These criticisms are not far removed from the current debate over the definition, importance and relevance of computer literacy in schools. Some contend that technology is dehumanizing, a few are caught up in the social ramifications of a multimedia vision of the self, while others think classroom computers are merely expensive toys. Evaluating the claims made for and against computer education in the midst of widespread publicity concerning the Information Age is not an easy task. But one thing is certain: schools are under pressure to provide students with the best chance of a prosperous life and that necessitates the integration of computers into the classroom.

As simple as it may sound, computers are revolutionizing the way students learn. Although subject to much controversy, they generally have a positive influence on academia. By offering individualized attention, interactive methods of instructional and visual aides, they can actually motivate students to learn. When treated as a supplement to a teacher's educational goals, computers are most beneficial. In this paper, applications of educational software, field research at Swarthmore Rutledge and Booker T. Washington elementary schools and economic considerations are discussed with the underlying theme of reconceptualizing the American classroom.

In 1866, the blackboard was hailed as the revolutionary device certain to have a moajor impact on the education system. Since then, changes have appeared more frequently: radio in the 1920s, film in the 1930s and 1940s, language laboratories and television in the 1950s. And since their introduction in the 1960s, computers have become increasingly popular. The biggest influx has occured over the past two decades according to research conducted by the National Society for the Study of Education. They report that in 1983, the ratio of students to computers was 125:1. By 1990, the ratio had decreased to 20:1 and by 1995, it reached 9:1 (Kerr 52). Given the approximately 45 million students enrolled in the nation's K-12 public schools, this indicates that there are almost 5 million computers in American schools. Other technologies have been acquired at similarly rapid rates: in the 1991-92 school year, only 7 percent of schools had CDROM drives, while 37 percent acquired them within the next two years; in 1991 only 1 percent had satellite connections, while 17 percent had them by 1994; 5 percent of schools had computers connected to a network in 1991, whereas that number jumped to 28 percent by 1994.

These figures are particularly interesting because they demonstrate the most significant and innovative trend in improving technological resources in America schools: the increase of access to remote electronic information and reliance on the Internet. At least 53 percent of school districts reported at least one school to be connected to the Internet in 1993-94 and 37 states claimed network accounts to over 500,000 users in 1995 (up from merely 167,000 two years prior). Yet, these numbers mask some significant problems. For instance, while the number of states and local districts with some sort of link to the Internet appears quite large, a U.S. Department of Education study found that in 1994 only 35 percent of schools are so connected. Furthermore, only 3 percent of all instructional rooms have such links. It can be assumed that most schools prefer to keep their relatively scarce resources in a highly regulated, central location such as the library or administrative office. Such barriers to complete integration of computers into the classroom begs the question of whether students or faculty benefit most from the technology.

Since 1980, several classification schemes of educational software have evolved. Each emerge from different fields of study, but are usually related in their examination of software through theories of writing instruction and literary studies. These schemes represented in the figure below are arranged chronologically, along with a sampling of software corresponding to the categories.

Well-known in the field of instructional computing, Robert Taylor's schematization emphasizes how the computer itself functions in relation to the student, categorizing software that uses the computer as tutor, tool and tutee. For example, he considers drill-and-practice programs to function as tutors by focusing on the mechanics of writing. Whereas, text analysis programs, word processors and idea processors function as tools. Other software functions as the students' tutee, enabling the student to teach the computer to do something like Hypercard and other hypertext programs. A popular construct following this classification is from Helen Schwartz. She classified text feedback and drill-and-practice as programs that assist students in mastering skills, while simulations lead students to further analysis and tutorials help students internalize the learning process. Basically, these categories fall under Taylor's order, with software aimed at individual students, either delivering instruction (tutor) or facilitating it (tool). Lastly, Kemp argues that programs can be categorized according to the theory they reflect. Text analysis programs are thus considered standard; prewriting programs and structural heuristic software aids expressive and cognitive skills, emphasizing the individual; plus networked environments that illustrate the social aspects of learning--the aspect most emphasized in the status quo.

