Literacy, or Just the Basics?

The Clinton administration just announced an ambitious plan to meet the growing demand for high-tech workers, an effort that would include millions of dollars for recruitment and training.

At the same time, Gov. Pete Wilson’s plan for California Virtual University has received a financial endorsement from five major high-tech firms. But the number of computer science majors in American universities is dropping, raising fears that the technology engine driving our economy may run out of fuel.

All of this raises questions about how computer-literate our work force needs to be and just who is responsible for teaching technological literacy. Clifford Stoll and Jacqui Celsi debate some of these issues here.

Stoll, author of “Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts About the Information Highway,� is an astrophysicist who used his technological skills to hunt down German spies who hacked their way into sensitive computer systems. He has two toddlers and has purged his Oakland home of both television and computers.

Celsi, a teacher by trade, has spent 10 years at Apple Computer, first helping the company figure out if and how technology should be in the schools. Now she manages an effort of her own creation that teaches teachers to be computer-literate. Her 2-year-old daughter glommed onto the family computer over the holidays and now clicks merrily away.

Must everyone who wants gainful employment as the next century looms be computer-literate?

Stoll: No, of course not. Around here in the Bay Area, computer programmers and computer jocks get paid $50 to $60 an hour. Good job, isn’t it? A plumber costs $125 an hour. How come? It’s because every school all around the bay teaches computing. There is not one that teaches plumbing. If you perceive California in the year 2050 as being a state of computer jocks and no pipes, then make everyone computer-literate.

Celsi: It depends, and it depends on the individual. I don’t think an individual would be completely disadvantaged if they weren’t computer-literate. There’s not much in our lives that doesn’t have something to do with understanding how technology works, like ATMs. You go to Safeway and they give you a card and keep tabs of your purchases. I believe that you don’t need to understand technology beyond how to use it to get your job done.

Just what is computer literacy?

Stoll: I think that any high school graduate who intends to go on to college ought to have this much computer literacy: They ought to be able to do enough word processing to write a paper or a resume. They ought to have come in contact with and know what a spreadsheet does. A computer-literate person ought to know what a database is--not program one. A computer-literate person ought to have used the Internet, know how e-mail works and use the Web. That is not tough stuff. Basic computer literacy can be taught in a week.

Celsi: I think you’re computer-literate if you’re able to articulate how the technology as a tool can assist you in the work you do. It’s different for every person. As a teacher, I have to be able to articulate how that tool will enhance computer learning. If I’m teaching about missions, as they do in fourth grade in California, I need to know how to use the computer to give them a more enriching learning opportunity.

When should people be taught to use computers? Is it ever too early--or too late?

Stoll: It is about as unimportant to be taught computer literacy as it is to be taught television literacy. Should we teach our kids to use VCRs? Television is far more central in the life of our society than computers, and yet 98% of our population cannot program a VCR. Does that mean that 98% of our population is losing out? Hell, no. It’s trivial stuff. And it denigrates the value of an education to teach such transient trivia as programming a VCR or how to use a word processor.

Celsi: Children should be introduced to computers whenever they have an interest. From preschool all the way through,computers should be available. But I think that technology does not need to be taught. I think technological tools need to be made available to every child in the U.S. The younger you start, the shorter the learning curve will be.

The sooner you can introduce the computer as a tool in their lives, the more computer-literate they can become. The later you introduce it, the more intimidation there is.

Isn’t this a class issue--yuppie children whose parents teach them Barbie software versus children in homes and schools without computers?

Stoll: In the 1950s, people could have as easily said, “Access to TV, only the rich have it. We will have a better society when everyone has access to TV.� I live right next to Berkeley, a few blocks from Telegraph Avenue. I have been up and down Telegraph Avenue, up and down Golden Gate Park and not once have have I seen a panhandler saying, “Help, help, I need more information!� We go around saying, “If we can get information to the poor people, they’ll be rich.� It’s a lie.

Celsi: It definitely is a class issue. There are a lot of initiatives at the state and federal level to address that.

If a computer is something that would enhance students’ lives and they did not have access, but John across the neighborhood does, it’s a disadvantage.

We have to, as educators, figure out how to give those students that tool. The bigger challenge is at home. As the cost goes down, the access to technology has to be there.

Is too much time in front of the computer as bad as too much time in front of the television?

Stoll: An Internet-linked computer is a very close relative to the television set. With every year, they get closer to each other. Suppose the president would announce, “I have a program to bring television sets into every school in the country--in fact, every classroom.� What would people say? Wouldn’t they say, “This is fraudulent�?

We don’t want TV sets in the classroom, yet somehow or another the computer, which is darn close to the TV set, the vice president pushes it, and everyone says, “Hey, this is a good idea.�

Celsi: Because of my profession, I’m not as frightened of the computer as the TV. If my child is spending 50% of his day in front of the computer making a program, I don’t know if I’d be that concerned.

The issue is the content, not the tool--what they’re watching on TV versus what they’re using on the computer.

Do skills like creativity, problem-solving, imagination, social aptitude wither when computers are the primary learning tool for children?

Stoll: What’s the most important thing I can learn in my life? What’s the skill I want to teach every student, age 2, 4, 6, 47 or 65? What’s the important life skill I want them to leave knowing and understanding, a lesson so important even I recognize it? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You can’t learn that from any multimedia system. It’s not available to you on the World Wide Web. You can’t be taught that from any CD-ROM. No. You can learn that from an inspired teacher.

Celsi: I think they’re enhanced. Our research shows this. The impact that the computer has on collaborative learning, collaborative sharing, is great. I think it’s a big enhancement. As an educator, that’s why I need to be computer-literate--so I can offer that to my students.

For creativity, it depends on the individual. From drawing and publishing--depending on the aptitude of the student--it gives them another medium to express that, more ways to express data.

All of a sudden you have seven different ways to express the same things when you use a computer.

Who should teach computer literacy to Americans?

Stoll: What a fraud to say that we need to teach computer literacy. We’re wasting our students’ time. Don’t you think this is outrageous that we’re taking the precious time away from children and teaching them to use software that will be obsolete in a few years?

Celsi: The schools and the home. The burden has to be shared, just as learning the four Rs at school has to be enhanced at home. Because the technology has only been in the schools for 15 years, employers also have to have a part.

If we effectively integrate technology in the schools, the role of the employer will evolve into giving specific training with regard to the tools you’re using, not technology in general.