The most broadly supported bill is the Danforth bill, an attempt at a compromise, crafted by the American Electronics Association and endorsed by, among others, the Association of American Universities, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the National Association of Elementary School Principals. Such a compromise, which would facilitate donations by a wide spectrum of hardware, peripherals, and software vendors, is seen as inevitable and would negate Congress' principal objection to the original Stark proposal -- that it seemed to be a one-company bill. The National Education Association, one of the nation's most formidable educational organizations, hasn't endorsed a single bill but favors the notion of donations. It is working with sponsors to fashion "ideal" legislation, which would consider such things as equitable distribution teacher training, software support, and warranties. "We want these machines to be used effectively and efficiently," says NEA legislative specialist Michael Edwards.
Other criticisms are more difficult to address. Columnist Jack Anderson, editorials in The Washington Post, and high-tech critics excoriated Apple for asking taxpayers to foot 92% of the tab. Educators who witnessed another great giveaway during the late 1960s -- of audiovisual and other "modern" educational technology -- as a result of special tax legislation noted that it had yielded a wholesale, and largely unproductive, "dumping" of equipment on schools. One federal evaluation of the program indicated that as much as 70% of the equipment had gone unused.
"I was a part of that," Peck, an educational technologist for the past 35 years, admits somewhat sheepishly. "We introduced language labs into schools all across the country. You'd go into a school in Podunk, and you'd find a language lab. . . . Well, those labs are 95% defunct." Now, Peck says, he is beginning to see schools where computers have been relegated to closets.
That is a concern that even the manufacturers take seriously. Kuhnreich grows somber when he considers what might happen if computers proliferate, but there isn't the enthusiasm, training, and software support to fashion meaningful programs. "The one thing we can't afford," he says, "is to have some 13-year-old running around saying, 'Oh, yeah, we've got a piece of that Radio Shack junk in our room.' " That, he admits, could turn off an entire generation to the technology, rather than whetting its appetite for it. "It is a major danger," he concedes.
Even more fundamental is the question of whether schools need computers at all. The consensus, both informed and uninformed, claims that they do, but many wonder why. "I have a stack of letters on my desk about eight inches high," notes Peck, "99% of it from teachers, school-board members, and administrators who say, 'What can we do about this steamroller that's rolling over us?' It's an evangelistic frenzy, and Apple is the new true faith."
Infidels point out that even free computers require future expenditures, when most schools can ill afford them. Moreover, studies indicate that computers are no more successful in teaching the basic skills than traditional methods. Even those who endorse computer teaching concede that currently available courseware rarely equals the textbooks it sometimes replaces. The amount of courseware is impressive: Thousands of titles cover such basics as reading and writing, as well as such subjects as history, science, social studies, foreign languages, and literature.
But quality has lagged, and critics question the "depth" of understanding made possible by what are essentially question-and-answer format programs. In addition, critics claim that computer-literacy courses distract teachers from more valuable pursuits and often require the hiring of teacher aides. And the very goal of computer literacy may be an empty one -- "Computers are learning to speak our language," says Peck. "By the time these children graduate, learning to use a computer will probably take a few hours . . . which means that thousands of dollars and endless hours of the teachers' and students' time will have been wasted." Apple, he claims, is not preparing kids to be computer literate but rather to be "computer obsolescent."
No one suggests, however, that computers won't play a prominent role in education. For better or worse, there will be computers in most of the nation's schools within a few years. If federal legislation passes, it may happen almost immediately. Although most manufacturers shy away from discussions of a giveaway war, Apple's Beaver notes that the strike force that oversaw California's "prototype" program can be reassembled overnight, is much better prepared, and, given the right tax incentives, could achieve its goal of one system per school within a year. Tandy, for its part, promises a "prompt and adequate" response to any challenge of its market share.
The development would have a major impact on the composition of the market, as it has in California, where Apple, by virtue of a three-month initiative, now dominates in the elementary and secondary school arena. The "first with the most" would likely remain the leader for an indefinite period, benefiting small peripherals and software vendors with complementary offerings. "If Radio Shack were to give away 90,000 or 100,000 computers, it wouldn't help us at all," admits Bodie Marx, vice-president of the computer software division of Milliken Publishing Co. in St. Louis, which has geared its courseware to Apple. Initially, smaller companies, unable to match massive donations by large competitors, might find themselves at a distinct disadvantage.
The long-term implications are even more sobering. The battle for the classrooms will determine, in a way that no other single development ever has, how and what our children will learn for the foreseeable future, at the same time that it programs their computer-buying patterns. "The schools have been taken advantage of by marketing schemes many times," concedes Ron G. Stegall, vice-president of computer marketing at Tandy. "There's no question about it." But, he adds, virtually in the same breath, this is not going to be one of those times.