Examining these classifications broadens perspectives on software and, further, encourages viewing students' learning as a multidimensional activity which draws on many sources. A combination of problem solving, talking, thinking, audio and visual tools, reading, writing and ordering information in a hypertext fashion, plus critically analyzing the society in which it exists, makes full use of students' abilities. In short, by using all that electronic media has to offer and constructing meaning to go with it, students can become literate in the broadest sense of the word. As Gail Hawisher argues in Blinding Insights, "Those who are literate in today's sense of the word may not be literate tomorrow" (Selfe 54). Thus, the challenge for educators, academic theorists and educational software developers is to reveal ways of learning that have not yet been anticipated--to employ emerging technology to create more motivating and equitable environments in classrooms.

The lecture-discussion format of most classrooms is used because it supposedly allows the most material to be conveyed to a number of students by one teacher, while the speed and capability of computers seem to offer endlessly patient and individually prescribed instruction to be accessed at the student's discretion. Beyond the rote, simplistic function of drill and practice, new programs--whether computer assisted instruction or applications such as word processing and databases--reflect an increased sophistication in software development for educational purposes. Despite these advancements, educational software may not be suitable to some students' learning styles. Teachers must recognize that computers are inherently inflexible, impersonal and inept at handling human language. Technological aides should be subordinate to the educational goals set by the teacher; they should supplement rather than substitute for the teacher's instruction. To address this issue, Helen Schwartz, international consultant on integrating computers into the classroom, recommends asking the following questions before buying educational software: Can the software be used so as to preserve the responsibilities of teachers to student's and of students to their own learning? Is the software designed to respect the student's ownership of ideas and work? Does it deal honestly with students? Does it respect the individuality of the user--the style of learning and ability to think originally, idiosyncratically, or playfully?

One program which meets most of these guidelines is the Geometry Proofs Tutor, a sophisticated artificially intelligent software device developed by John R. Anderson and C. Franklin Boyle at Carnegie Mellon University. Intended for junior high and high school use, the tutor is designed to teach geometry students how to do proofs. Like most educational software, the GPTutor consists of three parts: Expert, Tutor and Interface. The first component is an expert system that contains the knowledge necessary to construct a wide variety of geometric proofs. With more than 300 "if-then" rules, it contains the definitions, axioms and theorems to solve nearly 200 proof problems. Most of the rules are accompanied by "heuristics," indicators of situations in which such rules might be used. It also contains a debugger of sorts which recognizes mistakes that students often make. The second part is the Tutor itself which combines information from the Expert with input from the student to help guide the proof's construction. Students may ask it for review material or a hint, strategically given by directing the student to specific aspects of a diagram. Because the GPTutor matches the student's past steps with various proof paths in the Expert system, hints are tailored to the particular student. Lastly, the Interface allows the student to interact with the computer via a mouse and/or keyboard. Its menu contains all the symbols necessary to enter geometric statements. Givens of the proof appear at the bottom and the statement appears at the top along with a diagram of the problem.

Extensive use of the GPTutor at a diverse high school studied by Janet Schofield demonstrated overall positive results. Since advanced students used the computer for assistance, teachers devoted more time to slower students and, in general, provided more individualized help. They also weighted student effort more heavily when computing grades. In turn, students showed a marked increase in task-related activities and involvement was heightened due to an increased sense of competition. It seems reasonable to suggest that the artificially intelligent tutor contributed to the students' ability to do geometry proofs. Yet, because educational software is so varied, it is difficult to draw certain conclusions about the impact of computer technology in the classroom. The study does imply that integrating computer assisted instruction works best when software enhances student motivation. As the GPTutor demonstrated, "a sense of personal control, challenge, self-confidence and curiosity" are crucial elements of effective educational software (Schofield 59).

