakes the child grow and matures without the need for morals to be taught. Neill constantly stressed the innate goodness of children and urged
us to have patience.
Quite naturally the established educationalists are sceptical about a system like this. How can you give children power over their own lives - and the lives of others? Are children to be trusted with this power? Can they really be relied on to
make sensible decisions?
The answer is yes. Yes they can run their own school. Yes they can make sensible and compassionate decisions. Yes they can be trusted to govern their own lives.
In Summerhill the staff are outnumbered. At any one time the kids could out vote us on any issue concerning our daily lives: issues like bullying, bedtimes or smoking - only drugs, alcohol and some safety issues are exceptions.
The reality is that the staff and the pupils are friends. We make decisions together as friends. Because the children are not afraid of us or our power they are able to treat us equally. If we step out of line we can be fined in the school
meetings just the same as the children can.
There have been TV documentaries about our school and many articles in the press. The impression everybody likes to give is that it is an anarchic society full of unkempt, rowdy children with no manners and no thoughts about the feelings of others. Needless to say, this is not true.
On any Friday afternoon you could walk into one of our Tribunals - which are the meetings we have to hear and discuss people's problems within the
community - and watch children of all ages listening, deciding and voting on issues such as bullying, stealing or bedtime noise. If you grow up in a system where you are treated with respect and you are aware that your opinion is valued, it naturally follow that you will bring injustices to the school tribunal and also be well prepared to listen to, and judge on the troubles of others. It is a system which encourages honestly and openness.
Our community is a group of approximately 80 people, adults and children. We are usually 12 staff and an international group of children. At the present time about a third of the school are from Japan while the rest are divided between
England, Germany and Taiwan, with one each from France and Brazil.
We are a self-governing community, which means that all the decisions regarding our daily lives in the school are made by the whole group. An important aspect of this is that the business side, the hiring and firing of staff, intake of
pupils etc. are not the responsibility of the children. They are not asked to take on roles which would be inappropriate or difficult for them.
Children have a very real interest in what time they go to bed at night but very little in who pays the electricity bills!
Our school decision making process is democratic. Each adult and child has an equal vote. Thus the youngest child Yuma, age 7, has the same voting power as me. Not only do the children have equal power in the school meetings, they also vastly outnumber the adults. Most teachers reaction to this is one of fear.
Imagine what would happen in a conventional school if the pupils outnumbered the staff in a vote? Total anarchy? Loss of all moral codes?
Possibly - but in Summerhill because of the freedom they already have had, most of the pupils are socially responsible and are used to thinking about the needs of the group rather than their own. This does not mean that we never have disputes or disagreements - one of the important things we have learnt here is that the needs of chldren and adults are very different indeed! What is important is that we all recognise these differences and try to negotiate a mutually agreeable solution to any problem, instead of the adults just making up the rules to suit themselves.
A typical meeting case may be this one as we had some weeks ago. The older kids in the school proposed that they could stay up as late as they like provided that they stick to the silence hour which is 10.30 pm. There was a long discussion about it as many people had things to say on the subject. Eventually the vote was taken and it was carried that they try it for one week to see if it
could work. A week or so later there was a special meeting because one of the staff had been woken up several times in the night. The community decided that the older kids had lost their chance and should get their bedtimes back again.
Occasionally we get rebellious children who want to break all the school laws and go against the community in whatever way they can. Sometimes such a child can whip up enough support to get some of the school laws dropped or changed.
Obviously it can be a bit disruptive but it is a good learning experience and is quickly put right. What better way to learn to be a law abiding citizen to try living without laws?
We believe in freedom but not licence. This means that you are free to do as you like but you must not interfere with somebody elses' freedom. You are free to go to lessons or stay away because that is your own personal business and you can make the choice. But you cannot play your drum kit at four in the morning because that would interfere with the freedom of others.
Within this structure we probably have more laws than any other school in the country - about 190 at the last count! They range from what time you have to be in bed at night to where you are allowed to shoot bows and arrows. Many laws are more or less seasonal and are changed or abolished when not needed.
Others carry on year after year.
Only 12 years and over are allowed sheath knives.
You must have a working front and back brake on your bicycle.
You can't ride little kids bicycles - even with permission.
You can't watch TV during lessons or meal times.
Writing graffiti on any wall - 1 pound fined.
Breaking bedtime laws - ½ hour community work.
Not getting up by 9.30 am - dessert fined.
We hold school meetings twice a week. One on Friday afternoon and one on
Saturday evening. The Friday meeting is called Tribunal and is used for people to bring cases against one another. Thus, if I have been riding your bicycle without permission or have broken into your box to steal your money, you will bring me up in the tribunel.
Chairing the meeting is a difficult task. Although nobody is exactly unruly it is demanding to keep up to 70 people of different ages sitting quietly for about an hour at a time. The Charperson has ultimate power! It is a strangely formal occasion and visitors have often remarked how much more order it is than the British House of Commons!
Sometimes teachers bring up children for being unruly in class. One such case recently carried the fine that the culprit should be banned from lessons for three days - but the child appealed the fine on the grounds that it was too severe!
Naturally the staff can be brought up too. It is a very levelling experience to be brought up before the whole community - specially if you have been teaching in the conventional system. Some new staff find it a bit too much and are very
embarassed about it. But I am sure it is a valuable experience for grown-ups to be put in a position where they can be brought up by children and fined accordingly.
All teachers should have the experience of teaching in a school like Summerhill where the children do not have to attend classes. Most teachers spend their entire working career teaching to a captive audience. It is a very
sobering experience to teach children who can get up and walk out if they want to.
I would like to finish with a brief word about kids living at the school. In society today there is a problem with children being sent away from their home and parents. We at Summerhill experience some negative feedback about this.
Boarding schools are no longer in favour and to send your child away is considered bad parenting. Whilst I agree that forcing your child away into an often hostile environment is a terrible thing - I must also speak from our experience at Summerhill. Although some children do suffer a little from homsickness during their first term or so, it is usually very mild. After that they
positively thrive. The sense of relief they get from living away from home and with a group of other children in a free environment is surprising. Although they love their homes and their parents, they value their indpendence and guard it jealously.
Summerhill is now 79 years old. Some like to say that it is old fashioned and the idea is out of date. Perhaps this is true. But until the people of the world begin to understand the true nature of childhood and treat their children with the
respect they deserve - Summerhill will continue to be a small beacon in the darkness to show that there is another way.

Re:Schools just plain suck, computers or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right. Sounds like a blueprint for the John Walker Lindh's of the world...

Re:Schools just plain suck, computers or not

[TastesLikeChicken]

Yep, sure. Someone raised with democracy as reality, rather than a nice idea, would join a cult that has leaders that tell people to kill themselves .
You say dexterity is taught in schools (assuming this is the same Anonymous Coward), I think that we learn tasks where dexterity is concerned (look at your doctor's handwriting, my guess is he obviously never learned to color inside the lines).
My view is that a real education should teach people
1) to think for themselves, not to follow orders (at least not without question)
2) to educate themselves.

Re:Schools just plain suck, computers or not

[funky womble]

This will remain true until (text)books begin to be published online, in HTML format.

Not exactly textbooks, but the BBC's plans on Digital Curriculum are quite interesting.

I wonder...

[Nighttime]

... if the main reason behind the Intel parents decision is that their children may be exposed to computers containing AMD chips. :)

Purpose of Education and Computers

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to remember what education is for and what computers are for.

The purpose of education is to teach us to think clearly, quickly, and effectively. An education should be about the synthesis of ideas from many sources into a framework that eventually gets called "understanding". The purpose of computers is to support thinking. Computers don't create thought, they respond to thought. They are tools, useful for expressing the understanding the education brought us.

This distinction is an important one, because computers applied without thought lead to all sorts of problems:

• insecure systems,
• DMCA,
• Spam,
• pointless arguments over who can own ideas,
• Microsoft....

We need both. Education cannot replace computer technology, nor can computers in the classroom replace real education, but if I had to choose, I would choose a good classical (low-technology) education over a room full of networked PCs.

Why extremes?

[Yoda2]

I'll keep this short - everything in moderation.

I totally agree

[SevenTowers]

My parents did not want me fooling around on their computer becaus my dad felt I'd screw it up real bad (because he didn't know much about computers). My dad also refused to let me access the net cause he felt all I'd do was check out some pr0n. Well, when I finally got the money (17 years old) I bought my computer and internet access. I'd already been around on BBSs so I thought I new some... Oh shit was I wrong! Nowadays I compare myself to some of my friends and I have to say that I estimate the age for learning about computers to be around 13-14 years old. Later than that and you've got a hell of a lot to catch up.

Creativity is VERY important and I totally agree that a young kid should stay the hell away from computers, especially that every program I see being designed for kids is usualy idiotic anyway compared to what caring parents can provide.

just my .02$

Re:I totally agree

[aardvarkjoe]

I don't quite understand the moral of your story ... did you eventually find the pr0n?

When a computer in the classroom makes sense

[Peyna]

Outside of obvious ones, such as learning a specific computer skill, there are a few cases where I would argue students can benefit from having a computer in the classroom.

When I took physics in high school, the school had just acquired a number of laptops and different types of electric devices for measuring forces, distances, etc.

Using some program on the computer, we were able to obtain very accurate measurements of acceleration, force changes, etc. compared to time and what not. Without the computers we would have had to have used various rules and stop watches, and hope that we came up with something that was similar to the expected results.

In cases such as these, where computers are used as a supplement to learning, instead of the primary focus, I think that they are very beneficial to the classroom. However, if the computer is doing something that could be done just the same without a computer, I see little need for the computer, and the student would probably be better off without it.

Re:When a computer in the classroom makes sense

[Whardie Jones]

Umm the program is a simulation and therefore is not as accurate as doing it yourself. The model is flawed because it probably doesn't take into account air friction and viscosity. I'd rather throw the ball up in the air and know f = mg really works.

Re:When a computer in the classroom makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

> When I took physics in high school, the school had just acquired a number of laptops and different types of electric devices for measuring forces, distances, etc.

Right - in hight school, just like the article advised.

Re:When a computer in the classroom makes sense

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

If you actually read his comment you would understand that the computers were equipped with sensors to measure the REAL WORLD RESULTS accurately instead of getting a close guess with a stopwatch or something. No simulation involved.

Tim

Re:When a computer in the classroom makes sense

[Saeculorum]

Additionally, f = ma, not f = mg :)

Rather semantical though, since g is a form of a.

Re:When a computer in the classroom makes sense

[Zenki]

When I was in high school, our physics class didn't only used a computer once, and that was to plot a bunch of data accumulated from the class.

When we were learning about gravity, we used a ticker-tape machine that would cycle and draw about 20 to 30 dots per second. We attached a weight to the paper tape and let them drop.

Then we spent about an entire class period to measure distances between each adjacent dot and to make a long story short, I would have never passed calculus in college if it weren't for high school physics. Learning in a physical domain helps people to learn and to retain because it shows how core concepts and rules fit together.

Learning on a computer just teaches students a process. Ask them to build upon what they have learn, and chances are, they wouldn't be able to apply what they have learned outside of the context provided by the computer.

Re:When a computer in the classroom makes sense

[Peyna]

If you read my comment you would realize that we actually did the stuff. The computers were there to assist in gathering of data, instead of spending time making inaccurate measurements of time and distances.

I see advanced mathematics the same way. It is important to know how everything works, but you don't need to spend 5 hours working a problem that you can have a computer do in 5 minutes. Same reason I would never draw any graph by hand other than a straight line. Like I said, computers should be a supplement to classroom exercises, not the exercise.

Re:When a computer in the classroom makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah, read my comment. We did actually did the stuff, the computers and various sensors and other devices helped us with our measurements, etc. It wasn't a program. Didn't you read my comment? Ugh.

Re:When a computer in the classroom makes sense

[Peyna]

My post is still on topic, the point of a discussion is that it can lead to many other areas and not remain on a narrow focus. The discussion of use of computers in school in general validates my comment, thereby expanding the discussion into other areas.

You can nit-pick all you want, but in the end, just because a comment doesn't directly reflect the article it can still be a valid point of discussion for the topic.

--end rant.--

Re:When a computer in the classroom makes sense

[Peyna]

We also did the ticker-tape machine lab, interestingly enough. Since the computers were just being introduced to the lab, we sort of cycled back and forth between using the nifty probes for measuring data to the old-fashioned ways. Needly to say, it was obvious which was more accurate.

Re:When a computer in the classroom makes sense

[Peyna]

Thanks for clarifying, I guess some people read comments as closely as they do some of the articles. =]

The only sensors I remember having were for distance (some kind of sonar device it seemed), force (from collisions of objects of varying masses, etc.), weigh, etc. Time would obviously be recorded by the computer. It was very helpful to be able to instantaneously see the acceleration on a graph and watch it happening as the cart moved, object fell, etc. It helped us understand the relation between everything, and we didn't have to waste our time with measurements, etc.

Re:When a computer in the classroom makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

and it seems that you still missed part of the point. Your experiment rested on the fact that the outlets in america have a frequency of 60hz. Therefore, 60 cycles(dots) per second. From the increase in spacing between the dots, one can compute the acceleration. Taking measurements with a computer and leaving the level of understanding of measurements leaves a big flaw in fundamental concepts of what units are. Oh, and I'm speaking as a PHD Physicist btw.

Re:When a computer in the classroom makes sense

[data888]

In Physics 1 we did the ticker-tape velocity thing. Recently my friend made a more accurate system with his Lego Mindstorms. He built a cart, ran the rear axle through a rotation sensor, and used a Visual Basic application to record the data. He's working of a script to dump the data into Excel, and automatically graph it.

Nick Taylor

Re:When a computer in the classroom makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

You have assumed too much, that we didn't learn anything else. Also, this was a High School physics class. I can claim to be a rocket scientist, but it doesn't make any post on /. any more valid in my opinion. Sorry. =]

Re:When a computer in the classroom makes sense

[adb]

... g is a form of a.

Well, no, it actually isn't, at least if you accept general relativity. "Gravitational acceleration" is as illusory as centrifugal force. Acceleration is what's happening when you follow a non-geodesic path (i.e., a world line that does not represent ballistic motion), so when you stand on the ground, you are accelerating upward, but when you're falling freely, you're not accelerating at all.

Who knows why they don't teach it that way in elementary school?

well, good for them.

[Em Emalb]

Basically, this is interesting, but it all boils down to doing what they feel is right for their children. That is ok by me. This DOES NOT mean you should do the same with your children, nor does it mean they are severely jaded by computers or anything else.

It was a personal decision for them. Your results may vary.

This isn't really news, in my opinion. It's a family matter, and unless Slashdot has become news for nerd-families, stuff that might matter if you have kids.

From a similar experiment I've read about

[Theodore Logan]

Once the dot-com boom was a fact and everybody went ballistic and cried for "IT" scheduled in public schools from an early age, there was conducted an experiment.

Two large groups of school children (and one control group) were chosen. One of these group had massive "IT" training. The other group had massive music training. A year later results clearly showed that the "IT" students had not enhanced their creativity, formal reasoning or anything else of interest. The music students, however, had enhanced creativity, analytical thinking and other areas of significance enormously. They also seemed to get along better with each other, and to be more content with their lives than people in the control group or in the IT group.

Unfortunately, nobody took much notice of this study, although it was huge. Probably because it didn't show the results the politicians wanted it to show. Nowadays there's a lot of "IT" training in elementary schools. I have, however, yet to come across a normal elementary school with an increased number of music lessons.

This was in Sweden, by the way.

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[elefantstn]

You wouldn't happen to have a link to this, would you? I would be real interested to read up on this.

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[Ooblek]

Who sponsored the study? Were the people teaching the kids IT professionals or a bunch of teachers that already knew music that attended a few seminars about computers?

I've used computers since about age 7. When the elementary school decided to get a few TRS80 Model III computers and teach basic, I knew more than the teacher. I learned more through the years on my own outside of school by basically using the computer every moment I could. I learned a lot by trying to bypass the rudimentary protection schemes on C64 video games. I went to college, got a CS degree, and now make more money than my parents put together. I can also assure you I don't lack in creativity or formal reasoning.

I worked in the entertainment industry and got to be around those "creative" people with musical talent. Everyone romaticizes the artistic icons we see on TV and hear on the radio. The truth is that these people are bloody idiots! They have no concept of how anything works in the world around them; they are generally the first to form an opinion of something and the last to know any facts about it. If these are desirable qualities, then I am ever more happy to be the un-creative, un-reasoning, and un-interesting person I am today.

Heh.....go ask your nearest music major to come to linear algebra class with you. See for yourself if musicians have better formal reasoning than anyone else.

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[richieb]

Heh.....go ask your nearest music major to come to linear algebra class with you. See for yourself if musicians have better formal reasoning than anyone else.

Actually a lot of mathematicians and scientist are quite musical. They are just better at science. I was a math major, with a music minor. I'd start the day in agebraic topology and end in 20th century music...

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[qurob]

that may all be well and true, BUT

you need computer skills to get many jobs, as say, an accountant.

creativity doesn't help you one bit.

unless, you work for say, Enron

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[Anonymous Coward]

See for yourself if musicians have better formal reasoning than anyone else.

1) It is well known that musicially inclined people are often apt to math and physics and the like (Einstein, Heisenberg, Kuhn.. you name it).

2) It is irrelevant anyhow. The case was that great exposure to music enhances creativity, formal reasoning etc. Not that people who are musically gifter are better at formal reasoning etc.

I can also assure you I don't lack in creativity or formal reasoning.

Allow me to doubt this. You obviously couldn't even figure out the post you're replying to was saying, and this in spite of your great analytical and creative talents.

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[statusbar]

I think you are misunderstanding the issue here. I also have been using computers since an early age.

There is a difference between what you and I did and what the kids in elementary school do now.

You and I hacked video games, learned 6502/6510 on our own, and learned how the computer worked intimately.

In the typical school setting nowadays, none of this happens. The schools usually present the computers as a fixed system in a class running a specific program. Not as an interesting tool to examine, understand, or learn to build or hack.

The difference is that you and I were pulled by the computers to learn them. I believe that kids being 'pushed' to learn specific apps would get nothing out of them. Imagine if in 1983 all the schools had computers - Probably all they would have done with them is teach the students the control codes for WordStar. Hardly useful later on in life. Any student who learned how to run the CP/M assembler to create command files would be told 'Stop that! It is not on the final exam!'

