Futurists Say Schools Must Change Radically

American schools must radically change the way they teach children or watch the huge promise of computers fade, two futurists told a House committee Wednesday.

One day soon, the best classrooms will be like “a research lab, or a very active, creative architect’s office,” predicted Seymour Papert, a pioneer in artificial intelligence who directs learning research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Lab.

Teachers will be guides, helping students teach themselves and discover information through computers, rather than sages imparting facts, said Alan Kay, an Apple researcher and pioneer in the development of personal computers.

And children could repair or even build their own computers and software if money were tight.

“We’re putting computers into a school system that was developed in an entirely different epoch,” Papert said. That won’t work, he told hearings before the House Science and Economic and Educational Opportunities committees.

Many lawmakers seemed to hang on the futurists’ every word.

“What we need to do is shake (education) up,” said Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.

The hearing threw a spotlight on widely varying theories among American educators:

Papert and Kay, joined by many conservatives, believe regulations and habit are strangling American schools.

Teachers and parents will be more motivated if they can create their own lessons or even schools, they believe. Children will be motivated if they follow their interests, developing the higher-level thinking they need to explore further.

Other educators, business leaders and President Clinton’s advisers believe schools must be improved because of a rapidly changing economy and new international competition. They want to use computers in innovative ways but don’t believe the current educational system stands in the way.

Social conservatives share an interest in breaking up what they call the government’s education monopoly, giving parents more choice. They want schools to focus on the basics.

The three groups disagree on the federal role in financing schools, motivating teachers and ensuring that poor children have opportunities.