The impact of computer use by school children should not be limited to considerations of software. As early as fifth grade, students may be programming in simple languages, developing computer graphics and even learning the fundamental theory behind how a computer works. Beth Marshall, a fifth grader at Swarthmore-Rutledge School, already comprehends base two notation. When asked to figure out the binary equivalent of 903--a problem given on a Swarthmore College final examination in Computer Science 10--she provided the correct representation, clearing demonstrating the procedures she used to produce the answer.

Classroom's at Swarthmore Rutledge Elementary are anything but traditional. Walking into "Sheila's class," the first thing you'll be told told to do is shut the door so the cat doesn't get out. Not only does this integrated first and second grade class have a domesticated pet, they also have an enormous play house in the center of the room. Kids are haphazardly positioned on bean bags, a makeshift hammock, stools or the stairs of the jungle gym. Amazingly, there seemed to be no disciplinary problems. When a student was told "heads down," the teacher gets their rapt attention. There are no desks, not even for the teacher. That is, except for where the brand new Apple Macintosh rests in the corner of the room.

This laissez-faire atmosphere is witnessed in every class throughout the building. Kids struggle in the hall with science projects, some concentrate quietly during their "sustained and silent reading" time, while others are working on computers. With at least one Mac in every elementary class and three computers in each fourth and fifth grade class, as well as in the library, there is no lack of technological equiptment. Each desktop is equipped with Corel Word Perfect, Compton's Encyclopedia, Hypercard stacks, Music Master, Kid Works II and Netscape. If a teacher opts to take a two hour training course about the Internet, his/her classroom will be equipped with unlimited access to email, the world wide web and classrooms across the nation. And faculty and students may check out any of the hundreds of CD Roms that are available in teh library. Most impressive, students can access the computers at any time of the day for any given whim, although specific approval is mandated for Internet research. In this elementary school, computers are completely integrated and used to their fullest potential. As Travis, a child prodigy of sorts, logged intohis Writer's Workbook, he responded that he enjoys computers more than writing with a pencil and paper because "It is easier, it looks better and it's just neater." Forget the basic skills of learning how to type, this kid (along with every other student in the class, though mostly boys are interested) can illustrate, animate and edit his story, "The Vampire Tale," not to mention make the computer read it out loud.

In this particular school, software primarily falls under Fred Kemp's system, of Expressive and Social applications. Truly supplementing the teacher's goals, these programs allow students to create their own story books, icons and even record their voices. By the time they've entered first grade, students even know how to navigate the Internet. Jonathan, a seven year old in Sheila's class, did a complete search about dinosaurs on Netscape. Since the student's do daily projects, they can arrange their own schedules, accordingly planning free time to use the computer. Jonathan noted that this "..makes school more fun." As espoused by the Gptutor, the greatest benefit witnessed while working with Jonathan and Travis was the sense of ownership and healthy competition that they computer generated. By the end of the internship, all twenty or more students were huddled around the computer, eager to show their work.

The program most often used in the beginning years of elementary at Swarthmore Rutledge is called Kid Works II which combines a paint program and a basic word processor. First, the students log in by typing their name and then can access story books saved under their alias or can create new programs. The program simultaneously functions as a tutor by editing the document, a tool in its different paint utilities and, most impressively, as a tutee in the sound options. This latter function enables the student's to modify the computer's phonology as it reads the story. First, the student types in a word and below spells the phonetic equivalent of it. Furthermore, the computer can read the story one word at a time, giving a brief pause for the student to repeat each word themselves. It can also read the story in chunks, simulating grammatical patterns very close to spoken standard English. Fourth and fifth graders use a more complicated word processor to type their reports, as well as a simple spreadsheet to develop their school newspaper.

Lastly, educational games supplement class room books and themes. Replacing the Oregon Trail, more politically correct programs about saving the rain forests and endangered wildlife. There are also math games like Number Cruncher which not only reinforce basic algebraic functions, but also teach primary numbers and base notation. Fortunately, after a few trial runs, the students claim the games are "too easy" and revert to original writing projects.