It really comes down to how the computers are presented to the students.

As an aside, one of my very good friends is an accomplished musician with a geophysics degree.

--Jeff

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably wasn't a lack of understanding. Musicians always spread that FUD about how all great scientists are musically inclined. If musicians are so smart, how come they aren't all scientists? Just because Einstein dabbled in music, all of a sudden his abilities outside of music apply to all those who are musically inclined? Not.

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[Anonymous Coward]

At my university they recommended that math majors minor in music.

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[Anonymous Coward]

you need computer skills to get many jobs, as say, an accountant.

So is there a problem with elementary and junior high kids not getting jobs because they don't know MSWord?

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[cyril3]

Not here you don't. I hire good accountants who can use computers well but they are good accountants first. You can learn how to use most software quite fast if you understand the technical aspects of the subject.

But if you don't understand the technical side you can't really use the software anyway.

This means you need a general understanding of how computers work (which means understanding how software works in the operating system enviornment) but not to any great detailed level.

You can learn the detail in your chosen field.

Accountants don't need to be creative. They need to be analytical. Creatives become Merchant Bankers. Those who are good at neither are channeled into Economics or Politics depending on their personality.

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[Jerf]

Musicians always spread that FUD about how all great scientists are musically inclined.

I've heard "many", not "all". Big difference in the point. Critical, in fact.

If musicians are so smart, how come they aren't all scientists?

Contains the amazingly arrogant implicit assumption that only scientists are smart! Good grief! Who the hell modded you up as "insightful"? I'd call the designation antynomous!

Just because Einstein dabbled in music, all of a sudden his abilities outside of music apply to all those who are musically inclined?

Straw man. Nobody claims anything on evidence that limited. To the contrary, it's well backed up by fairly solid psychological studies, which I leave as an exercise for the careful reader to locate.

I'd say the correlation is well established. (Might want to look up the word "correlation" before replying. Evidence suggest you'll react as if I said something to the effect of "A person is smart if and only if they are musical", which is not what was said.)

I'd recommend a little brushing up on logic yourself. You've got a wicked case of unexamined-axiomitis.

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[WildBeast]

We live in a world where money matters a lot more than anything else. Creativity, analytical thinking? I don't think that fits in the picture. They're looking mostly for workaholics and heavy consumers.

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[cortense]

This is so very true. The problem, as I see it, is that elementary/high schools are turning into career colleges. Business has started pressuring politicians to implement the courses that they feel will prepare children for the world of work.

However, I believe it's having an adverse affect on people. Instead of learning creative, critical thinking, students are learning how to memorize what will be on the final exam, and to learn formulaic approaches to solving problems, instead of creative ones.

As a high school student myself, I see this every day around me. My peers have become apathetic towards learning new ideas just for the sake of expanding their knowledge base, and instead look at everything from the point of view of "how will this help me get a job?" As a result, they are missing out on a vast body knowledge that is out there.

The school mentioned in the article is certainly on the right track by focusing on real education instead of career preparation, and I hope that they go all the way.

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[0xA]

In the typical school setting nowadays, none of this happens. The schools usually present the computers as a fixed system in a class running a specific program. Not as an interesting tool to examine, understand, or learn to build or hack.

Well this is exactly the problem. I didn't even bother to take computers in high school, complete waste of time. A couple of my friends did, they all sat quitely and learned to use some spreadsheet program that doesn't exist anymore.

My brother is 21, he managed to graduate high school without being able to write an essay that read better than a third grade book report (he's on the deans list at Uni, go figure). If they can't get htat part of their job right why are they messing around with PCs, teaching people how to format tables in Word. Schools are all crying for bigger budgets but they are so wasteful in some areas. This just makes me so angry, I'm not really sure why.

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesus! You are really truly fucking stupid, aren't you?

Go re-read the post you replied to. And go re-read the parent post of this whole thread. You make the EXACT SAME MISTAKE as the parent of the post you replied to, i.e. the EXACT SAME MISTAKE that was explicitely corrected in the post you replied to.

Just in case you're too dumb to find the relevant sentence for yourself, I'll copy and paste it for you: The case was that great exposure to music enhances creativity, formal reasoning etc. Not that people who are musically gifter are better at formal reasoning etc.

Sorry for the harsh tone, but when people can't see a logical fallacy when it jumps up and bites them in their asses, it strikes a nerve.

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[infochuck]

>There is a difference between what you and I did >and what the kids in elementary school do now.

>You and I hacked video games, learned 6502/6510 on >our own, and learned how the computer worked >intimately.

I, too, did what you and he did on computers - hacking around, learning, challenging myself. But I didn't start until I was about 10. This, I feel, is a perfect age. I waited long enough to get really into computers to have learned to play three different instruments, as well as developing a voracious appetite for books and taking karate classes and joining a swim team and cub scouts/tiger cubs/webelos/boy scouts - and I even got in some good "play time", too. Had I gotten into computers much earlier than I did, I feel I wouldn't be nearly the well-rounded (IMNSHO) individual I am today. I am a computer geek, yes, but I am so much more than that. Had I started with computers at, say, age 4-8 or something, I think I would have been even more skilled than I am now, but I think I would have been a complete computer geek - knowing nothing about anything but mahcines, with hampered social skills and creative abilities, and a more "tunnelized" view of the world.

>It really comes down to how the computers are >presented to the students.

And when.

>As an aside, one of my very good friends is an >accomplished musician [fyssas.com] with a >geophysics degree.

And you? Do *you* know more than just computers?

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[Anonymous Coward]

Wise words from someone who's still in high school. It's encouraging to see there are some of you who are perceptive and able to see what's going on. Don't let the system drag you down...

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[Mr2001]

Instead of learning creative, critical thinking, students are learning how to memorize what will be on the final exam, and to learn formulaic approaches to solving problems, instead of creative ones.

That's nothing new. Think of every test you've had over a book you were supposed to read - mostly covers meaningless details about events that took place. They don't test whether you read or understood the book, only whether you memorized the book.

Similarly, history exams usually test whether you've memorized events described in the chapter, not whether you understand the historical motivations, consequences, or lessons.

In almost every class I took in high school, the whole quarter went something like this: (1) Read the chapter. (2) Answer end-of-chapter questions by flipping through the chapter looking for answers. (3) Memorize enough details to get a good score on the test. (4) Take the test. (5) Forget all those details and move on to the next chapter.

The exceptions were math and computers (!), because each new concept was an extension of what we'd already learned. Instead of teaching students to cram for the test, those classes made sure we knew the material - to understand differentiation, you have to understand functions, which means you have to understand algebra, and so on.

The problem isn't with the teaching style, it's with the subject matter itself. Knowing the dates of famous Revolutionary War battles doesn't teach critical thinking or creativity, or even help you get a job.

The solution is to eliminate mundane memorization classes and add more important classes. How about requiring philosophy, logic, or debate? A little critical thinking (dare I say cynical thinking?) would help keep people from being suckered in by urban legends, pyramid schemes, cults, double-talking politicians, etc.

(Why hasn't it been done yet? Insert your favorite karma-whoring conspiracy theory here.)

Re:From a similar experiment I've read about

[statusbar]

Yes, I TOTALLY agree with you. Being well-rounded (not physically!) is of the utmost importance.

At the same time that I started with computers I also started with a dirt bike, and expanded into motorcross racing. I then moved to music (eee!) and MIDI and other live performance projects which merged back into the computer.

I wish I did continue with motorcross and other sports to become more well-rounded - as it was, I was forced in my mid 20's to become more socially active and well rounded, probably with still more to go.

--Jeff

Re:Not here or there!

[rufusdufus]

Wait a minute. You said "No TV - No computer games" and this somehow validates your point? I think not. Would you let your kids hang around playing poker all day and that would be OK because its not electronic? And what does TV have to do with the debate?

My friend, it is you that is mired in confusion.

If your children use the computer as a learning device, they will indeed learn the concepts of mathematics and improve their reading and writing skills much quicker than without. Assuming you guide them properly. Perhaps it is you who are ignorant of the power of the computer? You gave them games, but did you give them Mathematica?

Talbott's NetFuture

[michaelmalak]

Computers and education frequently comes up in Steve Talbott's NetFuture e-zine, which can be accessed on O'Reilly's web site. Here's an example article from an indexed list of NetFuture articles on the subject.

What do you think about...

[ocie]

A 1998 study by the private Educational Testing Service of nearly 14,000 fourth- and eighth-graders found the more time students spent practicing math using computers in school, the worse they scored on math tests.

I had several teachers who would tell me something along the lines of "a calculator/computer is a useful tool, but you need to be able to figure out if the answers it is giving you are right". I even remember that there was some emphasis on "estimation math".

Re:What do you think about...

[Peyna]

It's not so much that you need to be able to figure out if the answers the calculator is giving you are right, but that you understand how the calculator got that answer, and that it isn't just magic.

Sort of why it bothers me that I see high school students coming into our Calculus classes here that can do calculus on a calculator, but couldn't tell you the definition of a derivative for the life of them. Sort of sick, they can push buttons, but haven't a clue what is really going on.

Re:What do you think about...

[LadyLucky]

calculator/computer is a useful tool, but you need to be able to figure out if the answers it is giving you are right

The natural Corollary is that the correct precision of any measurement in an experiment is equal to the number of digits your calculator can show.

How many times have you seen a conversion from "1000 miles" into a metric unit with about 7 significant figures? heh....

I think the other point is that the calculator is a useful tool for the concrete tasks, but useless to perform abstract maths. I've done plenty of physics & maths at university, and never needed a calculator in an exam...

Re:What do you think about...

[pcb]

I see high school students coming into our Calculus classes here that can do calculus on a calculator...

I may have been out of school for a few years, but how do you do calculus on a calculator? How does a calculator show:

f(x) = x^2
f'(x) = 2x
f''(x) = 2

Just curious. Maybe I should go and check out new calculators...its been a while (my old HP 21S still works great).

Re:What do you think about...

[Peyna]

A lot of the more advanced Texas Instruments calculators (I can't tell you which ones, and I'm sure other brands do as well) can do derivatives and integrals of most functions, just like you have shown. My Ti-86 can do integrals, but it will only give you a decimal approximation, not an exact answer. I'm not even sure how to use it for that purpose anyway.

Re:What do you think about...

[TimboJones]

Helpful directional hint: look at the TI-92 [Plus], and the TI-89.

One hypothesis

[base3]

First, I believe in the right of parents to educate their children the way they see fit, so long as they get educated. This is true be that with computers, without computers, with schools, without schools, what have you.

I think that this has less to do with the benefits or lack thereof associated with exposure to technlogy. It has more to do with the fact that the masses, the hoi polloi, the little people, all pretty much have access to computers, earlier, thanks to well meaning social activism and government and corporate largess.

As with similar mass-market technologies that have gone before it, including radio, television, the Internet started out as a tool and toy for the creme de la creme, the elite, the upper crust. Once the newness wore off and the fact that it wasn't the hope for the transformation of the world for the better, the elites abandoned it to the lower classes. We can readily observe this phenomenon with regard to television. Not many of the intellectual class will admit to watching Friends among their equals (though I imagine many indulge occasionally as a guilty pleasure).

The Intel engineers, as members of a relatively high social and intellectual class, apparently think computers and the Internet sufficiently droll that they do not wish their offspring to risk their potential mentally stunting effects for the chance of unproven educational benefit.

Re:One hypothesis

[alecto]

That's an interesting argument. You must have made someone a bit uncomfortable, to get marked "Redundant."

here come the righteous

[maxpublic]

Here come the righteous technophobes, looking to score points for deriding the 'evil' computer and its mind-numbing effects on their children. Forgetting all the while that the computer is just a tool, like a calculator, a pen, a box of crayons, or an abacus.

In fifty years kids will laugh incredulously at this tale and ask "were people back then really that stupid?". To which I'll reply "only on their good days."

Technophobes are the chaff of change, thankfully needing only time to discard.

Max

Re:here come the righteous

[spt]

deriding the 'evil' computer

They're doing no such thing.

From the article "The couple's children learn about computers at home from their parents"

They believe that computers are not necessary to teach their young children the basics like reading and maths. That, teacher-pupil interaction is more beneficial than computer-pupil interaction.

Re:here come the righteous

[maxpublic]

To which there is no evidence. If you have some, *then provide it*.

Furthermore, this does nothing to address the needs of the poor who can't afford a computer. *Their* children will be disenfranchised of skills *necessary* for a 21st century job market.

But hey! Anything to reduce the influence of the computer in schools! Especially if it means your middle-class brat has a better chance of getting a job for it.

Max

Re:here come the righteous

[spt]

The evidence is right there in the 3rd paragraph

The Swallowtail parents' belief -- that computer skills are best taught at home ...

Or are you trying to imply that the parents don't really believe what they told the newspaper they believe? If you're accusing them of lying then I think the burden of proof is on you.

Re:here come the righteous

[Anonymous Coward]

> Furthermore, this does nothing to address the needs of the poor who can't afford a computer. *Their* children will be disenfranchised of skills *necessary* for a 21st century job market.

For what job(s) are they disenfranchised by using the computer at (say) the library instead of having one at home? What *necessary* (as opposed to, say, hacking C) skills can't be learned there?..

Re:here come the righteous

[maxpublic]

I demanded evidence, not unsubstantiated personal belief. Which is all this is.

Max

Re:here come the righteous

[mushrooms]

Back in the industrial revolution, they called them Luddites, they broke the looms in the factories of the north of England because they threatened their livelihood as independant weavers.

This is different, the issue is not that the computers per se are a bad thing (most if not all correspondants to slashdot discussions are computer professionals) it is that their use in education (in junior schools) is inappropriate.

Like many of the people who have written on this article, I was lucky to have a sufficiently enlightened math teacher in junior school (actually up to age 13) we were not allowed to use calculators for any reason until it was appropriate to do so.

what is the most important thing that you learn at junior school? math? history? geography? latin? french? ... none of these, but how to learn. This, together with the reading, writing and number skills which are to some extent facilitators and colatteral benefits set you up for a productive life in the future.

My real issue with the focus on the computers is that the use of computers for study is useless if you don't know how to evaluate the sources you use, focus on the job in hand (very difficult to do in some instaces) or organise information on a basic level. You need to know how to make these sorts of decisions before stepping to the keyboard.

Maybe I am a luddite - I prefer to use pen and ink to get my first draft of a document in place so that I can use my touch-typing skills to get it all down on the computer, I then edit offline on paper. It means that the iterations in producing a document are generally fewer and the text has generally been fully proofed before it goes out to its intended readership.

Computers are no panacea, I expect them to disappear from the home as monolithic items within the next five years, giving way to items which perform specific functions.

After all, who wants to spend their time farting about with a computer when there is snow to be skiied, waves to surf, lawns to mow, beer to be drunk......

I can't drive the oxen dammit

[americanFatCat]

Creativity? Was that the thing television and western materialism killed back in the 80s?

Seriously though, there is a lot of talk here about how people have lost their math skills and it isn't as big of a thing as you make it.

When a technology exists that replaces a certain skill, it is fairly natural that that skill goes out of practice. People don't need tons of practice adding and subtracting if they have a register of calculator. This isn't a terrible thing! When cars became dominant most people didn't bother to learn how to drive a horse and buggy, the skill was no longer needed.

Furthermore, we still have mathematicians, people doing research in math. The only difference is that the "common people" don't do as many calculations themselves; which I would argue they don't need to do themselves anyway.

So, apart from the nostalgiac value, there isn't much to cry about.

Re:I can't drive the oxen dammit

[base3]

People don't need tons of practice adding and subtracting if they have a register of calculator. This isn't a terrible thing!

Tha's rawt. That thar cipherin's only for hawly edumucated folk.

What a bunch of elitist hogwash. Basic mathematical operations are necessary to function successfuly in everyday society. Founded upon them are the ability to accomplish such scholarly feats as determining if a cashier has given you the correct change or comparing the price between two items of different prices, one of which is on sale. I don't find either of these to be "calculator appropriate" situations.

When cars became dominant most people didn't bother to learn how to drive a horse and buggy, the skill was no longer needed.

Better things to compare to "learning to drive a horse and buggy" would be the manipuation of a slide rule or the use of tables to evaluate transcendantal functions.

And if missing the days when cashiers could count change back to me without having to pathetically read the amout to return off the LEDs makes me excessively nostalgic, so be it.

legos!

[Maskirovka]

Buy the kid $1500 worth of legos at age 6, as opposed to a computer. And keep them away from the TV at all costs.

Maskirovka

School is bad

[WildBeast]

Actually a scientific study shows that school isn't good for the development of children below the age of seven years.

Re:School is bad

[namespan]

Can you cite? This would be really interesting.....

And who says it's good for children above 7? :)

Re:School is bad

[WildBeast]

Sorry, can't remember exactly, it was a television show I watched a few months ago I believe it was on TLC. Basically it said that school slowed the child's brain development process. They only talked about children.

Re:School is bad

[DerekLyons]

Sorry, can't remember exactly, it was a television show I watched a few months ago I believe it was on TLC.

Which puts it on about the same reliability level as the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer.

You are a very stupid, stupid person

[Anonymous Coward]

No one gives a rat's ass what you think. You are one of those morons who read or hear something, and automatically shoot your pie hole off, with an exception or two. Your examples are non sequitor, anyway.

You do not even possess the creativity to see why you should refrain from talking for the rest of your life. You should immediately have Hemos deactivate your account, and go live in a cave somewhere, where you will not be a burden on society any longer.

You are on my moderate this moron down list. And I get to moderate on average about once a week (with all my various accounts).

Re:You are a very stupid, stupid person

[Anonymous Coward]

good idea, why dont u find one post u dont like and mod down all the users posts even if they r good hahahaha

Re:You are a very stupid, stupid person

[Anonymous Coward]

I already do that.

I think this is good

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't read any of the other posts, so dont hate me if someone already said this.

I recently read an article detailing how children who do a lot of drawing, painting, and learning to play an instrument are far more likely to excel in mathematics, physics, and chemistry later in life.

I have to admit that I even see difference between me (19 and earning a degree in electrical engineering with a nearly full scholarship), and my brother, who is 15 and failing his math courses. I was the one who grew up drawing evil dragons and wizards, as opposed to my bro who played Mario Bros and Kings Quest early on.

Kids dont need to type at 60 wpm by the age of 6, nor should they be encouraged to at the cost of their future academic life.

