`DIGITAL HIGH SCHOOL' FACES PRACTICAL PROBLEMS : GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED FUNDING STRUCTURE MAY ONLY EXPAND THE GULF BETWEEN SCHOOLS THAT HAVE TECHNOLOGY TRAINING AND THOSE TRAPPED IN A PREVIOUS AGE.

Byline: Richard Chapleau

BOTH Gov. Pete Wilson and state schools Superintendent Delaine Eastin are making progress toward the dream of the digital classroom. But there are several possible pitfalls with Wilson's ``Digital High School'' Initiative that need public discussion and debate.

The intention behind Gov. Wilson's plan is correct. When calculators were allowed in college courses, I didn't have a choice: it was either jump on the bandwagon or fall behind. The same is now true of the Internet.

We have to stop thinking of the Internet as a luxury - we have to think of it as a necessity for the next generation.

We are currently in danger of facing a situation where most high school students leave school with essentially no technology training. We will lose the middle class if we do not train our students in the technologies they will need to hold decent jobs.

Organizations like the Milken Family Foundation are right in urging lawmakers and education professionals to promote education technology in their states.

There are, however, certain problems with Wilson's plan. His idea of requiring schools to match state funds with money and equipment, donated by private industry, is not new, but in practice the idea has always been problematic.

First of all, writing grants and pursuing private money is a time-consuming effort. It can take a team of about three to four teachers, administrators and parents a minimum of 20 hours each to write grant proposals, forge partnerships with industry and involve the community.

This work is usually done during weekends, in what I call, the ``free overtime'' mode and takes away from the time that teachers would more effectively use in instructional preparation.

If all this time spent on pursuing grants pays off, with a large sum from which the school can fund its technology projects, then it's worth it.

But, when you throw in the concept of competition, with all of California's high schools competing for only 100 grants in the first year, the majority of schools will find their time has been wasted in writing proposals for grants they will never receive.

Competition to determine effective schools is a great idea, but competition for crumbs of the funding cake is a detriment to education. Let's not forget also, that there are a large number of low-income schools that will find it hard to raise $50 million in private donations to match the government grant, creating an undesirable haves-vs.-have-nots situation, in which the schools that need the technology the most will not get it.

The other reality Wilson's initiative will come up against is a financial reality.

Let's assume that a typical California high school has, say, 50 teachers. Assuming this high school was about to match the state's grant of $500,000, it would have a starting capital of $1 million.

Preparing California's schools for the 21st century, is not just a matter of buying computers; before a school even thinks about buying computers, the campus needs to be wired so the computers can be networked to a central server. Unless the school has already been wired through programs such as NetDay, the cost of wiring each classroom will eat up almost half the money.

Dividing the remaining $500,000 among 50 teachers, gives each classroom $10,000. Assuming an average cost of $2,000 per computer (which will need to be at least 486/66s), each classroom could buy no more than five computers, leaving them with no money for software, teacher training, security, periodic maintenance, etc.

For Wilson's initiative to accomplish what he proposes, new sources of money need to be located.

As an alternate source of funding, we might research how much companies are spending on training their employees to use computers. If students learn what they are supposed to before they graduate, industry won't have to waste money on remedial training. Perhaps we could find a way to bring that pot of money into the classrooms.

Let's not keep spending more money, but instead let's start spending more wisely.

Also, the decisions regarding how to implement Wilson's initiative, should be made from the bottom up. There's too much top-down decision-making as it is - you have to recognize and honor the expertise of the classroom teacher, particularly those whose schools have successfully integrated technology into their curriculum.

Lancaster High School is just one of a new generation of schools that have taken the lead in this area.

With the collaboration of several forward-thinking teachers, administrators and unions, we at Lancaster have created a system that not only teaches students how to use a mouse or surf the Internet, but prepares them to become productive, technologically proficient citizens when they graduate.

And we are not alone.

Having attended the Milken Family Foundation's annual National Education Conference last year, I discovered that there are many other wonderful educators out there who are doing wonderful things with education technology at their schools.

Can we not learn from those who are already experts and not again reinvent the wheel?

In spite of all the details that need to be worked out, Wilson's proposal is commendable. It is also urgently needed.

Even though his plan commits only about one-seventh of the money that Superintendent Eastin's Educational Technology Task Force recommended, both proposals are steps in the right direction. Education sounds expensive, when viewed in a vacuum, but it is society's best bargain when viewed in the light of its alternatives.

CAPTION(S):

Photo

Photo: Plugged in: To accomplish Gov. Pete Wilson's plans for digital high schools, new sources of funding will have to be found.