Research conducted at Booker T. Washington, an elementary school that instructs grades 1-4, did not prove to be as dramatic a contrast as anticipated. Although the school district barely has enough funds for text books, federal grants provided money for a computer laboratory. Paid for by Chapter I funds, money reserved for the educational needs of children from low income families, a computer classroom with approximately thirty-five computers is available to all students. At present, the program being used, Josten's Learning, is suited for the first three years of elementary education. The software is specifically programmed to supplement text book lessons and work sheets. Mrs. Wilken, the technical coordinator of the school, was somewhat curt and indignant during the interview. Reluctant to elaborate on economic ramifications of integrating computers into Chester's elementary schools, she preferred to discuss the positive aspects of the laboratory's current status. She emphasized: "It is essential to introduce computers to children at a young age so they learn the importance of technology. These computers are extensions of classroom activities, an enhancement of what goes on during the school day. They provide students with diverse activity and the kids can relate the computer programs to what they learned in class. It's more interactive."

One issue Mrs. Wilken did address was the need for district training to show teachers how to facilitate computer assisted instruction. A 1995 survey of fifty chief state school officers conducted by the Milken Institute for Jobs and Capital Formation concurred: Among possible investments in educational technology, "teacher training for technology use" and "integration of technology into instruction" had the highest priorities. Surprisingly, specific goals like "putting at least one computer in every classroom," "creating a computer lab in every school" and "insuring that every student has his/her own individual computer time" rated much lower. Mrs. Wilken noted that, despite computer workshops, there is "individual apprehension among teachers to work with computers." In fact, visitations at both elementaries proved students to be more enthusiastic and better equipped to use the technology. With sincere confusion, teachers asked their first and second grade students how to operate basic word processors and various educational games.

The real contrast between Swarthmore Rutledge and Booker T. Washington elementaries is the degree to which computers have been integrated into the classroom. In contrast to the open nature of Swarthmore's classrooms, Chester's elementary classes have rigid guidelines. To begin with, not only are computers clustered together in a laboratory outside the classroom, they are only accessible to students during prearranged time slots. Obviously, providing hundreds of students equitable access to less than forty computers does not allow the same degree of freedom or individual instruction. Deemphasizing creativity, Josten's Learning is the also only program used at Booker T. Washington. While classroom material is provided in a different format, there is not a tremendous amount of variation between computer assisted instruction and that of the teacher. In this sense, the school is simply utilizing the drill-and-practice function of the computer or "tutor," as designated in Robert Taylor's categorization, not to mention that, although not antiquated, the computers are much older than Swarthmore Rutledge's Power PCs which are fully equipped with CD Roms. Furthermore, as teacher of math, reading and writing, Mrs. Wilken cannot devote all of her time to manage the laboratory as does Swarthmore Rutledge's computer specialist.

Considering the economic state of Chester, the school district is fortunate to be equipped with at least some computer technology. Yet, there is still a disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots," between fully integrated computer instruction and the detached and limited utility of a single computer laboratory. Without being able to explore all that educational technology has to offer, students will not understand the impact it can have on their life. Without software flexible enough to suit a child's creative skills, computers are not being used to their fullest potential. By the time most of these student's reach secondary levels of schooling, they have lost the incentive to work with computers. Anthony Wilkerson, a ninth-grade drop out, noted that high schools in south Philadelphia "...have graffiti on the monitors because computers are not seen as tools for anything. They are not respected because [the students] don't think they offer anything. And then they can't get jobs because they don't know how to work with [technology]." He argues that it is not simply funding obstacles, but more importantly a problem of "motivating students to learn."