Maybe this is what went wrong

[joeblowme]

Maybe if my parents would have done this I would have some social skills. And maybe my company wouldn't stick me in the closet and make me code all day. Maybe I'd have friends not on slashdot. Wait who'd want that.

Schools & computers

[DaCool42]

The problem with school and computers is that people don't realize what the purpose of a computer is anymore. It has become a kind of "magical box". It would be similar to teaching a kid to use a calculator when he doesn't know what adding and subtracting is.

Perhaps some remedial education for the adults ...

[JamesOfTheDesert]

... and learning to keyboard...

I sure as hell hope they're not learning to mangle English, either. "Keyboard" is a noun, not a verb, except in Jargonville.

200!!!!

[autopr0n]

What's wrong with you? The answer is obvioulsy 2,500!!

a well rounded education?!

[BigBir3d]

computer knowledge is not a necessity.

it helps, but there are many many multi-millionaires who do not use computers. more than just those over-paid atheletes ;-)

let the little buggers learn how to think first, than use a computer.

No computer/net made me a better programmer

[severett]

I learned to program in high school 88-93 when no one knew what the net was or that it even existed. Added to that I we couldn't afford a computer at home. As a result I only had a limited a mount of time in front of the computer to program ususally restricted to computer class and lunch.

In order to make the best use of my time and figure out whatever problem I was working on I'd spend a lot of time with pen and paper writing out my code. I started wrting out the whole program but as I got better I'd skip the simple parts and only write out the complex bits.

Whenever I ran accross a problem I didn't understand I'd read books/program/talk to people until I figured it out. I didn't have the luxury of the net to post a question to with an easy answer.

I believe strongly to this day that it made me a better programmer. The more time kids spend away from compters the better off they'll be. The answers to all life's problems are not at the end of an internet connection.

I am a primary I.T. teacher - Here's what I think

[tyrani]

I work for a private school as a computer teacher for children in grades 3 to 8. I have read, researched, and put a lot of thought into this topic.

Here's what I have concluded:

It's been my observation that most educators do not effectively teach computer use to elementary and lower high school grades. Computers are a tool. No matter how far computing progresses, they will always be used to help us complete a task. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less.

With the plethora of "educational software", and computer teaching aids, it is very easy for classically trained teachers to confuse educating children about computers, to educating children with computers.

There are so many "gizmos" and teaching supplements that blur the line between teaching children to use technology as a tool, and to use it to learn. Children (of any age) learn best in a classroom setting with support from a teacher and being rewarded with human interaction.

Children should be taught how to use and understand the logic of computers. My program teaches the fundamentals of hardware, core networking, and the features of word processors, spreadsheets, desktop publishers, and presentation programs.

Teaching children how to use and understand technology, as a tool is important. Teaching children the logic and core set of computer functions gives the student an understanding that will outlast any software package. To me these are the two most important parts of the necessity of preparing students for the future.

I *still* don't use a calculator!

[rarose]

To this day, after programming for 20 years, I still do math by hand... I think it's important to keep yourself sharp that you not use calculators for everything, and for kids it's even more important to keep them away from calculators.

Why? Doing math by hand develop and keep alive our mental "back of the envelope calculator" ability. If you mistype or the calculator misfires while doing 6.424*9 the most likely way you're going to catch it is by that little voice in the back of your head saying "I know what 6 * 9 is and I know what 7 * 9 is and neither of them is around 6400.

Clifford Stoll?!?!?

[Chris Parrinello]

And the last time he taught in an elementary or high school was...?

For somebody who is trained in astronomy, he sure knows a lot about child education...

Part of the problem with our schools is that people who were children or have children or went to school instantly think they know what is wrong with our schools and how to fix them. From mandatory testing to "moments of quiet reflection" to millions of dollars poured into IT infrastructure while the walls of the school are crumbling to home schooling... all of which are just manifestations of somebody political or cultural agenda. Nobody ever asks what the people who are actually trained in education what they need in order to better educate our children.

If you ask them, they would probably tell you that to do their job all they really need is support from the administration and from the parents, decent textbooks and a comfortable, non-distracting environment for the children to learn. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

Re:Clifford Stoll?!?!?

[nomadic]

Because "education" as an academic field is mostly worthless. Fads, inept psychology, intuition masquerading as actual research, reliance on anecdotal evidence--why on earth would we expect a workable curriculum out of that?

If you asked the teachers in the trenches, they'd probably ask for their class sizes to be reduced about 60%. If you asked ME, which you didn't, I'd say to reduce the class day by several hours, and the school year by half. There is absolutely no need to subject young children to 8 hours a day for 9 months a year to teach a few elementary reading and mathematical skills. It's just cruel.

Re:Clifford Stoll?!?!?

[DerekLyons]

For somebody who is trained in astronomy, he sure knows a lot about child education...

Well, having kids of his own and teaching college probably gives him a pretty good working knowledge. Your credentials are...

Re:please expand

[Mudslayre]

why? There is a theoretical reason in the case of the frogs (at least in the teachers mind), but with the case of a person..... Well, it sounds as if your using a threat to tell people that you don't agree with the idea of discecting animals (for whatever reasons you have).

Scr1pt K1dz0rs

[Whardie Jones]

I think the only thing public school teaches kids is how to be script kiddies. Their so called experience goes as far as push and click buttons and check menus. Their most difficult programming assignment is probably some calculator/bank account managing program using a static array in C++ or Java or Basic. If i was in high school again, I'd rather be able to know how to integrate in multiple variables and solve partial differential equations rather than learn how to use Word and C++ from incompetent teachers.

yer both wrong, 50+50 = 50

[Anonymous Coward]

it's obviously 50. I mean, that's how the karma on slashdot works, right?

I disagree

[BroadbandBradley]

creativity cn be applied in the digital world in new ways that aren't possible in the "real world"

compare creating 3d virtual models of an item with sculpting something out of clay or wood.

I had a hell of an easier time picking up programming and computers as a young child compared to trying to learn new things now.
What we need is 3rd graders who can use autocad to learn math and engineering concepts, or grade school age kids colaborating on someones thesis project, researching new ideas...then we'd have some creative juice flowing. How about 6th graders writing math or spelling games for 5th graders?

we need to do more than teach them how to be office workers, computers should be taught by a teacher who knows more that how to install the latest 'learing adventure' games. perhaps laptops on a roving computer lab cart could let one Computer-EXPERT-teacher move from class to class for 'LAB Time' instead of trying to sit a pc on every desk with teachers that don't know as much about how to be creative with a computer.

look at me share my opinion/view/insight all over the world via slashdot, that wasn't so hard to grasp now was it?

Re:I Disagree

[swordgeek]

I didn't see anything about how useless computers were in this article. Rather, how they were potentially squeezing out the most basic and fundamental parts of childhood--colouring, learning to write, playing with blocks, basic math (WITHOUT a calculator!), and so forth.

The point is well taken--education shouldn't be about teaching one item to the exclusion of all others, _especially_ at the early levels. Furthermore, kids won't be able to avoid computers--they're everywhere these days. Spending six hours a day at school without them isn't going to stunt their 'digital growth' in the least, but it _may_ make them more rounded (and better educated) individuals, who understand the importance of an apostrophe.

Re:I disagree

[Graymalkin]

Sculpting out of clay or play-doh is a free form exercise. It is important to feel what you are intereacting with, especially for a young child. Modeling with a computer program is nothing like it. Computer modeling is merely reshaping primitives to fit into a general scheme that looks like something. There are no primitives when you're sculpting with clay. One of the hardest art projects I ever did was I had to sculpt my own bust. I can draw alright and am a decent painter but I'd never sculpted before. It turned out I could sculpt better than I could paint. I had to put a lot of effort into getting the nose and cheeks just right, I didn't my sculpture to look like some abstract art piece. The eyes took me the longest time because eyeballs are more spherical than just about any part of the body. It was a bit of effort to make an eye that was shaped like an eye. A computer program would have made the shape for me. What does that teach me exactly? How to use a computer? Big fucking whoop. I'm much happier knowing I can take a lump of clay and make it into something that resembles my head.

Teaching children to be office workers? What the fuck is that anyways? Elementary schools aren't vocational training centers. Neither are high schools. Having kids write programs doesn't teach them anything. Having them approach problems logically is teaching them something. I run into far too many people that could not pass a logical thought through their brain if their lives depended on it. Logical thinking lends itself to doing all sorts of stuff including working in an office environment. Office work is thinking and living inside of a box, do you know anyone working in an office that enjoys it? In terms of banality it ranks right about repetitive stress injury prone assembly line work. Autocad to learn math an engineering? That's fucking ludicrous. Give them building blocks and tell them to build something. They'll get more engineering concepts out of watching their sky scraper topple over a dozen times than looking at some lines on a computer screen.

Re:I disagree

[BroadbandBradley]

teaching kids to be office workers is what they get mostly now, how to use a word processor or spreadsheet, I don't think this is the right approach. Nor do I think that all work should be done on a computer, however, the digital universe must be explored, just as any other creative endevor.
The internet can connect us in great ways, but at my childs school, if I want to see what the kids have been asigned, I still have to try and call the teacher on the phone or go to the school. sure I trust my kids to tell me(right!)...now picture a teacher finishing class and having to take 20 to 30 phone calls from parents asking about assignments due...it doesn't work for the teacher, they have much to do already. seems to me it'd be simple to publish a page with a list of assignments at the end of the day...but that's me, I had computers growing up.
colaboration, and creative exploring is what I want to see computers used for, as a medium to explore concepts not replace the physical universe.

Re:I disagree

[DerekLyons]

creativity cn be applied in the digital world in new ways that aren't possible in the "real world"

compare creating 3d virtual models of an item with sculpting something out of clay or wood.

Certainly...

• In a 3d virtual model you learn how *ONE* program allows you to do things, and see *only* the viewpoints that have been programmed into it using *only* the keyboard and the mouse. In short you really haven't "learned" anything. (Using a word processor is a valuable skill, but writing creatively is a different process.)
  
  Using a computer program you can never learn anything the programmer did not put in. Your horizons and limits are artificial.
  
  
• Working with clay or wood you learn:
  • that different tools have different effects, and can be manipulated in different ways.
  • If the piece is a sculpture meant to stand alone you learn about balance and forces. (Like Alexander Calder)
  • By working with real world materials you learn to make creative choices (Hmmm... I didn't expect that knot to be there... How do I make the sculpture work now?)
  • You learn physical control (Oops, squeezed the clay too hard, or the gouge too hard.. Dammit no 'undo' button. Hmm.. seems that you learn cause and effect as well.
  In the real world you learn about cause and effect, and creative solutions to problems caused by real world limitations

A very real problem in computer modeling is ensuring that the model matches reality. All too often people assume that because 'a computer says so' it's correct, complete, and utterly reliable. Sadly we humans don't inhabit a virtual world, we inhabit a real world, one where limitations exist and where computers are no better than their programmers.

Re:I disagree

[Graymalkin]

Way long ago my jr. high solved this problem by having a voicebox systems. At the end of the day the teachers went to the office and recorded their assignments for the day for each class. You could call up and put in the teacher and they would read off the assignments for that day. They had enough lines hooked up to it (the lines were free since it was a public school) to handle a pretty decent sized number of calls. Suggest it to your school's administration. It is the same concept but available to anyone with a telephone (98% of the country) as opposed to people with internet access (51% of the country).

School Stifles Creativity, not Computers.

[BlackGriffen]

Albert Einstein once said something along the lines of, "It's amazing that curiosity survives the rigors of a formal education." My only problem with computers in the classroom is that the kids aren't permitted to play with them. Their interaction is extremely structured and regimented out of fear that they'll break the software. Honestly, though, kids that young can learn the same stuff with legos, bricks, and crayons. At that age, the only thing I'd have them do with computers is basic exposure (maybe some learning games, touch typing games, just stuff to get them comfortable). That's mostly an issue of expense, however, and I'm sure that will disappear in the future.

In the meantime, the best way to encourage creativity is to get the hell out of the kids' way and let them be creative! If they come up with some wild eyed theory, don't just tell them that they're wrong, help them find out for themselves.... (cutting rant short to go study ;)).

BlackGriffen

The same old same old...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. If I didn't have a computer, then my kids not going to have one either.

2. What you do on computers isn't real until you get it on paper copy.

3. I learned computers in my teenage and became incredible successfull. What if my kids start even earlier and outperform me?

Yellousy, narrowmindedness, fear.

And how many of you witenessed first-hand that 99.9% of the adult population draws like pre-teens??

If kids get some real support, computers won't block their creativity, instead it will enhance it. Don't blame products developed for creating commercials for not being creative. It's as stupid as blaming word for not teaching kids how to use pen and paper.

It's sad to see that previusly intelligent people which becomes parents always develop retarded ways of thinking when it comes to raise kids.

JetRacer

A Balance in all things...

[Karora]

Is this throwing the baby out with the bath water? Maybe.

I spend a lot of time on the computer, as does my wife. We let my son (4) play on the computer for around 4-6 hours each week, but I would be seriously upset if they had him using a computer at pre-school.

Watching him use the computer, the most difficult problem he has is using the mouse and keyboard. The fine motor skills required almost completely eclipse the difficulty of the problems in the so-called educational software I have seen.

We don't plonk him down in front of the computer in the hope that he is being 'educated' by it - we put him down there at his request, because he enjoys playing the games at Boowa and Kwala, or the games we have bought.

Since we don't own a television, I don't think that the 4-6 hours is too much of a deal. We also supervise the use pretty closely.

No computer use would probably be not enough, in today's world. Since we give him some at home I don't think it's appropriate for him at school yet though - maybe when he's ten.

Project Summit

[rbeattie]

In the 80s in Lynn, Mass. there was this program where smart elementary school kids were taken out of class once a week and went to another school across town and taught advanced studies. For example, I remember we learned about prime numbers in the 4th grade. The other thing that was there were a bunch of TRS-80 color computers on which were taught programming. It was great. It was BASIC and simple, but the things I learned in those classes in 4th and 5th and 6th grades I still use every day.

Even though I went through high-school without a computer, as I got into college and got my first 286, it was intuitive how to get it running. Going to school for design and journalism, I was always the guy who could get the Mac networking working or recover from some error. And now I'm a programmer having switched to technical consulting after college to pay the rent and "magically" having the aptitude to do so.

My point is that the technical training I received as a child was as valuable to me in my life as any third language I might have learned or some musical training, and it was much, much more useful than "knitting a pair of socks with yarn I dyed myself" like that kid in the story. I think this will only continue to be true in the future.

-Russ

If anyone is reading this and has any idea what Project Summit was, please inform me, because beyond having spent a bunch of time in the program, me and my parents don't know much about it or even if it's still going on today... Thanks.

Re:Project Summit

[DerekLyons]

My point is that the technical training I received as a child was as valuable to me in my life as any third language I might have learned or some musical training, and it was much, much more useful than "knitting a pair of socks with yarn I dyed myself" like that kid in the story. I think this will only continue to be true in the future.

You confuse your experience with a general case. My friend learned to "knit a pair of socks with yarn she dyed herself" in school. Now she runs a fashion design business because she learned working with fabrics and colors was *fun*. There are jobs and bussiness *OTHER* than computers you know.

My Experience

[quantaman]

Ignoring my computer class there are only 3 classes in which I have used a computer.

1. English: Here we used computers for writing essays. In this case they were very useful as they allowed we to work must faster and better explore my topic, and also make my nearly illegible handwriting a non-issue.

2. Math: In one or two classes we worked with a program involving the relationships between angles in circles, this was also very useful as it helped demonstrate the principals in a manner easy to observe.

3. Social(History for Americans): Here we used computers in two ways, for one we used the Internet as a research tool. This was a great learning experience as it taught us to discriminate between the veracity of various sources (as opposed to the library where we were exposed to a much narrower array of for the most part more "standard"? material). It also gave us better exposure to a much wider spectrum of opinions (when we could find it (((search for relevant material)+ (slow Internet connection))!=fun). Our social teacher also showed us various powerpoint presentations (and DVD's of war movies but that's another story;), these did have a strong effect and helped to drive the point home.

My point is that technology can be a useful tool but only when utilized properly, you don't know how many kids I saw diddling the period away in computer class instead of doing work. I had a great experience with a limited amount of technology in the classroom. However in all of these cases the focus was not the technology but what we were doing with it. I think the problem emerges when teachers and school start using technology for the sake of using it instead of using it to enhance effect the concept or ability to do the work.

Re:My Experience

[Graymalkin]

So many slashdotters like typing because their handwriting sucks. Yet if they had adequate practice writing at a young age their handwriting wouldn't suck so bad. Don't complain about a lack of coordination because you can type which requires more hand eye coordination than writing does. Unless you have flippers instead of hands there is little preventing you from having decent handwriting except maybe your lack of effort. I can type pretty fast but I find it more comfortable to write with a pen.

Re:My Experience

[quantaman]

I have actually practiced writting by hand a lot and I do find it more comfertable to do any form of relaxed writing by hand (more flexability). Yet for any length of structured writing (letter, essay, /. comment) I find the speed and accuracy of typing preferable. I don't know why my hand writing is poor as I am well coordinated. You should however realize that writing actually requires better fine musclular movement than typing, think about it, while typing you can miss your intended target by half a centimeter and still hit the key yet while writing deviations as small as a millimeter can make the difference between neat and atrocious. Typing as opposed to hand writing is dependent on practice NOT coordination (I saw a man with no arms who could type 70 wpm with his FEET). The fact that I have poor handwriting is more likely dependent on the fact that I switched hands while young so my left hand's relatively neat writing atrophyed while my right hand never had a chance to develope early when it is by far easiest to leave. This happened LONG before I learned to type and the fact that I type has never taken away practice from my writing as most that I type would never be written on paper (this comment for example).

Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, computers in education are just like practically anything else in life--they can be used well or used poorly. I've consulted with several school districts, and not one of them had a friggin' clue how to teach students about computers or use computers in a classroom.

I hate to put it in such harsh terms, but computers in the classroom have for some time now been the educational equivalent of using your TV as a babysitter. Like TV, computers can be a fantastic educational resource, if used properly, but they seldom are, thanks to crappy school budgets that don't allow for the right kind of teacher training.

Computers increase Creativity

[trainedCodeMonkey]

I am of the opinion that Computers can serve to increase creativity. And where else do we need more creativity than in the land of Computer Technologies. I an a Student and I also work for a curricular support office. I am also heavily interested in persuing a future in Human Computer Interaction. And It seems to me that most users tend to suffer from a lack of creativity and that is simply what hinders them from ejoying to use technology. If we teach our kids not only to use computers in schools, but to do so in ways that inspire creativity, I believe you will give kids another outlet to shine in. I certainly may have not have made it so far in my education and my beliefs if I were did not use computers throughout my elementary and high schools.

