Where I Stand: Rushing into school technology can bring failure

Thursday, Oct. 9, 1997 | 10:12 a.m.

REMEMBER WHEN some educators admitted that it was proper for them to teach subject matter to the large middle group of achievers? The exceptionally bright students were allowed to drift off into their own dream world, and the average students weren't challenged, as they found little competition from the slower students. Even today, we are living with the results of this kind of pedagogy and, sad to say, it still infects some of our schools.

The USSR launching of Sputnik four decades ago made many Americans aware of our own educational shortcomings. During the following years, there was a burst of educational energy used to promote more science and higher mathematics. Then, as often happens, many of our schools drifted back into la-la land.

Today, there appears to be a sincere interest to improve our schools, but most of the effort has been put forth by politicians and the promotion of every student having an electronic gadget on his or her desk. At least Americans are again concentrating some educational thought and energy as we continue our efforts to run and find that we are still falling behind. Certainly, the United States continues to produce more than its share of stars in almost every higher academic field of achievement measured by the world. What we must become more concerned about is whether our academic underachievers and classroom bottom-feeders are growing at a more rapid rate than the number of stars.

There's no simple approach to improving the educational results of this large nation. We do know that some schools are doing much better than others. Can these models of success be copied and inserted into the lower-ranking schools? Good educators are doing their best to transfer this knowledge into action that improves all schools.

Some critics believe that throwing money at all school shortcomings is the solution. Just as many other critics believe too much money is already being spent on systems that don't produce a good end product. Probably someplace in between these extreme conclusions is reality. There's little reason to believe that any large number of Americans want our schools to fail. Even those politicians who want to be known as fixers of our educational system are sincere in their attempts. Sure, it's good politics on their part, but it's also the right thing to do. Doing the right thing is usually the best form of successful politics.

The 1997 Nevada Legislature jumped into the middle of the education fray at the behest of Gov. Bob Miller. It went so far as to create a new, 11-member Commission on Education Technology and allotted $27.5 million for new equipment and $8.6 million for repairs and maintenance of computers and other equipment plus teacher training. Last week, the commission met and determined that it would be wise to hold up on spending the money and develop a "road map to the future." This advice was given by commission Chairman Michael Kinnaird and state Sen. Bill O'Donnell. Kinnaird is principal of the Advanced Technology Academy and O'Donnell is in the computer business. Both men spoke up at the right time to prevent the programs from failing and/or being one more target for critics.

Probably the most important money to be spent is that earmarked for teacher training. Hundreds of schools have spent huge sums of taxpayers' dollars to bring in computers with few positive results being measured. School computers, properly used, can become valuable educational tools. This has not been the result in many districts that are now overloaded with fancy toys instead of tools. Who says so? A recent survey of teachers in those districts shows that less than 15 percent of them believe the Internet is helping their students.

What has happened is that the equipment was installed long before the teachers had been trained and the programs had been designed. Some schools have been successful in using modern technology as teaching tools because of proper preparation and help from the National Science Foundation and some universities. There's also help available for teacher training from the U.S. Department of Education.

Nevada has the money for teacher training and useful educational programs. Initially spending this money wisely will help develop the "road map to the future." It may be every bit as, or even more, important than the modern equipment to follow.