A main obstacle to reforming schools to assimilate computer technology into the classroom has to do with the image that a school ought to be organized with a strong component of control -- a principal is perceived to be "in charge" whereas the superintendent has "total command" -- which the public is fearful of giving up and may even want to strengthen. The current push towards greater teacher accountability, outcome-based education and state and national educational standards directly contradict using technology as a mechanism for "flattening the pyramid" at Stephen Kerr puts it. Reducing the number of administrative layers in a school system, giving teachers more responsibility over their instructional methods at a local level, plus allowing the students to have greater control, are elements slow to change. Yet, that is precisely what is called for by the reconceptualization of American schools, a more egalitarian and self-directed vision of education. The classroom may be cohesive, yet grant freedom and respect for individual students. By operating on the basis of independent educational goals and by emphasizing creative scholarship, students will have a heightened interest in learning and a greater sense of self-esteem.

Americans' notions of how schools should work are pervasive, powerful and deeply ingrained. It is a widespread belief, for instance, that having an adult teacher to work with children is important, regardless of how advanced technological equipment has become. Such beliefs are hard to change because they are widely circulated by the media and the government's education agencies. They are broadly accepted in society because, after all, previous generations did not have computers in each classroom. They often see technology as the latest fad in education reform. People from many different groups share this view--educators, parents, politicians, business leaders, even many scholars--making it difficult to bring about fundamental change. Thus, schools are a part of a large social institution which must be convinced that computers are good, for they allow greater individualization, more possibilities for students to explore their own agendas and enable teachers to develop new curricula that challenge the traditional bounds. In order to truly revolutionize the way students learn a more diverse and interactive classroom atmosphere is needed, one where computers are fully integrated.

The ultimate conclusion of this research goes beyond advocating computer assisted instruction to suggest that there must be a reconceptualization of American classrooms. This is somewhat controversial due to established hierarchies of power and seemingly problematic due to anticipated behavioral problems. However, it has proven successful at Swarthmore Rutledge Elementary. Why not expand the idea to poorer school districts such as Chester? Robert DeVillar and Christian Faltis argue in Computers and Cultural Diversity: Restructuring for School Success that such change is not only feasible, but absolutely necessary since "the presence of computers could otherwise promote and even augment inequities among students" (108). As alluded to earlier, not only must teachers maintain responsibility for analyzing the pedagogical soundness of software prior to and during its use by students, but they must also remain thoroughly engaged, both physically and pedagogically, in the students' learning process as they interact with the computer.

Given that well over three-fourths of the students at Swarthmore Rutledge elementary have computers in their homes, the students at Booker T. Washington fall far behind in terms of computer literacy. It is important to let students experiment with paint programs and electronic games, as well as drills that supplement classroom activities. Ideally, teachers should renounce some control over educational material. They must view themselves as facilitators of information rather than the sole providers of knowledge. In this way, learning is "hands on" and teaching is more interactive. Just as the Internet has been termed "the classroom without boundaries," schools can be transformed from traditional and often boring places to more innovative, open places of learning. Lastly, the most important advantage of computer assisted instruction is that it taps into modes of intelligence that are not valued by standardized testing. When creative, performance based learning takes place, social interaction within the classroom is improved and teachers actually have more time for one-on-one assistance. Defying the false assumption that students have the same learning style, the proper educational software can suit individual student needs while supplementing the teacher's main educational goals.

The introduction of educational technology into the classroom threatens to complicate the most serious debate regarding public education: school funding. Computers, printers, and modems are typically thought of when imagining the re-equipping of America's classrooms. However, these are just beginning considerations. More expensive than the hardware itself is the new infrastructure required to support it--the software, electronic rewiring of rooms, the installation of networks to provide access to the Internet and distance learning classrooms, subscriptions to a variety of electronic information services and perhaps special devices to control access to those deemed inappropriate for children, not to mention the cost of regular maintenance and upgrades. However one looks at it, the reconfiguration of classrooms to accommodate sophisticated technological learning tools is an expensive proposition.