Balance

[f00zbll]

No amount of technology or stupid study plans ensure balanced education. I have no solutions, but the way the school system approaches education is just as bad.

Balance to me means a kid should do finger painting, bang on drums or some other musical instrument, read books of all kinds including philosophy and religion, math, science, 3-5 foriegn languages and programming.

Kids are growing up stupid because the adults treat them as if they are stupid. Kids grow up with a lack of creativity because teachers and parents are too lazy or afraid of looking stupid to really try. The failure of children to grow and learn in a balanced manner is the result of our (adults) failures. There's no magic bullet to solve this problem and there's no easy fix. Politicians and school boards need to start thinking of long term solutions and not short term "what will get me re-elected" strategies.

Spending millions on stupid common sense research studies would be better spent on reducing the ratio of classrooms and giving teachers more training and less micromanagement.

I'll second that...

[Jack_of_Hearts]

yeah....

That's interesting

[tyrani]

I understand your point of view, and that your opinion matters just as much as mine, but you're speaking out of your ass.

I doubt that you have seriously contemplated, or researched what you think about this point.

I also graduated grade school learning about LOGO and BASIC on a TRS-80. And I thought (and still think) that it's a waste of time to teach that type of computing.

I don't think that you've thought about how much education has changed because of the information revolution. Students are required to hand in essays with references from computer encyclopaedias and typed with specific formatting. There are some pretty advanced computing concepts that come into play that must be taught.

I agree that a balance should be achieved and that students should be taught creative and interesting lessons away from the computer, but technology is real shit, kids have to learn it too.

Re:That's interesting

[Wakko Warner]

Students are required to hand in essays with references from computer encyclopaedias and typed with specific formatting.

So, kids must learn computers because teachers now require research papers to be created on computers? I hope they teach them circular logic, too.

There are some pretty advanced computing concepts that come into play that must be taught.

Learning to use Word 2000 isn't exactly advanced. When I find a class full of 8-year-olds who can write me a nice stored procedure in Postgresql, I'll agree with you...

technology is real shit, kids have to learn it too.

Why? So they're ready to join the working world? It doesn't take 18 years to learn how to use a word processor and read email. My generation did fine without being taught.

- A.P.

Re:That's interesting

[Arandir]

It doesn't take 18 years to learn how to use a word processor and read email. My generation did fine without being taught.

Except for a friend's AppleII that I sometimes played the orginal Wizardry on, I never touched a computer until college. It didn't hurt me one little bit. I know program a half million dollar embedded system for a living. I can also run rings around those who had the "advantage" of playing with computers in elementary school. If it's not exactly how they learned it in elementary, junior, or high school, they freak. We've got program managers that can't put two words together without a Powerpoint slide. I've seen a guy at an onsite programming class actually use Word to write source code. He never could figure out why nothing would compile.

Re:That's interesting

[tyrani]

Students must develop skills, you can't just magically show them a series of steps and expect them to comprehend and recreate them for their own work. Teaching and learning computing concepts in elementary and high school is important. Not just to teach concepts in word 2000, but to teach students how to use the core functions of any word processor (and other programs) in order to quickly progress their line of thought when learning more advanced topics.

Just because you no longer consider a word processor, or a database challenging, don't think that an elementary student doesn't consider these advanced topics.

Our education system expects students to have a core education in language, grammar, and math. Our education system also expects students to have a core education in technology, however we are just now beginning to properly teach it.

Education exists so that people can develop and learn, not just to get a job. Students need to develop and learn about technology.

Re:That's interesting

[tyrani]

"Education is a way to help students learn about topics that they are weak in, and excel in what they are already good at"

Obviously you have some talent when it comes to technology. Some people don't; Picasso was good with paint and never took an art class in his life.

Re:That's interesting

[Wakko Warner]

Students must develop skills, you can't just magically show them a series of steps and expect them to comprehend and recreate them for their own work.

Yes, you can. It's called mathematics. Also phonics. Also diagramming sentences.

Learning how to use a word processor is absolutely no different. It isn't a creative task, like learning to make decisions or become curious about the world around them like some other subjects (such as arts and sciences courses) teach them.

Learning how to use the big beige box in the corner doesn't develop kids' brains.

- A.P.

Re:That's interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen a guy at an onsite programming class actually use Word to write source code.

Obviously not a very skilled Word user. He needed to save the output as .txt and not .doc format.

I wrote an entire large Assembly language (for a four bit NEC microprocessor)application using Microsoft Word for DOS back in the day. I wouldn't do it again that way but at the time it's what I had, and it worked fine.

There are probably still thousands of those devices (a hand held Iontophoresis device) still in use running that code.

Re:That's interesting

[jaseuk]

All the computers I used in primary (elementary) school where obsolete by the time I hit secondary (high) school, all the computers & software I used in secondary where obsolete by the time I hit college.

Computers can wait till high school, it doesn't hurt to have one in each classroom to develop INTEREST in technology, but saying that they are DEVELOPING SKILLS is an exageration. Those skills will be obsolete within 3 years.

Jason

Re:That's interesting

[Arandir]

Yes, I do have talent when it comes to technology. But I filter that fact through my knowledge that other people don't .

I have a friend who most certainly does not have such talent. He never touched a computer until he was thirty. He is able to use the internet, email, word processors, and several image processors. He even tried out SuSE Linux and got it fully installed and working, but didn't like it so went back to Windows. He maintains his own web page and writes his own html. He even has managed to install new drives, ram and video cards.

How can he do this with absolutely no talent with computers while other people can't even find the start button? Simple, because he views the computer as a tool and not some mystical force that has power over him. (sometimes it's a toy)

In terms of education, computers can be toys, tools or mystical forces. Very rarely are they used as tools in schools. If the teacher is afraid of computers then the students will learn to be afraid as well. If there are games available then it will become a toy. The best use of computers in education is as a tool. Just that, a tool. Use it to write reports in and search for information on the internet. Having taught programming at several levels of education, my experienced opinion is that it should not be attempted until age 13 or higher. Before that it is certainly possible, but it tends to be a toy (a puzzle to figure out and not a concept to learn). I also realize that some people will never grasp the basic concepts of programming, so it should never be a required subject.

Re:That's interesting

[tyrani]

We have an almost identical view on this subject. Have a look at my origional post in this slash

I think that clasically trained teachers do not currently have the skills required to teach technology in a classroom setting for the reason that you said. Computers are not viewed as a tool in education, but a suppliment or distraction.

Jokes on you

[Evil Pete]

Heh heh. You do realise that everything you know about computers will be mostly obsolete in about 5 years and totally obsolete in 10. That's the way it is. All your friends who started at 13 are just going to have to learn it all over again. That's why many developers give up and go into management ... can't handle the constant change (that orta get some negative comments and moderation).

Teaching computers to kids is total bullshit.

I was on a school policy committee to determine IT policy and I tried to point out to the really gung ho IT teacher that computers are only useful as tools AFTER the skill is learnt (eg drawing or writing). You can't use computers and expect it to accelerate creativity, it can only be a tool. My comments fell on deaf (and dumb) ears.

Re:Jokes on you

[LordNimon]

Heh heh. You do realise that everything you know about computers will be mostly obsolete in about 5 years and totally obsolete in 10.

Not if you learn how to program. Any experience/knowledge/skills/wisdom you gain, no matter how long ago it was, is still applicable.

it is not "research". it is "search".

[Anonymous Coward]

Reason: You can type more than that for your comment.
but i dont want to type more than that!

Poor potential education.

[JWSmythe]

Personally, this sounds like they're trying to criple their children..

<RANT>

I was in a lucky class, to get the first computer in the district when I was in 1st grade. It was a TRS 80 Model III. No one else took an interest in it, and the teacher couldn't even figure out how to work it, so I started playing with it. A few years later, the school invested in 10 Apple IIe's for their "computer lab". The teacher there once again had no clue.. I learned everything I could about it.. I'd read the manuals til I knew the in's and out's of it. I'd read through any available code til it was a second language to me.

Then on to the BBS's.. Want to see creative, look at the ASCII/ANSI graphics.. That's taking what you have available and being creative.

Tell me that hackers, phreakers, and crackers aren't creative. Not only could they think of things that shouldn't be possible, they'd make some of the most unique things possible and single-handedly reverse engineer what would take a team of "professional" programmers years to put together.

I'm sure quite a few of you can relate..

If I didn't have access to a computer from 1st grade, I probably wouldn't be able to do what I do now.. I could be a manager at a McDonalds, or grocery store. Maybe I'd be a low-level accountant or used car sales man.. With that little step forward, I've managed to be a SysAdmin, making decent money, living a good life..

My path probably isn't right for everyone, but tell me that the person who knows how to work their computer doesn't have a distinct advantage over the person who stares at the blue screen asking "what should I do now?". I'm one of those people who firmly believes that you should understand everything around you. It's important. You know how to check the oil in your car, change a lightbulb, and make toast in the morning, you should be able to work this relatively simple piece of office equipment.

Keep your children away from technology, and you will be ruining them for the rest of their lives. I saw one comment by someone who's a teacher, and all their students returned virtually identical powerpoint presentations.. Discourage duplication. Reward uniqueness. You need to *TEACH* them that copying the masses isn't going to get them by in life.

</RANT>

Re:Poor potential education.

[GiMP]

Yes, but a TRS-80 and older computers are much different then a computer of today.. also politics are different.

First of all, the students are given a LOCKED-DOWN machine that they are only able and allowed to point and click at stuff that the teacher says they can. This is usually includes Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office, and maybe a typing program. If a child does express any kind of interest in learning how to use a computer, does anything past the teacher's knowledge, or even looks at it in a funny way.. that child will be suspended for being a 'cyber terrorist', 'hacker', or other 'bad' words.

'wall' isn't hacking, but I know more then one kid who has been suspended for their ability to 'hack into other's terminals and write stuff to them'. I'll admit that doing 'wall' is pretty immature and isn't what the teacher had in mind, but to be considered a criminal?

Now, when you went to school.. computers were creative, they involved creativity and learning. Personal computers at that point weren't much more then hacked up toys for hackers.

Give the child unix, don't lock it down (further then it already is). Don't give them root.. but give them unix. They CAN grow, learn, be creative. Unfortunately, Microsoft Windows is meant for drones.. it does not encourage any kind of creativity that you describe.

Apple does still have some (limited) power amongst schools, and they do have execellent educational discount programs. In my honest opinion, OSX is the best thing that they have to offer children. A fun learning environment for the smart kids, with all the bells and whistles for the drones.

I Disagree

[Srin Tuar]

The reason computers arent useful in school is because almost all teachers are completely ignorant of them. If they were made available in a more natural way with competent educators around then computers in the classroom wouldnt be such a colossal waste.

(perhaps this goes back to how horribly underpaid teachers are)

Although I learned nothing from shcool computers, I did aquire a taste for programming at around 8 years old, outside of school. (You know you are a hardcore programmer when you give a presentation on binary arithmetic in elementary school)

What these parents arent saying is that they will be making computers available to their childern outside of the school, and that they will be knowledgeable mentors to the curious. That's what matters.

Boolean math for babies!

[Anonymous Coward]

The most important thing I want my kids to learn at an early age is how to do math in BINARY and HEX and to be familiar with the various logical operators. I'm talking kindergarten. Any kid with such a Boolean background will have little difficulty picking up anything and everything else related to computing.

Re:Boolean math for babies!

[Whardie Jones]

then he's going to ask the question why he has 10 fingers instead of 2.

I don't know if I agree or not

[tyrani]

I'm interested in your points.

"Since then, we've done some research, to find that children's psychological development reaches a real understanding of abstract concepts beginning at around age 12-14."

I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of the research you did. I'd be very interested in any books, studies, or sites that have this sort of information.

Re:I don't know if I agree or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Developmental psychology is not the easiest to research, but one can find any number of sources for material on the theories of Jean Piaget, whom the poster was probably referring to.

Re:I don't know if I agree or not

[tyrani]

Thanks for the link and the point to Jean Piaget. Does anyone else have any more places / people / books to look at?

Re:I don't know if I agree or not

[iguanacharlie]

The school mentioned in the article is a Waldorf school, and awsna.org probably has some links to these ideas.

Re:Not here or there!

[mcrbids]

(tv != computer games != videos)==abstracts.

Interestingly enough, there's alot to be learned in poker - skills of reading human behavior are not ones taught in public schools, as they aren't "book" learning. But, as Mr. Gates, and many other marketroids have shown us, are no less valuable.

These skills comprise the heart and soul of salesmanship - a most valuable skill, fundamental to the operation of a successful business or organization.

How does watching "Simpsons" or "Friends" teach our children even that?

Perhaps you can see why I'd much rather have my children play poker than watch TV?

-Ben

PS: My teen sons (13) are learning PHP and Python. Please re-read my post!

Wow, the ocntroversial project

[Anonymous Coward]

My feelings are that it is stupid to be spending so much money to have computers in schools when they can't even manage basic curriculum.

In most schools what happens is all the computers in the school are counted in the total number. So all those secretaries and management types get the brand new machines because they "need" them to do their small amount of word processing and their old computers get handed down to the student computer lab. It is a trickle down economy.

Frankly I would settle for a decent math and science education before spending thousands on unnecesary hardware. People barely have a concept of legible handwriting and we give them computers. In a lot of industries this is unacceptable. I am a physician and you have no idea how many prescriptions are screwed up because a person does not even know how to use a pen.

It makes me want to send my kids to a nice foreign school where they still scoff at creationism, have one or two computer classes and have a nice two hour physical education class.

Instead of computers how about upgrading that Grade D hormone-laden meat byproduct in the cafeteria, it will probably do less to stunt their brains.

Its a CULT !!!!

[jamesmcmurry]

I thought hey isnt it weird they dont teach reading in K-8 grades...... Look at this: http://www.waldorfcritics.org/ no WONDER they dont like computers - they dont even like black crayons !

Re:Its a CULT !!!!

[iguanacharlie]

This is an accusation that has been made relatively often about Waldorf schools. Here's a bit of detail:

The first Waldorf school was founded in Waldorf Germany in 1919 (iirc) by Rudolf Steiner. Steiner was, among other things a philosopher who developed a philosophy called Anthroposophy, which focuses largely on the spiritual nature of human beings. I've read only a little bit of his work, and I do find it rather hard to follow -- lots of talk about ethereal bodies, and whatever. So a lot of people see it as new-age, or occult, or just claptrap.

The important part of anthroposophy that Waldorf schools apply to their curriculum is the belief that education needs to meet more than just intellectual needs, that all sides of a child's being need to be nurtured. Their focus on children's stages of development means that they don't push rigorous academics early on. They also teach an interest in and respect for nature, as well as a focus on the spiritual side of life. (Yes, they do mention God, which is one reason why some people are adverse to the use of Waldorf methods in public schools.)

waldorfcritics.org is vehemently anti-Waldorf. If you're interested in the other side of the debate, you might want to look at awsna.org -- the Association of Waldorf Schools in North America.

By the way -- I think you meant to say "It's a cult!!!!"

what _can_ computers teach well?

[theplasticman]

Hmmm. I also hear lots of 'students should "learn computers"'. I don't know what that means. Learn to use a word processor? As Stoll says, that takes an afternoon.

But sometimes, computers can teach things really well. Check out Boxer Math Computer graphics can animate and allow manipulation of math concepts much better than any whiteboard, not to mention give continuous 1-on-1 instruction, which no teacher in a classroom can do. I think something like this can even save kids time by making their learning more efficient.

I think I agree mostly, though. I'd be skeptical of most other topics being taught by computer. If a school said they're going to have my young child 'learn computers', I'd vote against it unless they had a good, precise reason, in favor of music instruction.

Kids & Learning

[Bekwin]

Totally agree with Clifford Stoll. Kids should be active and inquisitive first and foremost in tactile sorts of ways. They should be playing and physically
active, learning how to use their bodies and seeing
what they can do. They should be learning stuff like
how to drive a nail, how to turn a screw, how to take physical objects apart and put them back together. They should be learning how to play a musical instrument both by themselves and as part of larger ensembles. They should be learning how to sing, how to tell stories orally before they learn
to write. The obsession for what passes for computer literacy is a fraud perpetrated by by the IT industries, esp M$. Most of it consists of training in a few elementary skills that are not only ephemeral in nature but quickly become obsolete. Their ultimate raisson d'etre is that they enable these companies to sell a lot of stuff and make a lot of
bucks and leave us wondering why our kids are overweight and anti-social.

Depends on how you use the computer.

[bigdreamer]

Point and click doesn't do much for creativity. But some of the most creative/smart/intelligent people I know have been building and/or programming computers since early childhood.

I really wish I was one of them. They have an extra 15+ years on me-sometimes I feel that I may never catch up.

Re:Research? - bull

[Technomancer]

Internet is not part of any "research".
You can use internet for "search".
"Research" is new things you invent or discover yourself.

My daughter at 21 months ...

[Dix]

... already knows all letters - both cases and several words, partly due to her exposure to computers. It's clear she will be able to type years before she can write. I could imagine she will have difficulty seeing the point of learning to write.

I bought a simple MIDI keyboard for her - surely this will only help her read music.

I can't see that excluding computers from a child's education can be anything but detrimental.

Re:My daughter at 21 months ...

[iguanacharlie]

Not to get into a competition, but...

My daughter's 3 now, so I'm digging back into memory. At 21 months she ...

• knew a few books by heart.
• could carry a tune and knew all the words to several songs
• could stand on one leg
• could stack over a dozen blocks into a tower.
• invented elaborate stories involving her dolls and wooden animals
• said "I love you" a lot

...without using a computer.

The point being that there is more to a child's development than academic skills. Computers help with a few aspects of development, and hinder many others.

Note: I'm talking about early childhood here. By all means, once a kid's in double-digit years, if they're interested in computers, get them a good cheap used computer, your favorite OS, a couple O'Reilly books, and let them loose.

Think about what's really being discussed.

[Romancer]

A child wants to play and run and make noise.

A computer user is a person that wants to learn or play in a computer generated environment.

A computer Programmer is someone who wants to work in a computer generated environment for a better experience when they work or play in a computer generated environment later.