Even a superficial examination of how states and local school districts are handling this funding issue reveals the politics behind public education. There is no common pattern among states and localities as to how new kinds of technological expenses are being funded. Some depend on donations from business and industry or on reduced prices and cooperative arrangements with the manufacturers and suppliers of hardware and software; many communities use local bond issues or levies to generate needed funds; elsewhere there are specially designated state funds raised by various means. Yet, the basic procedures for raising major capital to buy extra equipment for schools are questionable because existing budget categories do not usually have a separate line item for "technology." In fact, the purchase of computers can fall under nearly all existing budget categories: instructional materials, business services, administrative support, maintenance and operations and capital construction. The lack of common agreement as to where technology funds should be allocated from within the budget of a school, district or state, makes it difficult to develop a reliable notion of what schools are spending and how such money is generated. Indeed, the only data that do exist on a state and regional basis consist of estimates which are unreliable and often misleading.

Despite limited details of local and state expenditures for technology, the Milken Institute and Job and Capital Formation recently conducted surveys of fifty chief state school officers to assess the situation. Their research indicates that states spent an average of about $27.7 million per year over the past five years to acquire needed technological goods and services. When considered nationally, this corresponds to almost $32 per pupil, slightly more than one-half of one percent of the current $5,623 average per-pupil expenditure (Kerr 55). A survey conducted by the U.S. General Accounting Office of a representative sample of 5,000 school districts indicates that an average school bond issue is about $6.6 million, of which computer costs account for 2.4 percent and telecommunications equipment total about 58 percent. If extrapolated to all 15,000 school districts in the United States, roughly $8 billion would be spent on educational technology. As reflected by these estimates, status quo funding priorities include teacher salaries, administration costs and other student services, rather than technological concerns. In contrast, the Milken study reflects chief state school officers' concerns with deeper issues of computer technology and the infrastructure needed to support it. On being asked "How much would be required to provide a minimal level of educational technology for schools and districts?" they responded with estimates much higher than current budget allowances: $608 million per state to implement at least those technology-related goals that they deemed to be "high priority," essentially doubling the current figure of $155 spent by the average district on books and materials, and an addition of about 2.5 percent to the average district per-pupil cost.

Given these reports of current educational technology costs and the projection for future expenditures, it is important to consider where the funding comes from. The most reliable report suggests that 12.8 percent of funding comes from federal sources, 38.9 percent from state sources, 40.8 percent from local public funds, 6.4 percent from local private contributions, and 3.8 percent from other locations (Kerr 56). However, these estimates exaggerate the state's role in purchasing educational technology and, further, suggest that the importance being attached to private sources by school officials has yet to be matched by serious contributions. Or is this because schools are reticent to provide hard figures due to the common concern about issues of equity and access? There is wide acknowledgement that technology is expensive to buy and maintain. Coupled with an agreement that, historically, American schools have had problems assuring equitable distribution of resources and access to educational opportunities for members of disadvantaged groups, it is understandable that the methods for purchasing and distributing educational technology are not made available to the public. Yet, national surveys unequivocally suggest a tendency for more privileged students to have greater computer access. Not surprisingly, richer schools have more computers than do poorer ones (Schofield 215).

Hence, one of the major issues associated with the use of technology in schools is equity. The danger is that, due to economic disparities, the distance between the "haves" and "have nots" will widen. In a 1992 article suggestively titled "America's Shame: We've Abandoned Our Children's Future" from MACWORLD, Charles Piller predicts: "By the year 2000, we may create a schism in American society between have and have not graduates from our own school systems. If computers are not successfully and widely integrated into primary and secondary education, our society will stratify into those with the knowledge to succeed and those who cannot." Indeed, of all students in public schools, those who come from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds are the least likely to be provided with educational technology, regardless of their school's budget. Since standardized tests, arguably, measure higher-order cognitive skills, the worse students perform on them, the more teachers emphasize basic skills. Consequently, less time and trust is placed on different instructional approaches, such as computer games and electronic learning devices. Already disadvantaged students "who perennially perform the poorest on standardized tests, receive more and more instruction that carries them further and further away from any chance of becoming the thinking citizens, problem solvers, and information managers that society requires in the next century," argues Arthur G. Wirth, author of Education and Work for the Year 2000. Because these very children represent one-third of the expected work force in the next millennium, this issue is of critical importance.

Disparities exist even within the well equipped, predominantly white, middle and upper class schools: the academically advanced students have more access to computers than do their peers. The Whitmore High School, studied by Janet Ward Schofield for two years, reflects the national trend of reserving educational technology for gifted students: the computer room was made available only to honor students with no equivalent for their peers in the less advanced tracks. Although many of the gifted students played games in the lab, software programs to enhance performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Tests were readily used. In addition, the word processors offered the advantage of editing capabilities and graphic~illustrations. And simply working through software and hardware problems undoubtedly taught students a substantial amount about computer functionality and problem solving. Overall, students in the two upper tracks were invited to participate with artificially intelligent tutors in a much higher proportion than from the regular track, roughly 80 percent, 70 percent and 25 percent respectively (Schofield 215).

It should be noted that the use of technology poses a threat to social and academic success of groups only insofar as educational policy regulates its use as divisive rather than integrative. Educators must require and have access to computers and educational software that will provide enrichment-based, discovery-oriented learning opportunities for their students. Although more idealistic than pragmatic, this must hold true wherever computers are to be used, regardless of the students' socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, language of communication, age or gender, or the relative wealth of their school site. Researchers Kathleen C. Westbrook and Stephen T. Kerr concur:

"Giving students this chance [to use computer technology] requires that all schools be well equipped to accommodate the current and anticipated future developments in technology, that classrooms contain a reasonable complement of recent educational technology, that all students have easy access to information resources, and that teachers and administrators know how to use these systems as a normal part of their daily routines" (Kerr 69-70)

Educational equity, then, is closely and irreversibly tied to computer-integrated instructional technology. Without fairly administering the use of educational technology in the classroom, the exiting disparities in academic achievement between groups will undoubtedly widen. It is already known that students from families earning less than $25,000 a year are twice as likely to never use a computer at home. However, 89 percent of teenagers interviewed by Princeton Survey Research Associates say they use computers at least several times a week. And when teens from lower-income homes do use computers as often as kids from wealthier families, they report that they get their access at school more than at home. This suggests that wiring schools can be an effective way to close the gap between the have and the have-nots, but only if access is made consistent and equitable.

Indeed, more expensive than hardware, software and the electronic infrastructure it requires, is the cost of not equitably preparing students for a job market which is increasingly dependent on computer literate workers. The U.S. Department of Labor notes the overwhelming impact computer technology has had on the American work place in the August 1996 issue of The Monthly Labor Review. Economist Sheila McConnell concluded: "In sum, computer technology is changing the nature and number of jobs. Its impact is extensive because the technology, network systems, and software is similar across firms and industries. This is in contrast to technological innovations in the past, which often affected specific occupations and industries. Computer technology is versatile and affects almost every job category" (5). Despite the ever present demand for basic computer knowledge, American graduates from both high school and post secondary institutions lack the skills, information, and problem-solving strategies to hold a job. Employer funds that could be used to increase salaries are, instead, being spent on preparing employees to meet job demands. In annual surveys, Training magazine found that firms with 100 or more workers say they must spend millions to train employees in basic computer skills they did not learn at school (Hood 15). Although by no means a panacea, introducing educational technology into public classrooms is essential for preparing students to hold jobs and, consequently, boost the national economy.