These are different stages of a person getting into computers as well. They start really learning when they have an interest in what can be accomplished with a computer.

A child learns to crawl before they learn to walk,
so it follows that a child needs to learn how to interact with the real world before they can benifit from a vertual one.

Silly me

[flimflam]

I thought it was 5050.

:-(

A book I read a while ago with this viewpoint

[tyrani]

Here's an interesting book I read that explores why computers don't belong in the classroom: High-Tech Heretic by Clifford Stoll

Re:A book I read a while ago with this viewpoint

[rackrent]

I actually taught, in a college honors course, a section of this book by Stoll (I think it was this one), and I was surprised by the class' reaction.

Why? Me, being a techie, figured: "well all these damn-ass smart freshman should love computers and want to use them in the classroom 24/7! w00t!!" Interestingly, most of them hated the idea of having computer-mediated instruction (guess they didn't know the class was computer-mediated) at any level of education.

Conversely, less-adept college freshman like the computers, until they realize I can shut off their AIM remotely.

Point is, computers are by no means a panacea to real or perceived educational ills (a la Stoll), at least not until educational technologists figure out the best way to use them, and that may never happen.

Spread the Word

[InternalWave]

I've done my share of interviews, and first and foremost my concern is, what is this person like as a human being? Can they get along with people? Can they function as part of a team? Are they capable of research and independent thinking?

I think that a kid growing up these days is already in trouble when it comes to developing a lot of these skills. Video games, TV, and declining lack of funding for a variety of programmes, including physical education, are already stultifying the current generation, and computers in schools are another nail in the coffin.

The technical knowledge and experience aren't secondary but let's face it - as others have said a person can establish a solid basis in CS and programming in a couple of years. I don't even see a strong argument for wasting time in high-school teaching students about programming. Considering the math skills I see these days the time would be better spent teaching formulation of problems.

I'm old enough that I went through the school system and there were no computers. Hell, calculators were rare. First exposure was at university, if you were in CS or in hard sciences. But I am in the biz and have been for quite a while, with one break back in the late '80's. And trying to take changed circumstances into account I still cannot imagine how computer experience in grade school is of any benefit whatsover. I can certainly think of a number of ways in which it would detract.

I chose the subject line because for those of us who influence hiring it's maybe our responsibility to let parents know what counts and what doesn't count. If you have friends or siblings or acquaintances with kids, and the subject comes up, let them know what you really look for in an employee. If you know teachers, let them know also. The outstanding qualities in a good programmer are imagination, willingness to think outside the box, and the ability to problem solve. I've worked with very good programmers who never saw a computer until after college - they have degrees in business, philosophy, English, math, etc etc. They developed these qualities by being forced to think.

The articles resonated with me. Perhaps it is a generational thing.

I agree totally.

[PotatoHead]

Kids *need* to develop important skills through 8th grade. Computers need to be a part, but not early on. (games are enough!) Time spent reading writing and thinking is time spent honing ones mind. Time well spent.

My own childhood was spent in a small town in the country. Lots of time playing in the woods, reading, exploring, camping, sports etc... School was similar. Nothing high tech, but the learning happened anyway. Today, plenty of things are easy without using a computer, and I like it that way.

Re:Not here or there!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you can see why I'd much rather have my children play poker than watch TV?

This is a lovely line. Someone mod this guy up.

Re:Not here or there!

[Arandir]

You missed his main point. There is a thing called "child phychology", and its basic premise is that children are not adults. They think differently than adults. In fact, they think differently at different ages.

Giving a seven year old Mathematica is ludicrous.

(I minored in child psychology, so I think I know at least one or two things on the topic)

Compare the work

[Anonymous Coward]

This topic seems to have struck a few nerves 8-)

I send my kids to a Waldorf school, and in my
experience, the quality of education is much
higher than it is in technology rich public
or private schools.

Compare the work being done by Waldorf students
to the work being done elsewhere, you will be
amazed at the difference in quality.
Part of that difference is due to strict limits
on technology - IMHO the computer has become
less educational the more "beautiful" it
has become. If you want your kids to learn
technology, teach them to program microcontrollers, show them how to solder, but
keep them away from computers.

Most computer skills (word processing, spreadsheets, powerpoint, etc, that non-
programmers use) can be learned in just a
few hours. Computers are no more educational
than TV.

Re:riighhht.

[fireboy1919]

I remember learning the basics of arithmatic from one of those little learning calculators - I used it a lot. I think that little thing was the beginning of what I loved about Mathematics.

I also remember learning to read with the help of a Tape device with buttons that formed a menu - it was called a "Talk 'n Play," I believe.

A few years later (about third grade) I started using the computers, and learned about the order of operations, flowcharts, and basically everything that I needed to know to start thinking about writing programs. I also read at least 8 novels a year for from third grade on until about my 9th grade year (I don't actually remember how many I read anymore; that was a while ago, so I did a low estimate).

When I got to use an X86 finally, I really took off, learning things left and right.

Whats the point? Computer-like learning interface enhanced my ability to learn and accelerated my education.

If you ever read anything about learning, you must know that there is a special case of learning: the untainted learner - the person who fundamentally desires to learn as much as possible in an area (or in all areas) with whatever means of learning are available.

For these people, the best way to teach them is to try to transfer the knowledge to them as fast and as much as possible, and they will work hard to absorb it. This is exactly possible with today's computers and computer-based learning interfaces. They are totally designed for this.
It IS possible to work on gaining knowledge without worrying about learning "computers."

This is not always the case, however, and certainly doesn't apply to most learners. Usually, its much better to give a little bit at a time and give periods of absorption.

A few points

[Compenguin]

I grew up witha computer at home from an early age (and both my parents used computers at work, ny dad had a sun worksatation and my mom had an IBM). I remember when my mom brought home a PS/2 from work (and i mean the oldschool IBM PC not the videogame console) when i was about 5. I played classic sierra adventure games (like KQIV and QfGI) on it. In the games, I read from the screen, and I typed commands. I thought of solutions to the problems presented to me. I learned about MS-DOS to get into the games (and most of my friends who use UNIX in highschool grew up with DOS) while most of the Non-Unix users didn't. In fourth and fifth grades I played with basic.

And on a note about conformance: In elementary school children conform. TEaching the children blind nationalism is teaching them to conform. Letting them color outside of the lines isn't non-conformist if they don't understand any other way. I conformed with the norms throught elementtary school. I began to doubt and challenge the system in Junior high while many of my peers didn't. Computers won't turn children into conformists.

Computers in 1st grade...

[Wing]

Computers in first grade do solve one problem...

Coloring in the lines...

Instead of trying hard with that dull crayon to color within the lines, one click with the fill tool in photoshop and you're never outside the lines again ;)

Re:Not here or there!

[Peyna]

Agreed, the only truly useful programming on TV is either on PBS, Discovery, or the History channel. (Any news channel as well.) The rest is solely for entertainment purposes, etc.

It's the software

[Anonymous Coward]

The push to throw money at a technology solution for education comes from a generation that is scared to death of computers. These people can only aspire to be AOL lamers.

So the technology becomes a babysitter and a crutch as the point comes to be to learn how to use basic applications like MS Office that are constantly being reengineered to require less and less brains to use. So using mind-numbingly simple applications developed for computer phobic clerical workers becomes the "technology solution" and it DOES stifle creativity.

There is no sensible definition of "computer literate" and absolutely no direction to the push for technology in classrooms. It's not enough to just buy a bunch of PC's and connect to the internet. What do are the students supposed to do with them?

Twenty years ago, it required some non-trivial problem solving skills to do anything useful with a computer. That's just not true any more.

Slashdot proves this is valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a scan through the various responses to this article proves it's validity. Most of these responses are replete with spelling and grammar errors-- not just obscure errors, but often blatant and obvious errors.

I'm no longer even surprised to see kids coming out of college who are hired by my company and can NOT write a simple letter or put together a sentence. The vast majority can't even write an email.

I, for example, refuse to use the spellchecker on the computer. If I don't know a word, I get out a dictionary and look it up. That forces me to actually learn it.

I hope I haven't offended anyone. My advice to young slashdotters is simple, learn to communicate. The CFO doesn't understand how brilliant you are at debugging code. He will judge you by the barely intelligible email you send him.

Re:Slashdot proves this is valid

[WildBeast]

Yet you post anonymously. Keep in mind that not everyone in here lives in the U.S. and so yes you're going to find a lot of spelling errors.

I disagree

[HanzoSan]

I did badly in school, and nearly dropped out, I discovered computers, and did a complete turn around, I switched schools to one of those new alternative schools which had alot of computers, 2-3 computers in every classroom and guess what, I nearly made honor roll, graduated with a scholarship etc etc.

I dont think computers matter in first grade as much, first graders however can use computers to help learn certain subjects.

Reading.
Math.
History.

These 3 subjects are easier learned on computers. How do i know? Because i never learned a damn thing about any of these 3 subjects from a text book.

Example of how to get a kid to learn from a computer, send the kid to the computer lab or to the computer inthe classroom, make sure its internet connected. Ask the kid to research say dr martin luther king, the kid will go from website to website and learn the very important art of how to gather information and learn on their own.

The kid will find 4-5 diffrent pages on Martin Luther King, the kid will then write up a paper based on these pages they read complete with bibliography.

After the paper is typed up (this is much much faster than doing draft1, draft2, draft3 in handwriting and teaches your kid how to type)

Your kid learned to type, learned to read, and learned history all at the same time while learning to use the internet and learning to learn without being guided by a text book.

This is how i learned history.

Math can be learned using computers as well, for younger kids an interactive math game would be great. For older kids who know the basics, teaching them computer programming would be great. Computer programming teaches kids to solve problems and thats what math really is, it also teaches attention to detail, something most people dont learn until they get a job and get forced to learn it.

Reading, the best thing a computer can teach, is reading. Let the kid browse the net for fun, knowing all during this time the kid is learning to read.

Honestly, I learned to read from playinng role playing games on my Nintendo, reading magazines for video games, and other fun stuff.

People learn to read when they discover somethinng that interests them and dont know how to understand it.People do not learn to read by using coloring books, and reading generic childrens books, people also dont like being forced to read.

With computers, everyone can read exactly what they want, a teacher can be around to help guide them, when they find words they dont know (I still do this evven now) Teach them to go to a dictionary search page and enter the world and now they know what it means. Using classic dictionaries are slower and its silly for kids to be forced to learn about words they already know (Open book and go look up these words and write the definition) The kid learns nothing doing repetitive tasks.

How do I konw? Because i didnt learn much in school mainly due to boring repetitive tasks, If i do something once or twice, i know it, i dont need to practice it for weeks, the internet would allow someone to prove they know what they know, you cant use computers if you dont know reading and math, and the act of using the net unless its for pornography, is research.

Early computer experience breeds

[ruvreve]

HACKERS......a lot of 'evil' hackers that I have talked to all have said they started using and loving computers at an early age. They were writing BASIC programs since they were 6 and other things of this nature. Could it be that getting involved with computers so early deprived them of the time to learn about the rest of the world and mature as upstanding citizens? I was first introduced to computers and BBSes as a freshman in high school and ever since I have had little concern for trying to maintain an active social life with all the 'cool' people. I was more concerned with playing Carmen Sandiego, Simcity and Tradewars. I apologize if my use of 'hacker' was not in accordance with correct geek definition.

Re:Not here or there!

[fisternipply]

I used Mathematica as a crutch. It helped me get an engineering degree without actually being able to do math...go figure. I'm with Cliff.

Teach them properly next time

[HanzoSan]

Well thats because kids have to be TAUGHT to use computers to learn, its not going to be instant.

Tell them to use powerpoint, but list the steps.

Research your information using the internet.(gather information)

Create new information from gathered information.(dont forget to spell check)

Create useful graphics to explain the information

The last part, put the information in order.

Before you tell a kid to use powerpoint, find out if the school even teaches a class on powerpoint. If they teach a class on powerpoint then the kids know how to use powerpoint, if they dont, then its your job to give them a crash course on how to use power point.

Its sorta like giving a kid a text book and telling them to use it to learn, some kids will, some wont. Your job isnt to collect work and then grade them, your job is to teach them the proper method to create good work, the way to learn while creating good work to prove they learned.

That should be the goal, not their grade point average, not how much work is completed, but quality work.

I'm not a teacher, but ive had my ups and downs in school, and from experience, my success in school came when i learned how to learn using the tool i was most comfortable with which happened to be computers, not everyone can handle computers, not everyone can handle the text book, but everyone learns somehow and everyone can learn to handle text books or computers.

Going to a steiner school was great.

[stinkyelf]

From about year 1 to year 7 (I'm 24 now) I went to a waldorf school (they are known as steiner schools here in Australia), and never really used a computer till around year 10 when I had to do some cad for my design and tech class, from memory we didn't have a computer at home until I was in year 11 (my parents are still hopeless with computers so definately weren't techies).

Going to a steiner school certainly didn't hold me back as a programmer (current job though I want to get back outdoors a bit more), it also probably made me more inquisitive about constructing things and pulling things to bits to figure out how they worked, both real things and computer things.

I really enjoyed going to a steiner school, we learnt a hell of a lot about the bush, art (not as in art history, more about doing stuff ourselves) and sports, mostly as enjoyment rather than competition (eg going bushwalking, swimming in the river etc.), though we did of course play soccer at lunch, the lack of competitive sports as part of the curiculum hasn't held me back at all when it comes to sports (I compete in sailing on an international level).

because of the totally different method of learning I had a bit of a shock going into a public school halfway through year 7 and coming across algebra and strict timetables etc.

something which I'm not sure if it's because of the school I went to or what, though I very rarely play games on the computer, never really have, always use it for making things or learning rather than as a form of entertainment.

So you grew up before the internet generation

[HanzoSan]

Word processor? hahahaha

Ok, word processors are ok, but if a kid learns to properly use the internet, nothing compares to that.

Powerpoint is perfect for presentations if a kid knows how to use it.Adults in corperations use power point all the time and they dont get distracted by pretty colors, what are you thinking?

Power point is a tool, a tool that if properly used, can produce good work. Sure a kid can be like "oh cool a computery gadget"

but a kid sitting in front of a text book can do the same thing, space out and daydream all day.

At least by allowing them to be creative you have a better chance at keeping their attention on something thats most likely boring as hell.

Computer a toy? TV is a toy too and schools used TV, pencils can be a toy, when i was in school i would spend my time drawing stuff because yes even the pencil can be a toy.

Paper can be a toy, ive made paper airplanes in class.

Anything can be a toy, the goal is to teach a kid to use it as a tool.

Re:So you grew up before the internet generation

[gfxguy]

Adults in corperations use power point all the time and they dont get distracted by pretty colors, what are you thinking?

"Sales Managers who agonize over PowerPoint slides waste time that could be spent making sales calls."

I read an article a couple of years ago how some companies are forbidding the use of powerpoint specifically because people waste so much time making content look pretty when they could be gathering/analyzing content better. People were competing based on form.

My opinion is that you can make slides, you can even use a computer (even PowerPoint) to do it, but as soon as someone wastes even one second trying to decide what background image to use, you are wasting time. If the content can't carry the interest of the people watching the presentation, maybe there's something wrong with the content.

Re:So you grew up before the internet generation

[DerekLyons]

Ok, word processors are ok, but if a kid learns to properly use the internet, nothing compares to that.

Ah, so mindlessly learning rote cut 'n paste is better than teaching tools to stimulate creativity?

Powerpoint is perfect for presentations if a kid knows how to use it.Adults in corperations use power point all the time and they dont get distracted by pretty colors, what are you thinking?

I'm thinking that corporations believe the existence of a Powerpoint presentation automagically is proof that there is thought behind the topic of the presentation. (They confuse the media and the message.) That is, they certainly *do* get distracted by the pretty colors.

Re:So you grew up before the internet generation

[Jaycatt]

Not necessarily...

It also depends on the audience. My company regularily makes presentations to a board of directors. They get glossy eyed over statistics that aren't properly presented. With them, you're trying to build enthusiasm to get approval for a project. Black text on white sheets in columns just won't do it.

Re:So you grew up before the internet generation

[schmink182]

pencils can be a toy, when i was in school i would spend my time drawing stuff because yes even the pencil can be a toy.

Yes, pencils can be a toy. However, when a childs use pencils as toys to draw doodles, they are spending their time improving their abilities, for something that could *possibly* become a job. But have you ever heard of a person whose sole job is to use Power Point?

Children's programming languages

[TopherC]

Are there any good programming languages for teaching children these days? Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I haven't heard of any in the past ~15 years.

I basically agree with this article, but I also think that learning to use a computer at the right time, in the right way, and with ballance must be a good thing.

I learned to program in basic in 4th grade (on a TRS-80), and at the time it worked for me because computers were new and there weren't any more fun things to do on computers. There were practically no games and word processors were terrible. Since the "bar" was so low, any simple programs I could write seemed pretty cool, and kept me working at it. It was open-ended and fostered creativity. However, few other kids were interested in basic programming at that time.
When in high school, I tutored younger children who were learning to program in something like "turtle", where programs controled a drawing turtle. That was more attractive to students, since it was more artistic and gave a more concrete feedback.

But since then I haven't heard of anything for children, and the emphasis seems to be on learning to use software instead. I think that a little background in programming could be more helpful in the long term.

What programming languages are there that are appropriate for using at a young age? They should be relatively simple, allow for as much visualization as possible, and be powerful enough to make interesting things happen. This might just be a high-level library for an existing language, or something totally different.

A visual programming language, where you "draw" loops and such, might fit the bill. Are there any good ones?

Re:Children's programming languages

[BitHerder]

I believe Smalltalk was originally designed to teach students, though I don't know what the target age was. It's a very simple, intuitive language with no memory manipulation -- I think Java's garbage collection was inspired in part by Smalltalk. Plus, it's pure OO.

Of course, the $5k license will probably keep it out of the hands of children ;)

Re:Children's programming languages

[Mulletroll]

I remember a game in the apple lab in high school where you were given a bunch of objects to position around, and a goal to solve, (like get the ball through the hoop using a fan, umbrella, spring, etc..)

I forget what it's called.

To me, that seems like a "visual programming" type of situation, because you have to figure out the behavior, order and position of the "operators"
to solve a problem. I liked it.

I also learned Logo in school when I was little. I think that was one of the best things I got to learn in school.