Yet, the latest publications on how to prepare students to enter the job market do not concretely illustrate the benefit of computer skills. Surprisingly, the latest books touted in teacher preparation courses such as Teaching the New Basic Skills: Principles for Educating Children to Thrive in a Changing Economy and Linking School and Work make only vague, theoretical arguments about the importance of science and technical education. Financial, news and government journals whose cover stories analyze career shifts from manufacturing to technology are more rhetorical than substantive. The necessity of computer literacy in the present job market seems to be taken for granted.The U.S. Department of Commerce Statistical Abstract of the United States reports that the percent of the total number of workers using computers on the job increased with the level of educational attainment: high school drop outs (10) high school graduate (34), college educated (50) and those who earned degrees: associate's (58), bachelor's (68) and master's (71). Since income levels follow a similar pattern for these categories of educational attainment, it can be concluded that computer skills are in some way correlated to income. Computer applications, in order from most used to least, include word processing, communications, bookkeeping, spreadsheets and analysis, databases and, lastly, desktop publishing.

John Clendenin, chief executive officer of Bell South Corporation, put it simply: "Our nation's students and teachers [need] to become technologically adept. For if they are to participate usefully in the emerging global Information Age, they must be as comfortable with technology as they are today with pencils and note pads" (Kerr 67). Perhaps more so than educators, students are aware that familiarity with computers is beneficial. Time magazine reports that 92 percent of students think computers will improve their educational opportunities; almost as many think technology will create better jobs in the future (Princeton 86). Thus, our definition of what constitutes a school must shift from the traditional notion of the teacher as the primary facilitator of knowledge and expand it to consider alternative methods of instruction. It is important to make contact with those resources consistent with what they will eventually need in their working lives, to teach how to use information technology effectively by critically analyzing the data it provides.

Integrating computers into the classroom is revolutionizing the way students learn. Although not evenly distributed, the millions of computers in today's schools utilize educational software that, theoretically, supplements teachers' goals. As demonstrated by field research at Swarthmore Rutledge and Booker T. Washington elementary schools, computers can have a positive impact by increasing student motivation and varying instructional approaches. Yet, due to inadequate funding, there are many school districts that cannot afford even the most basic technology.

To remedy this problem, we must strive for equitable distribution and access to computer technology while redefining our concept of the classroom. If we take seriously the education of our young people, if we believe that technology will play an increasing role in our social and economic future and if high-quality educational technology is to be a part of the school experience, then we must reconceive the fundamental and basic notion of what schools are, and thus of how they are to be funded. The amounts that schools now typically pay for instructional materials will be completely inadequate to provide schools with the level of technology that many educators, policy makers, parents and, most importantly, employers see as desirable. If we only weakly manage to figure out how to provide these kinds of resources to schools on a one-time basis, then we have not even begun to think about how to do so in a way that continues over time, that sees educational technology as a necessary and worthwhile expenditure.

Arnowitz, Stanley and Henry A. Giroux. Education Still Under Siege. Westport: Bergin and Garvey, 1993.

DeVillar, Robert A. and Christian J. Faltis. Computers and Cultural Diversity: Restructuring for School Success. New York: State University of New York Press, 1991.

Holdstein, Deborah H. and Cynthia L. Selfe. Computers and Writing: Theory. Research, Practice. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 1990.

Hood, John. "The Market Approach to Job Training" Policy Review May/June 1996, p. 14-15

Kerr, Stephen T. Technologv and the Future of Schooling. Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education, 1996.

McConnell, Sheila. "The Role of computers in Reshaping the Workforce" Monthly Labor Review. August 1996, p. 3-5.

Princeton Survey Research Associates. "Teenagers and Technology" Newsweek. April 28, 1997 p. 86

Rosenberg, Richard S. The Social Impact of Computers. Boston: Academic Press Inc., 1992.

Schofield, Janet Ward. Computers and Classroom Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Selfe, Cynthia L. and Susan Hilligoss. Literacy and Computers: The Complications of Teaching and Learning with Technology. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 1994.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract if the United States: 1996 (116th edition.) Washington, DC, 1996.

Wirth, Arthur G. Education and Work for the Year 2000: Choices We Face. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1992.