Re:Children's programming languages

[TopherC]

Hmm, I've heard a lot of good things about smalltalk, but I haven't learned it myself. So I can't really comment. But I won't let that stop me! :-)

Sounds like smalltalk is great for learning at the college level, or maybe possibly late in high school. But at ages 10-16, I doubt it would work as well.

I feel (though it can be argued either way) that children would learn better from a more procedural language. The first conceptual hurdle is how the computer follows your instructions to the letter. Tracing the flow of an OO program is more difficult than a simple procedural program. Even the concept of functions doesn't come at first. The concepts learned from procedural programming *do* carry over when advancing to OO techniques.

I guess a good young-learning language should be flexible, allowing students to learn as much technique and sophistication as they are ready to. But the entry level should be as simple as possible.

Re:Children's programming languages

[TopherC]

Oh, yes! Thanks, I couldn't remember the name of the language last night: Lolo.

I've heard about visual languages for several years, but the first one I've really seen and played with is LabVIEW (the visual programming language is just one aspect of this package). This isn't suited for early education since its focus is on measurement and data analysis. And it's expensive. But I'm sure it's not the only language of its kind. It is easy to learn and debug, and seems to provide just the right visualizations of programing concepts.

True Story...

[zulux]

I got hold of an old IBM 'Letter Quality' impact printer and hooked it up to my TRS-80 - I used typing paper; one day, one of my teachers complement me on having the perserverance and skill to use an old typewriter.

Re:Here here -- NOT!

[UncleRoger]

I sat in the hot tub at the YMCA last week listening to a former telephone company repairman (retired about 10 years ago) tell me about how much better off the computer industry because of Microsoft's innovations and that they obviously make a superior product.

I love how people who have no training or experience feel perfectly qualified to offer their "expert" opinions.

For those that home-school -- do you also do surgery on your kids? Do you fix their cavities? My mother used to cut my hair -- and I hated going to school afterwards.

And we have Clifford Stoll -- a second rate astronomer -- passing judgement on how schools educate.

Computers are not miracle devices, they are tools just like anything else. Used properly, they do make a significant difference, especially in early education. They are not a replacement for parent involvement or adequate school funding, but they are very worthwhile. Blanket abandonment of technology in education is no better than unquestioning praise.

Tech Land?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time I was in Oregon it could be better described as Drive Around In Pickup Truck And Smoke Pot Land.

Yes and No

[detritus.]

I can remember back in Elementary school having the once-a-week trip to the computer lab, fashioned with the blazing-fast macintosh LC's.
Sim City and drawing with Kid Pix were what we played with after doing keyboarding or whatever. 1 hour once a week really wasn't that much, however that exposure was definitely beneficial being most kids didn't have a computer/weren't allowed to touch daddy's new Tandy computer... I didn't get a computer until I was 12, but by then, just from the small exposure in elementary school was beneficial then...

This is a test.

[Anonymous Coward]

test:

Much better than "^H^H^H^H^H"! I hope this tag isn't deprecated!

A couple of thoughts...

[Phroggy]

I read the article in the paper on the bus this morning on my way to work. I had a few thoughts:

As another posted mentioned, people who don't understand computers are the ones who think we need to teach computers. Sometimes that can be true - I think everyone needs some exposure to computers, because (and I say this after having done technical support for about four years now) people who don't have exposure to computers tend to fear computers, and people who fear computers will completely turn off their brains and disregard all common sense when any piece of technology is nearby. There are brain surgeons who can't decipher a plain-English dialog box simply because they believe computers to be too complicated to understand. Exposure to computers in a non-threatening (preferably non-Microsoft) environment would solve this problem and make the world a better place - and in fact, I've noticed a gradual decline in blatent stupidity over the years, as people use computers more.

However, what children should be taught about computers are concepts, not applications or specific tasks (you can use tasks to teach concepts, but be careful of the lines you draw). For example, teaching word processing (using Microsoft Word) is good, teaching Microsoft Word (which is used for word processing) is bad.

I remember a great game for the Apple II that let you set up a series of machines to rotate and punch holes in a square, and you had to figure out what it would look like when it got through to the end. That helps students to think, and really has nothing to do with the computer itself - the computer is just a tool for the simulation, because it wouldn't be a very practical game to play in the physical world.

Teaching programming is great. It teaches students how to think in a way they're not used to thinking, and that stretches the mind. Again, whether they're using BASIC or C or Python or VB or Java isn't that important (although some of those languages have annoying bits that get in the way of learning concepts, and I think it's helpful to start with a simpler language like BASIC before tackling a complex one like Java).

Too many schools have gotten technology grants that let them wire every classroom for Ethernet, but don't have qualified staff to make use of the computer lab they already had. Politicians think a computer in every classroom sounds like a great ambition, but don't realize it's really pretty useless. How do you make use of one or two computers in the back of a classroom? Sure, a couple students can type a paper while the rest of the class is working on projects without having to walk down the hall to the lab or library, and maybe with an LCD projector the teacher could use PowerPoint to illustrate a lecture (yeah, as if teachers have time to make PowerPoint presentations). That's about all I can think of.

Re:Not here or there!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta love mathematics packages. "Oh, you spent an hour inverting that 10x10 matrix? I just typed 'inverse'." :)

A different point of view

[JetJaguar]

I agree to some extent with your position, but don't you think it's just a tad short-sighted? All the anti-technology-in-education people seem to be under the impression that we already know everything there is to know about learning and technology. This is pretty obviously a false statement. The use of computers as learning aids is still in its infancy. I'll agree with anyone that complains about the rather horrible use of computers in education *today*, but is that because computers and education just don't mix? Or is it because we haven't figured out how to properly integrate them into education?

When most teachers barely know how to use computers to begin with, how can you possibly expect them to be able to utilize them effectively in the classroom? And what about all that crappy educational software out there? Who writes that stuff? Who designs the interfaces? Educators? I don't think so. At best, an educator might be brought in as a consultant, but they probably aren't all that involved in the day to day development. I can assure you from personal experience that the hackers that write the software and design the interfaces are clueless when it comes to good educational design...

At any rate, I would say that the jury is still out on this issue. It's safe to say that what we're doing right now is pretty bad, but I'm not convinced that it will remain that way.

Re:A different point of view

[dsfox]

The question is what to do right now, particularly with kids in preschool through third grade. We had a computer for our six and three year olds, but they spent so much time using it as essentially a substitute TV that it conveniently "broke".

Cult Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Woman Sees Waldorf Racism On First Visit

Art vs Tech: Shrek vs Spirits Within

[Vegan Pagan]

Movies alone can verify why schools should prefer art over tech:

Shrek:
$47M cost
noticably imperfect animation
cool plot and voice acting
made $600M global (including DVD and VHS purchase and rental).

Spirits Within:
$140M cost
near-perfect animation
lifeless plot and voice acting
made $100M global (including DVD and VHS purchase and rental)

The numbers alone prove what our schools should teach.

Re:Art vs Tech: Shrek vs Spirits Within

[DerekLyons]

The numbers alone prove what our schools should teach.

It proves that they should study Economics and Marketing. Going after the mass (and family) market is almost (99% of the time) far more profitable than going after the specialty market. Just ask Ray Kroc, his marketing scheme from very early on was based on attracting families. (He figured if parents brought their kids, *those* kids would form the habit and bring *their* kids. Seems to have worked.)

Problems in American schools?

[Kupek]

Not necessarily disagreeing with his thesis, I take exception to this:

• What are problems in American schools? It is often discipline, lack of attention, poor study habits, the unwillingness to sit down, in a disciplined manner, and learn.

As far as I can tell, he really doesn't have any experience teaching, which means he is basing this conclusion not on emperical evidence, but on his own assumptions.

Being a colledge undergrad who has recent memories of my public school days, I'd say one of the biggest problems any educational system faces is making the class interesting. Kids won't learn if it's boring as hell--and no, I won't accept that some stuff is just plain boring. Everything can be made interesting.

Re:Problems in American schools?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell, he really doesn't have any experience teaching, which means he is basing this conclusion not on emperical evidence, but on his own assumptions.

Maybe research was something *you* should have learned in school. A brief google shows that he has kids of his own. (Which gives him some insight.)

Go to Amazon and read About The Author. Or maybe it wasn't interesting enough to you to do more than a drive-by slam.

Re:Problems in American schools?

[Kupek]

And I said no experience teaching. Was I wrong? No. I made the (correct) assumption that if he had any experience teaching the grade level of which he is talking--a rather improtant thing to note given what he is talking about--that the article would have mentioned it.

If having kids made one an expert in our school systems, then we'd have a nation of experts. Not that it doesn't give him experience with it, but he is making claims for which I see no evidence. Insight does not equal evidence, which is necessary if you're going to back up claims like that.

I disagree.

[Minupla]

Were it not for access to a computer in the early years I would have been moved to a "non-academic" stream. Why? Because I'm dysgraphic and was unable to write my answers down. (Dysgraphia is a syndrome that spawns from the same physiological causes as dyslexia but primarily effects the putting of characters on paper, rather then the reading them off of paper.) My verbal IQ was over 20 points sperated from my written IQ. They worked this out after I started typing my homework, and suddenly started getting the answers right because I could concentrate on the _thought_ process, rather then the physical process of writing.

I would be horrified to think that children to come after me would be without this incredibly enabling technology.

Re:I disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn you retarded.

Re:I disagree.

[Minupla]

(I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls, doesn't happen often, but I couldn't resist)

I'm sure you ment to say:
Damn you're retarded.

Glad to see you managed to find the shift keys and everything though. Keep up the good work, one day you might be good enough to post as an actual user.

Hey techers!

[nice]

Leave those kids alone!

All in all you're just another brick in the wall...

Computers aren't bad, parents are bad...

[samdu]

I'm 32. I got my first computer when I was in elementary school. It was a Timex/Sinclair 1000. It was interesting, and started my interest in computers . My next machine was a Commodore 64, then two Amigas. Maybe it's because of the creative opportunities these machines offered, maybe it was that I was always artistic, maybe it was because I was musically inclined, or maybe it was because MY DAD PAID ATTENTION, but I think I turned out fine. I draw, paint, play sax, write, and think logically. Exposure to computers didn't stifle any of this, it enhanced it. Computers are a tool and a creative outlet for me. The problem with computers comes at the same time that it does with TV, or games, or daycare. If a parent thinks that all little Johnny needs is a computer and Internet access to learn everything he needs to know, sure, the kid will probably fail. But if the parent takes an active part in the development of the child, computers can be a valuable resource. As can the other media listed above. I'm getting really sick of the current crop of parents looking for outside influences to blame for thier kids not turning out right. John Walker Lind, Dillon Clevold, etc... These guys didn't exactly have the most attentive parents in the world.

-Sam

Re:Perhaps some remedial education for the adults

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you expect children to learn to question what they're told if they're not allowed to weird language a bit?

Not representative of average Oregon schools

[apayne]

It appears that /. might have taken the Oregonian a little too seriously. The article chronicles the ideals of a single private school in Hillsboro. The Oregonian is not always representative of average people in Oregon. People who live in the Northwest know this. I am a daily reader of the local rag just the same.

As a network administrator at Portland Public Schools [a public school system of 100 public schools in Oregon], I can tell you that this is not what's happening in average schools here. Far from it.

Everyone is demanding computing tools for the children to use. The school systems are having a hard time providing the latest tools in a timely manner as the educational priorities do come first. Computing is used primarily to supplement curriculum here, not replace it. You would have a hard time finding a public school with less than a hundred networked computers here.

On the open-source front, the Portland-metro area has one of the larger linux user groups in the country. Hardware is provided to schools for free through organizations sponsored through donations by technology companies (StRUT is one such organization). There are two groups using this hardware to develop the Linux Terminal Server Project into the backbone for K-12 computer labs.. This was mentioned briefly at LinuxWorld last September.

Computers: easy part of the cirriculum

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was in high school (St6 - St10), there were a number of subject choices:

English, Afrikaans, Mathematics, Physics/Chem, Biology, Tech Drawing, Geography, Accounting, Computers, Streetlaw, Art, History, Latin and a few others.

English, Afrikaans and Mathematics and EITHER (Physics/Chem or Bio) were required. No choice in taking them or not.

But everything other than that you could choose what you wanted to take, and let's face it, most kids just wanted to get as many HG A's or B's as possible, so the easiest way to do that was to take easy subjects.

The easiest route was the Mickey Mouse subjects: (History, Art, Biology) combination. Unfortunately, most people recognize these as Mickey Mouse subjects.

The other easy route was to take the easy-but-technical subjects... Computers, Streetlaw (cut down for high-school version of law) and Physics/Chem (ok, so this is really the only mildly difficult subject of the three). You could quite easily end up with an "A" for Streetlaw and Computers on HG, and make people who took really difficult subjects (Physics/Chem + Accounting + Latin etc) look bad...

So, in summary, it's a SMART thing to do. Take Computers and Streetlaw, or whatever the equivalents are in the US, which are really as easy as the Mickey Mouse subjects (History, Art, etc) but not considered Mickey Mouse by most people. (On Slashdot a lot of people have already commented that they DO realize this, at least about high-school Computers, but to non-tech people, computers at school seems like an "Advanced" subject).

Silly

[MikeFM]

Using a computer hardly keeps you from exploring the real world. Quite the opposite. I've found use of computers stirs a thirst. If you explore the Internet, a game such as Final Fantasy, or an encyclopedia on cd-rom you encounter new ideas and you want to fill that need anyway you can. It's the same as reading books. Sure you can say that reading to much keeps you from living your life but more often reading leads you to study the world on your own, travel, and in general think about things more.

If you think that computers stifle creativity then obviously you have never created anything on them. It could be true that there are few tools a young child can use to be creative but if that is so the solution is to write more programs children can use in a creative manner. A crayon is not creative but put into the hands of someone it allows them to be creative. A computer should be the same way.

Using a computer should be a social experience. Children should use them together both in person and online. A good deal of the problem is so called protective laws make it difficult to make a child-oriented place for children to be social online. As if by closing all the worlds playgrounds you could stop child abuse.

"At what price learning? At what cost wisdom?"
"The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life."
Kampus, by james e. gunn

Re:Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you can say that reading to much keeps you from living your life but more often reading leads you to study the world on your own, travel, and in general think about things more.

Reading may often lead to those things, but more often it just leads to more reading.

Ever see a friendly linux admin????? SCARY

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh god, I can see it now no computers till 14, and where do you suppose we will get the grumpy, mean spirited, pompous asses which call themselves #unix on efnet???

A grumpier, more arrogant, group I don't think you will find.

Computers are good

[Bugmaster]

In my school, classes progressed in parallel. In Physics, we learned how to conduct experiments. In Statistics, we learned standard deviation, etc., so we can correlate the data from the experiments. In DBase (yes, I'm old) we learned how to organize a database for all the data. In Pascal, we learned how to write simulations, etc., which DBase wasn't all that great for. It was virtually impossible to get a good grade in any of these classes without thorough understanding of the material - if you can't understand physics, you won't be able to write a program that understands it, either.

So, I'd say that computers are a good thing, if used properly. Obviously, giving every student a laptop with Web access and then walking away won't do anyone any good; however, it does not follow that computers are completely useless. When used as an instruction tool, computers are priceless.

Doing math in your head wont get you a job

[HanzoSan]

I agree you should know the basics, addition, multiplication, subtraction and division, the BASICS.

But i dont think you need to know advanced maths in your head. Use a calculator and master the calculator, it was created for that specific purpose, most adults dont remember all the advanced maths.

I remember the basics, thats all thats needed.

You cant really properly use a computer without knowing basic maths, i mean how can you do stuff if you dont know how to add and subtract.

Oh course people should learn that, mainly so they can handle their finances if they dont have a calculator. However i wouldnt make it a rule, i'd make it an addition. While its good to learn the calculator, its better to learn how the calculator works, i'd teach the kid to use the calculator, then show the kid what the calculator is doing.

make the kids ask questions, because then you know they truely want to learn.

Re:Doing math in your head wont get you a job

[TFloore]

One of the problems I have with calculators is that it seems to be making people who *can't* do math in their heads. Even simple addition and subtraction.

And I can give a good example of this without any effort at all. How many stores have you been in where making change without the register is a major issue?

Bill for $7.27 and you hand over a $10, then say wait a sec and hand over 2 pennies. Do you ever get an expression of surprise from the clerk/cashier "Hey, that came out even, wow" when the change is 2 bucks and 3 quarters, and no pennies/nickels/dimes?

Yes, everyone here is much too superior to work in retail or fastfood (that was the impression I got from the article about tech unemployment) but it'd be nice if we actually taught things so that the 99% of society that doesn't program *also* doesn't blindly trust computers because they were never taught to figure things out on their own.

Plus, it's good protection for typos when using a calculator... Did you reverse two numbers? Was that 15 times 17, or 15 times 71? If you spend a lot of time doing it on paper or in your head, you'll eventually develop a feel for reasonable answers. Blindly trusting the calculator? "Umm, it told me it was this, so it must be right."

Blind trust is bad, whether in calculators or politicians.

I like this approach

[interstellar_donkey]

I'm just afraid the majority of 'teaching computers' in the younger grades is just an updated version of the 'educating for the sweatshop' mentality schools had during the Industrial revolution.

Most of the computer curriculum I've seen seems to focus on how to use computers. How to use a mouse or how to save a file, and less on how to create, or how to research.

We are reaching a point where even the lowest jobs will require computer skills. If we focus too much on these skills at younger ages, we end up producing skilled workers for menial jobs at the expense of a broader range of learning experiences.

Sure, we'll be preparing students for the workforce, but at the expense of the intellectual capital of society's future.

Alliance for Childhood, NetFuture

[teknico]

A relevant resource in this field is the Alliance For Childhood, sponsored by Steve Talbott of NetFuture fame.

I've been following NetFuture for years now, it's a very interesting newsletter about the relationship between technology and human society.

Every brain is diffrent,

[HanzoSan]

Thats what the current system refuses to understnand.

Theres no theory on how kids think, just a theory on how the average kid thinks.

accept the fact everyone thinks diffrently, while most people may do best in the enviornment which you project, or in think in the way which you describe,

When i was growing up i wasnt average, i learned in my own way, teachers thought i would be a failure and drop out and i surprised even myself when i graduated with scholarships.

All it took was switching schools to an alternative school which allows a person to learn in whatever way works.

Theres no standard when it comes to thinking, allow a person to think and learn in the way which works best for them, and stop trying to decide which works best for everyone.

Thats what i have to say, the brain develops in diffrent ways for everyone, for me, i'm good at things i never thought i'd be good at, my brain developed in a weird way, i went from being a total failure in school, i went from being a kid who only played video games and did stuff that was fun, to being a computer genius adult who knows a few programming languages and understands the most complex areas of computers, science and technology.

Really i say ask the kid how he wants to learn, and teach him in the way he wants to learn, kids learn best when they are learning by themselves.

funny how a kid can memorize hundreds of pokemon at age 6 yet people think the same kid cant memorize some math or learn programming, its not their brain thats problem, its the style in which they learn stuff, pokemon, video games, toys, that stuff is interesting

if learning was a game, kids would learn faster.
If i were a kid and i could learn any way i wanted, i would choose to learn from video games and computers, i did most of my learning that way and if i would have started as a kid i would know so much more.

what i would do

[SigmundK]

introduce the kids to linux with no X or graphics. give them only nethack and possibly angband. sit back. watch them script.

geeks in the making!

periodic hogwash...

[jpellino]

this comes up every so often, and is sheer speculation with no basis in fact.

it is someone's - in one case cliff stoll's OPINION - and the only reason people listen to him is due to a random opportunity to be the first at tracking down a pretty nasty hacker. the shower scenes and fatality made it titillating, but he's no more a pundit than the rest of us.

please - whenever people bring this up - play the old name game ("frank frank bo-bank, banana fana fo fan, fee fie fo fank... frank) and replace COMPUTERS with ANY OTHER ENABLING TECHNOLOGY USED IN CLASSROOMS - THAT'S RIGHT - JUST ASSERT THAT
-- PENCILS STIFLE CREATIVITY,
-- BLACKBOARDS STIFLE CREATIVITY,
-- PHOTOCOPIERS STIFLE CREATIVITY,
-- LAMINATORS STIFLE CREATIVITY,
-- PROTRACTORS STIFLE CREATIVITY,
-- CUISINAIRE BLOCKS STIFLE CREATIVITY
-- MICROSCOPES STIFLE CREATIVITY

A case can be manufactured for the truth of each of these assertions. Trouble is, folks who assemble these straw men forget one very important tenet of education:

There is no best way to teach.

There are many ways which are successful, with varying situations, students, and classes, but there is no best way.

Being a teacher is in large part being a problem solver - you have a bunch of resources, a bunch of kids, and a bunch of desired outcomes. And being a good problem solver means knowing which strategies to emply for any given moment / situation / personality.

Consequently, it is folly to simply toss out any method(s) of instruction or expression on principle.

Unfortunately, this whole debate is usually framed as a guns-or-butter argument - which it isn't.

And while we're at it - a growing number of districts no longer have kids learning keyboarding as a regularly scheduled activity.

And for two cases that can be used to refute the generalization, here's how I have put it to parents and clients I've dealt with:

First - the importance of form in determining specific instructional strategirs - the specific example of music classes - remember your music lessons? What did you do in them? Mostly you attempted to recreate a piece of music, just as the author did it, no mistakes, very little expresion or improvisation. Yet music is one of the subjects lauded as "creative" - and most of what you do is mere skill building. You didn't go to music / band / suzuki to compose your own music -you simply mimicked the form - played heart and soul etc. - until you got it right.

Transfer such an approach to language arts - and you'd have the equivalent of having a room full of kids copy the first page of Moby Dick over and over again until they could do it flawlessly. That teacher would be out the door in short time. So form DOES matter - not all subjects can be optimized through the same instructional strategy.

Graduate now, to a music classroom full of keyboards and midi-enabled computers / sequencers / samplers. Now you can create music of your own. Notice the work CREATE - Now you can play with notes, patterns, entire symhponies, burn your own CDs, in record time, and with greater flexibility and ease than if you had to scribe each note on paper (or hire a copyist).

Yes, people will now put forth the argument that Beethoven didn't have a computer and look what he did - eventual deafness and all. Problem is this argument implies that if Ludwig HAD access to a computer he'd have been a lesser composer. Irrelevant and unsported conclusion.

As for trhe broader idea - when I was in grammar school, we expressed ourselves academically in two ways:

Book reports / essays
Shoebox dioramas full of clay things.

You had such a narrow window of expression, your work had to fit a very small number of forms.

Now we can hand a student HyperStudio or PowerPoint or Flash, and they can express themselves through printed workds, sopoken words, sound, music, the world's best graphics, original graphics, movies, 3-D animations, the list goes on.

Which is more creative? While the structure of the older two methods might be held up as a sort of academic haiku, with the accomplishment detemined by maximizing expression within the narrow form, it doesn't address the more recent benchmarks of creativity - for instance Paul Torrance's measures such as fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration - the amount, range, newness and depth of creative work.

Plus - a piece of Intel thinks computers stifle creativity? Do they watch their own ads? Enhanced creativity is most of what they push.

Seems like there are some deeper issues here that aren't seeing the light of day...

Re:periodic hogwash...

[cascadingstylesheet]

- JUST ASSERT THAT
-- PENCILS STIFLE CREATIVITY,
-- BLACKBOARDS STIFLE CREATIVITY,
-- PHOTOCOPIERS STIFLE CREATIVITY,
-- LAMINATORS STIFLE CREATIVITY,
-- PROTRACTORS STIFLE CREATIVITY,
-- CUISINAIRE BLOCKS STIFLE CREATIVITY
-- MICROSCOPES STIFLE CREATIVITY

But I don't remember any of those things inspiring me to waste hours, fooling around, when I should have been learning. And any time I did waste with them (drawing or writing outrageous things on the blackboard, having competitive space warfare games by flicking a pencil against paper) required far more creativity than firing up a game, a web page, or IRC.

Direction vs. Exploration

[raldanash]

I think a lot of the posters have hit it right-on when they say the problem is that kids are taught how to use the computer in a specific fashion. They learn MS Word or Excel, completing tasks and so forth, without imbuing much about a computer aside from that it's another tool.

This isn't totally useless, a lot of people just need a cursory level of familiarity. But the thing is-that kids learn when they play. I don't think it's good to exclude computers from an environment, but, I think it's bad when adults try to micro-manage how a computer is used. As many have commented, "skills" people learn quickly become out of date.

Kids are by nature pretty inquisitive, so if you give them basic pointers (teach them Python tell them to find StarOffice if they want an application suite-don't force feed them apps you think will be practical), they can learn much better on their own.

Of course, people also remember some kids will never really take to computers. They'll learn to use apps and not be scared-but it's not going to be their cup of tea in the end. That's fine too.

So that's why

[Anonymous Coward]

all the students on US tv shows about schools are in their late 20s! I was wondering :-)

BBC Micro

[Anonymous Coward]

I was born in 1979, the BBC Micro was created 1984, so at the age 5/6 I had my first exposure to computers, and to this day I remember a game where it taught you to cook beans on toast [although I don't like beans, but I wish I could find a copy of this game]. The amount of time that I spent on the computer was regulated by that thing known as school (where there was only a couple of beebs), and bedtime. I soon got bored of games and started programming (although I stuggle with BBC Basic now - far too used to $variable, can't cope with VARIABLE$).

I did get to teach my headmaster how to use computers when I was 10 (a cunning excuse to spend dinner time in front of a computer)

Up until the age of 16 I always got better marks if I word-processed it, (even a science assignment that was utter crap got passed around the school because it looked more professional that the handouts we got).

I always had a battle against peer pressure, I had a PC everyone else has a SNES/Megadrive.

I'm doing ok, my lack of education is down to bad schools rather than me using computers. If I hadn't spent so much time with computers I wouldn't have made it as far as a Degree (BSc Hons Network & Comms) - most of my peers from school are working in local fish factories in Grimsby UK.

So I'm greatful that I had used computers, and my kids (when/if I have them) won't be forced onto a computer, they won't be stuck in front of a TV every waking minute, and I will actually tear myself away from the computer to do something with real toys (that won't be a stuggle).

Re:Here here -- NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers are not miracle devices, they are tools just like anything else. Used properly, they do make a significant difference, especially in early education. They are not a replacement for parent involvement or adequate school funding, but they are very worthwhile. Blanket abandonment of technology in education is no better than unquestioning praise.

I love how people who have no training or experience feel perfectly qualified to offer their "expert" opinions.

Creativity?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can a child learn to code or do anything related to computing until he has gross & fine motor control skills. If the kid can't click on something that is smaller than 1/3 the size of the screen in 640x480 mode, or he can't spell "ABC", much less anything to code, how can you expect a child to gain advances because there is a computer in front of him.

I teach computers to preschool through 8th grade, and until they are at least in the third grade, the best thing that a pc can do for a child is help reinforce the basics: letters, numbers, colors, fine motor control (mousing), reading and math.

Unless they have the basics of education, they can't explore higher levels.

-A teacher in the midwest

It seems obvious . . .

[fajoli]

if one thinks about it. Chances are relatively good that if one's parent works at Intel, one would get plenty of exposure to technology at home. Computers at school would add little new learning to students in this environment.

I believe computers at school are far more important in places where computers at home are far less prevalent. My understanding of the goal of computers at school is to prevent the high school student from showing up at their first job and not feel comfortable working with the box on the desk. That can make the difference between a job with future potential and a job flipping burgers.

If I had computers at home, the last thing I would want my tax dollars spent on at school would be computers that will not add to my child's education. Pretty obvious, I would think.

Read, Read, Read....

[bubbha]

When they are little we should be reading to them....in an animated style. When they are a little older we should be taking them to the library. When they are teenagers, we should be bribing them with cash. Whatever it takes.

Computers at school changed my life

[unorthod0x]

If it weren't for the Apple II's that were in my grade school back in the day then I sincerely doubt that I would be living and enjoying the same life as I do today.

But perhaps it was a balance between the time I was allowed to spend on them and the fact that I could do whatever I wanted on them that really served me well - limited time on the computers in the lab drove me in to a creative frenzy where I would go home and hand write BASIC code to be ready for the next day so that I could just type it all in and have a go at it; not quite like the punchcard methodology of years before, but without a doubt it sparked my interest at an early age, enough so that I could find some related work by the time I was 14, and never stopped since then..

My fascination came early on from the realization of what these boxes were truly capable of - granted, I was mezmerized just like any kid could be the first time they see a Nintendo; but from that first time I hit Control-C the walls of mysticism crumbled and the real fun and interest started.

I was also fortunate enough to have parents who witnessed my early interest and acted upon it - but only after observing my new found passion. Back then, I believe it would have been hard for an 11 year old to convince his folks that he really had a need for such an expensive "high tech" device. A couple months later my parents took me to the department store (!) which resulted in me picking out a brand new Apple //c which launched my career right then and there. From that point on just having access to a computer at school was not enough and I continued to pursue my passion on my own terms..

Only Futurama's "what if" machine could answer the question of how life would have been like had my school not had a computer lab, but I imagine that a bunch of you /.'ers also got their start in a similar way..

It's the KID, not the input.

[Havokmon]

If I had to wait until Jr. High. before I was exposed to computers, I probably would have had to waste money on college.

But that doens't mean that MY path to 'success' (which includes my first born at 20, and 3 kids by 25), should be duplicated to the world.

Like I said, I have 3 kids. The eldest (8) has no interest in computers, and likes to watch Animal Planet after her homework is done. She's a mostly loner at home, but the leader with her friends. My son (5) likes computers, Dreamcast, and Cartoons.. that doesn't mean that's ALL he does. He actually spends most of his time playing with his 2 year old sister.

Having a kid in 2nd grade, and another one entering full-time Kindergarten in the fall, I think schools need to concentrate on LEARNING. 1st grade was a crock. 2nd grade is better, but they don't teach the kids right and wrong.
"4+4 = 9.. Well, you're close.." No. it's wrong. 4+4=8. They don't do that.
And if the kid doesn't learn 4+4=8, but they do ok in other areas, they're moved on to the next grade, where, hopefully, the next teacher can 'work' on the student.

It's fucking pitiful. The whole school system needs a make-over. When I was in 2nd grade we ALREADY had multiple reading groups.. From Advanced on down. What happened to that? (and my kid is in the same district I was)

I realize all kids aren't the same, but the way 'averaging' is being done now, kids who don't want to keep up (like myself) get through school much easier than those who work hard, with just as much to show for it.
It's funny and sad.. flunkies doing good = honor students doing good AND flunkies doing bad = honor students doing bad.
In the end, both have a piece of paper that says they met the requirements to get the piece of paper, and both have just as real a chance at success or failure.

So if life is what you make it, why isn't there more 'custom' schooling?

No, I will not home-school. I thought I was a social wall-flower, when those kids grow up, they need to AVOID social contact. It's just better for the rest of us.

why not college also?

[walterbyrd]

When I was a math major, 15 years ago, there was always a discussion about what kinds of calculators we could use for what exam - for example: for this exam you can't use a calculator with a graphing feature, for another exam you can't use a programmable calculator, and so on.

Different classes had different standards for different tests etc.

I thought: why not eliminate calculators for teaching most math classes? Or at least for testing. Just gear the test to a no calculator standard.

May sound crazy, but calculus is about 400 years old, and for 350+ of those years, calculus was learned with calculators. Other branches of math are even older.

Don't bother yet

[Anonymous Coward]

My daughter is about to turn two & I've tried her out a number of times on basic learning games. It seems that she'll be ready soon, but up until now it's been too hard for her to see the connection between what she does (hitting random keys) & what happens on the screen. Maybe a touch screen would help, but really there hasn't been any point in firing up the pc I've had waiting since she was 6 months old. Drawing, playing with Duplo (the larger version of Legos), and running around are far better for her development than anything she could be doing on the computer at this stage. In a couple of years you'll be able to get him/her a much nicer X terminal, until then just take as much video as you can...

Handwriting before typing

[a random streaker]

I recall an article I once read that showed children who primarily type instead of writing with their hand did have language difficulties.

In other words, manual expression of words is not "plug and play" with typing. You lose ability when you only type as a child.

Education comes from Teachers

[kallistiblue]

Ultimately, how much we learn in school comes from how well we understand the message that is being conveyed by the teacher AND the parents.

Anyone that wants a magic pill, be it a computer or more education spending, is not focusing on the right problem.

It would seem that a computer's best use would be to gather the best teaching methods and provide other teachers with new insights into how to best convey their teachings to the students.

Think about it, teaching many subjects involves creating metaphors that allow your audience to understand the message you are delivering. Almost all learning is associative, so if you have a large enough db of teaching metaphors, you can readily find the right message to deliver.

I'm a manager in a biotech company. I interact with several distinct groups. When I'm talking with programmers, I tend to be very precise with my message, I let them know what I need and make sure we understand what we are developing. OTOH, If I'm talking with one of our operators, I tend to talk about different things. I talk about the cases they've performed etc. because they are more concerned with the people/relationships.

IMO, a teacher's job is to provide the spark that bridges the gap and allows the fire of knowledge to grow within the student.

Re:Here here -- NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your points are very valid.

However, I really want to know why you were in a hot-tub with a telephone repairman.

Limits = limited people

[peter303]

People who place limits on their themselves become limited people. Rather than absolutely ruling out a given tool such as a computer, just moderate it and use it wisely. Dont worship it, as many educators have, nor demonize it.

Computer = babysitter

[GTIChick]

I work on a major children's website, and, according to focus groups, know that parents use it as a babysitter. It's a way to keep Junior occupied while dinner is cooking, the TV is on, or mummy or daddy "needs a break". Sure, we make the content educational, but we can only do so much without the interaction of the parents and children.

Two of my close friends have had children in the last two years. One has chosen to spend time with the child, playing with him, and showing him non-computer activities. He's turning out to be a well-adjusted and bright child.

The other child has more electronics than I have! For Christmas, she received her own computer keyboard and software, in hopes that she would become a genius through computing. My gift to her- a set of pots and pans and a teddy bear.

Re:Research? - bull

[jakob_grimm]

Not according to Mirriam-Webster. Research is a "careful or diligent search," "studious inquiry or examination," or "the collecting of information about a particular subject."

I see what you are getting at, though. While scientific research is involved with pushing the boundaries of human knowledge outward, research at this (K-12) level involves students learning how to find information. Using computers and the Internet can be beneficial to learning, used in moderation.

One huge problem I see with computers/Net is sloppy scholarship. Facts asserted without sources and taking someone else's thoughts as if they were yours is easier than ever with copy-and-paste. I see it too frequently, and I am in graduate school.

The PC is just a tool

[ivrcti]

As the father of 4 kids (ages 6-14) I hope I can speak with some experience rather than conjecture. It has been my experience that IF the computer is positioned as simply a TOOL to an end, it works fine in the educational process. A couple of positive examples: My 9 year old daughter loves the songs on the JumpStart series Spanish. Does she remember every vocabulary word, NO. But it has helped her gain a very accurate pronuciation through fun repetion. My 6 year old watched me and learned how to play Ages of Empires 2. I am confident it increased his ability to handle simultaneous complex problems. Now for the counterpoint: In our family the PC is NOT the primary focus. Each kid is involved in learning and enjoying music (all 4 enjoy our lcoal symphony). They understand that in order for your mind to work, you have to care for your body. Growing up in a large family (with lots of drop-in friends) they learn to work together. Recently my 14 year old expressed interest in programming. Once I made it clear that programming was about using logic and he was still interested, we began with VERY simple logic and graphic manipulation. He enjoys it, but still knows where it fits in life. So, my conclusion would be: keep it in perspective.

PCs in school

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh...that's a problem these days for K-6? Too much exposure to computers?

Now if only I, seeking a computer science degree, could find a university around here that actually USES COMPUTERS in their classes/assignments, that would be cool. *sighs, remembers the good old high-school days where programming classes had PCs, and they actually made you write programs, instead of watch someone lecture and write messy code on a whiteboard*

How ironic.

First things first

[Shotgun]

The school I had my first son in taught cursive writing before they taught print. The argument was that print is so easy that they will pick up on it naturally without spending a lot of time on it. What they fail to consider was that learning to print developes a lot of basic motor skills that are need to form letters on paper. Today, my sons writing is borderline illegible, and that is with me sitting beside him coaching, screaming and pulling my hair out. ( I know it's not his fault, and he is trying really hard...doesn't make it any less frustrating.)

My point is that newfangled ideas and gimmicks (which are all that computers really offer), should have to withstand the same stress that the scientific method puts on scientific claims. It should be widely accepted only after reproducible results are corroborated by several parties. Computers in the classroom haven't been shone to produce any beneficial results in a reproducible manner.

I don't get this at all!

[gfxguy]

Before you tell a kid to use powerpoint, find out if the school even teaches a class on powerpoint. If they teach a class on powerpoint then the kids know how to use powerpoint, if they dont, then its your job to give them a crash course on how to use power point.

My child should be learning history, mathematics, english (and possibly another language). Maybe in high school when they can start taking electives, but I don't want my child in elementary school wasting his time learning something like PowerPoint. That's like teaching "Word" instead of word processing, "photoshop" instead of teaching them the fundamentals of drawing.

Again, I might agree when, in High School, the kid can take some electives, but even then what would the credit apply to? English? Mathematics? No, it'd end up being pretty useless as far as school is concerned. I don't want the schools to teach individual software packages, that's not schooling, IMO.

I agree with you 100%

[gfxguy]

I taught "computers" at a summer day camp, and I actually taught a little programming to some of the older kids, but the smaller kids just played games (educational games, though).

The person who ran the camp came in one day and asked why all the kids were just playing games, and I said "you want me to teach them to program when they can't even spell? These games get them accustomed to using the computer, they feel more comfortable with it. Then when they are old enough to start thinking logically (and spell, and do basic math), then they can program."

That was a long time ago around '83 or '84. We didn't have powerpoint or the internet (well, you know what I mean - before the internet was available to places like day camps).

I think some time using computers is great - even my two (almost three) year old can go to the computer and pop in one of his CDs and play Mickey Mouse or A Bug's Life games. But he can't read or write, he's just very comfortable with the computer.

I also think a desktop on every school desk is going to be a giant money pit, I can't imagine how anyone who logically thinks that through can possibibly think it's a good idea. Some schools have a hard enough time buying enough text books.

Frankly, I'd prefer teaching my son to use the computer to aid in doing school projects rather then having the school use it as a "we don't have to teach any more, they can look it up on the internet" crutch.

Re: home schooling....

[King_TJ]

Well, as a matter of fact, it seems to be law in the U.S. that you're not even *allowed* to home-school your own kids unless at least one of you doing so has a bachelors degree. Therefore, unless you're married to someone who does - or you're getting outside assistance someplace, you're not legally allowed to home-school your children anyway.

Personally, I find this rather insulting. Government, once again, proposes to know better than the parents know what's best for the kids.

Alas, it's the law...

..Point here

[korruptDOTcom]

Well, I've been using computers since I was nine
I was codeing html about a week after I received my computer
I knew BASIC in third grade.
From my experiances, I find it very bad for powerpoint to be considered the
only option..
Teach them how to use Flash
html,javascript.. Then their creativity
will expand greatly as there would no longer
hardly be ANYthing that couldn't be done
I would think you could teach a kid
html and how to use flash by 4th grade.
The computer is a wonderful tool
Illterate users just tend to think that
Powerpoint, Office. They are the computer
They are simply an interface to a computer
now that is what must be tought..

They're right.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been working as a contractor and engineer for 4 years, and I've learned something important: you cannot survive purely on computer skills. If you don't have something else to set you apart, i.e. Math, Physics, a reputation in the business, something, you're really no more appetizing as an employee than the people from third world countries that will work for well under what a US employee will. I feel sorry for the people who majored in IT for the last four years to find that the market's swamped. Nonetheless, I predict that as computers become an everyday tool, that it will virtually disappear as a specific area of focus and that people will instead major in other sciences where the computer will act as a tool. Recall, then, that in elementary school, they never let you use a calculator on your addition tests. It's important to know how things work yourself so that when the time comes to apply what you know you can assemble the proper algorithm to solve the problem. In this information age where we can know almost anything in an instant, I believe that it is no longer an issue of knowing an answer: the important thing is, knowing where or how to find it. ~Ben http://www.snakebyte.biz

Some Useful Links

[Anonymous Coward]

For those people who are interested in actually thinking about why and how computers might be used in early childhood education, a useful link may be the companion site to Seymour Papert's new book (The Connected Family: Bridging the Digital Generation Gap) at http://www.ConnectedFamily.com/ .

Incidentally, for those who (like the remarkably incurious reporter writing the original article) might be inclined to assume that the school's refusal to use computers arises from careful and thoughtful consideration, it might be worthwhile checking out the PLANS site at http://www.waldorfcritics.org/index.html. While this site is (to say the least!) biased, all the necessary links and references are available there for people to make up their own minds about the worth of the Waldorf approach to teaching.

Re: home schooling....

[mcrbids]

Yeah, but it's not the law. At least, not in California.

The main issue (at least here) when running a school, either for other kids or just your own, is whether or not you want to accept state funds.

If you do, there must be an accredited teacher involved. If not, and you are willing to "go the course" alone, this requirement isn't there.

Re: home schooling....

[Havokmon]

I'd believe it. Though I never would have checked.
Knowing how the government works, I'd bet you could have a bachelors in Automotive Repair and you'd be 'authorized' to home school.

So much for government protection.

Re:Perhaps some remedial education for the adults

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't need to keep their English stuck in the 1800's.

2nd Language

[DwySteve]

Recently we've heard a lot about children learning a second language early on, usually in Kindergarten. Well, I did, it just happened to be Applesoft Basic. I don't feel stunted....

Re:Not here or there!

[iguanacharlie]

On the contrary, the connections between TV and computers are both obvious and important.

1. They both use cathode ray tubes.
2. They both involve only 2 senses -- sight and sound -- leaving the others uninvolved.

In other words, the experience of watching a screen is very different from the experience of touching, tasting, smelling, and physically manipulating the world. During childhood, especially the early years, our brains are busy developing the connections that determine how they will work for the rest of our lives. What we fail to develop early on, we can never build later.

There is a growing body of evidence that video tubes are detrimental to children's development, and TV is linked to a range of behavioral disorders, including ADD and problems with aggression.

If you want your children to learn to read, Sesame Street is vastly inferior to books. If you want them to learn to count, computer software is vastly inferior to a bunch of blocks, or sticks, or whatever.

Finally, yes Mathematica is a valuable and useful program. I made much use of it while working on my PhD. But it's not for children.

Doh! Logo.

[TopherC]

I forgot to preview that one!

Re: home schooling....

[Dirk Pitt]

Personally, I find this rather insulting. Government, once again, proposes to know better than the parents know what's best for the kids.

Although I'm not the first in line to promote government regulation, I think it's absurd that you would find fault in this. Children, no matter how much parents would like to imagine they don't, should and do have rights independent of their parents' wishes. If we didn't somewhat regulate how parents would home-school their children, can you imagine how this might be, and is, abused, or how the brightest child of some otherwise tepid gene pool might be smothered?

Children certainly have a right to a good education, and they there are too many parents out there now who think that they can provide it. Many parents (read, the ignorant side of fundamentalist Christianity) would rather kids never even be exposed to the possibility of any truth but the one that they expouse. I, for one, think we're obligated to make sure kids have more options than this.

Better use what you have

[jmertic]

Here's a perspective from my personal experiences.

I worked for a public school system that was loaded with computers ( about 4-5 per classroom plus labs of >20 machines ). Some teachers were dependant on it a teaching aid, other used them once in a while, while some ignored them entirely. Some teacher took a active part of using the computers ( as have the students do word processing or research ) while others used it as a reward ( which is where myself as a tech really hated to go ). In most cases, it seemed to me that the number of computers in a school were inversely perportional to the acedemic achivement of the students.

It all comes down to how the computers are used; it shouldn't be more technology, but rather better use of technology. It is beyond me what is needed by a school that could be resolved by some lower-end machines with web browsers, word processing, and that's it. Most schools out there with any computers made in the last 5 years will handle that. And they don't need 5 per classroom either; maybe a lab for an entire classroom to work and then (maybe) a few machines on carts with projectors for any teacher presentations. Kids in elementary schools need basic skills and not how to render images in Photoshop or make Powerpoint presentations. Computers in the classroom are to much of a distraction and an easy way for lazy teachers to deal with unruly kids.

Putting computers in classrooms is just advocating that our lives should revolve around the computer and the internet. That is definitly the wrong focus for schools.

Ed school and home school

[Eric Green]

First of all, home-schooling is tutoring, not teaching. As a former teacher who has also done tutoring, I can tell you that there is a *LOT* of difference between the two, primarily based upon feedback. Virtually all people can be effective tutors. Being an effective teacher is much more difficult, because you are managing a classroom of 25 to 45 students, and do not have the kind of immediate feedback that tutoring gives you. A tutor knows immediately whether the kid learned or not and can adjust in real-time. A teacher does not have that luxury and must use a variety of teaching techniques to ensure that the majority of kids learn.

That aside, even as a trained and certified teacher (albeit certificate lapsed) I can agree with the notion that computers are no panacea. In particular, even today, 10 years after computers became common in classrooms, few curriculum materials effectively integrate computer usage with the material that must be taught in order to meet state requirements. The computers are still an "extra", and with state requirements going nowhere but up, there just isn't much time for "extras" in most classrooms.

As far as "they do make a significant difference", do you have a reference to a study showing such? The last time I looked (admittedly, five years ago), all double-blind control-grouped studies that compared the effects of adding computers to, say, the effects of adding peer tutoring to the classroom, showed that non-computer interventions such as adding peer tutoring to the classroom increased performance as much as, or more than, computers. Only shoddy studies that do not control for expectancy/placebo effects show any advantages for computer, and there only in the short term. Note that virtually ANY intervention results in short term gains, due to the placebo effect (often known as "expectancy effects").

In short, I find little advantage to using computers in the elementary school classroom. "Kill'n'drill" is better done with flashcards and kid pairs (hint: 3x5 index cards, let the kids make'em and decorate them, no need to buy'em), guided practice is better done under teacher control because computers can't see what kids are doing with their hands or hear what kids are saying with their mouths, about the only thing that computers add is cachet'. I freely admit that I'm not up to date on current research in the area. If anybody has current research (as vs. 5 year old research), feel free to refer to it. Just wanted to point out that computers are no panacea, and that while computer skills are useful and valuable, they aren't all that a school is supposed to teach.

the down side

[Sebastopol]

in 1984 when i was 13 i was a serious computer nerd. i had spent three summers at National Computer Camps (toby zabinski's brainchild), and was programming in 6502 assembly.

several of my parents' friends wanted their kids to be computer savvy as well, so they purchased computers for their kids. three examples come to mind: one kid got trs80, another a c64, a third got an apple //e. funny thing, the kids never asked for a PC, they were happy with their atari 2600s.

then the parents all hired me to teach their kids how to program. it was the most embarassing thing i ever had to do. the kids didn't care at all, and i was only 13, what the fuck did i know about teaching? all that the kids wanted to do was play games or go outside. still, i made 60 bucks a week, which was a lot in the early 80's.

the part that bothered me the most, besides the kids telling their friends about me at school, which led to even more abuse, was that the parents would BRAG about how their children had a private computer tutor. i kept thinking: i'm a tutor? i'm not teaching them shit! and their parents are bragging about it!

needless to say, i endured the embarrasment for several months and made enough money to buy a modem and another 5 1-4 floppy, but i think that mentality is still there: force a computer on to a kid and make them learn how to use it in hopes of striking paydirt.

i agree with the folks in oregon: if kids are taught balanced art and science curricula, sans-tech, computers will be a snap when they are older. one could argue that computers employ abstractions (files, menus, desktops, etc.), but i think a mind trained to think in abstraction through art and math wouldn't have a problem with something as simple as a garbagecan icon.

good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering my first accademic experience (FORTRAN IV on mark-sense cards for a 'fridge sized IBM) was enough to keep me away from 'puters for 4 damn years, I applaud this thought.

Once I was motivated to get my hands on an assembler and what used to be a pc with more speed/memory than the 'fridge, I could pave my way to uber-geek-dom.

Home schooling is a state function

[Eric Green]

Home schooling is regulated by the states, not by the federal government, and regulations vary wildly. In Louisiana, for example, all you need to do is send a piece of paper to your local school district saying you're home schooling your kids. In Texas, you must register a private school with the state and announce that you are using a regular curriculum, but private schools are unregulated in Texas -- you'll never have anybody come in to audit your curriculum. But some other states try to say you must be a certified teacher in order to home school, while others have the requirement you mention (for a BS/BA degree). In virtually all such states, however, home schooling groups have work-arounds. For example, sometimes home schooling groups will incorporate a "private school" (private schools are unregulated in many states), and if anybody questions why their kid is in school, will say that their kid is enrolled in said "private school".

As to whether home schooling produces anti-social kids or whatever, I have no opinion. I've seen it used in a number of ways. For example, the Louisiana law is sometimes used by "parents" who wish to exploit their kids as slave labor in the family business (fishing, farming, or whatever), who have no intention of teaching their kids how to read and write because it would "just give them airs and they'll leave the farm". CPS can go after these people for neglect, but CPS is too overloaded dealing with kids in danger of being killed or severely injured to spend any time on neglect. On the other hand, I've met some home schooled kids who are as articulate, broadly educated, and sociable as anybody else. As with all kids, it mostly depends upon the parent, not the way they're schooled or by whom. A good parent will make sure that his kid gets good schooling -- whether at a traditional school, or via home schooling.

Varies by state

[Eric Green]

Home schooling regulations vary by state. What you say may be true for California (and is certainly true for my home state of Louisiana), but may not be true in some East Coast states that figure that they know how to raise kids better than parents do.

bingo

[bcboy]

I think this is it exactly. There's no substitute for parenting. Seems that many parents, and especially fathers, don't realize how important this is -- in spite of years of research showing very high correlation between involved parents and well-performing children.

When mechanical pens were invented there was a big fuss about how this was the death of education -- children would never be literate because they couldn't make their own quill pens. Now we hear the same nonsense about computers. It's just a tool, like a pen. It's not going to raise your kids.

The only real problem with computers in schools is our teachers get zero professional development. None of them know how to use a computer the way they would use a pen. So computers do end up being mis-applied.

granted computers make it easier to waste time...

[jpellino]

OK - granted that kids will spend hours in front of a computer - but that's where the teacher comes in - by being a facilitator to learning, no matter the form - and the judicious use of appropriate software.

Because remember - we all spent hours passing notes, doodling in the margins of our books and binders - students always have and always will find a way to keep occupied in the face of dull instruction.

The creativity is not involved in firing up anything - it is what you do when you get there. How many kids remember reading the book The Oregon Trail - masterful writing, and take a peek at who did the illustrations - You can count them on one hand. I've taught college tech classes where upon firing up Oregon Trail to do a software review, 20-year olds light up like kids again and sponteneously rattle out strategies and details theyt haven't seen since middle school. Not bad. Of course ther's a line to draw, they can prolly remember details of Galaxian too - which does them no further good. So again, it depends on the teacher and the school and the district's choices.

Computers are a tool - a saw can be used to build a house, amaze people in a magic act, or to kill.

It's all in the choices.

And how many education courses have you taken?

[Eric Green]

Just curious. You seem detirmined to put the smack down on educational research and education courses, just wondering if you are just repeating BS that you got from somewhere else rather than speaking from experience.

I'm a former teacher who left the field after three years. I have criticisms too of education curriculum and research, but your criticisms did not seem to be based on any real knowledge of the field. Thus my question. And yes, there DOES exist good research. There's far more bad research, but the good research DOES exist. We know far more about how children learn nowdays than we knew, say, 40 years ago. Unfortunately, very little of that knowledge makes it to the classroom -- mostly because parents say "that's not how they did it when I was in school, if it was good enough for me, it is good enough for my children" and insure that no real reforms happen.

_E

I'm a heratic

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I am strange, but I do not see the point of having computers in schools.
They cost a bomb, outdate in no time, the teachers don't understand them, they make for very expensive timewriters, several in a classroom and they still cost a fortune and there are too few to be of much use, too many and they end up costing more than the teachers and what use are they then anyway?
I cringe when I think of the megabucks being burned on utterly useless computer buying in education in this country. Yet, if a school does not buy them, and spends the money on more useful things like teachers instead, then parents think "oh this school is no good" and send their children elsewhere.
The blind leading the blind.

Programming in k-8

[Anonymous Coward]

I am currently a freshman in high-school. I was considered mentally challenged by my first grade teacher, yet in second grade I got my hands on gwbasic, a manual, and a few examples. by 3rd grade, I was ahead of the rest of my class in math and other subjects. Before computers, I saw no reason to learn to read. I saw no reason for math. I saw no reason for anything that didn't involve colored lights or dancing leprachauns.

Now I am the only freshman in geometry at my school. I am one of only four freshman in algebra 2. I owe everything to computers for without them, I would be holding belt loops on my way to lunch with the challenged kids. At best, I would have discovered computers at a later age and run around with all my pathetic classmates that think mystical creatures called "kernels" are out to "hack" their "AOL". What kind of life would that be? I assume that others here have similar stories to tell.

Been there, done that...

[pdcull]

As someone who's just recently closed down a community-computer centre for at-risk teens, I'd have to say that on first thoughts I'd have to agree to the basic premise of this article.

It's not the computers couldn't help these kids - some of them have become quite technically literate - it's just that they really do have other necessities, like staying alive and graduating from primary (grade) school.

The most value for the majority came not from IT subjects that I taught (basic hardware maintenance, introduction to programming) but from the times-tables quizes which they had to pass in order to play games, or the CD based encyclopedias that they used to do research for a school project. Some definately benefited from the 16 hour basic introduction to computer courses that I did.

Anyway, I've recently shut down this project, turning it into, of all things, a church. It'll still have a couple of computers available for the school work etc, but my priorities today are much towards trying to get these kids away from the drug gangs, staying in school, not being killed etc. I've seen too many die over the past few years, and sadly, our IT technology really hasn't helped solved that problem at all.

Just my two cents worth...

Re:Don't bother yet?

[vortexau]

Its a big mistake to teach Walking before Crawling!

Its a big mistake to teach Driving before using a key.

Its a big mistake to teach initiating anything, without
teaching how to turn it off!

.

Its official, Powerpoint the only computer program

[HanzoSan]

Theres more computer programs than Powerpoint. Theres lots more. And also you forget about the internet, you are discussing and learning about stuff on slashdot and you think your kid cant be discussing something about history or math in a similar kinda site?

Learn to spell

[HanzoSan]

The computer = the real world. Yes you can make real money using the computer. Talk to real people, and do real business.

My school was teaching C and R4000 asm, not Java

[timecop]

Beacuse Java simply sucks!
Now first thing they teach you is Java and ruin you as a potential programmer.