The Curriculum: Who's in Charge? Up to this point it was reasonable t assume that the details of curricular matters were in the hands of teachinr fnculty. To be sure, administrative and other influences have not necessarily always been absent in the formulation of curricula. However, we may have entered an era where for the first time a potentially significant new force of a previously unexperienced character must be recognized, viz., profit-making corporations. Perhaos the issue is not necessarilv obvious to manv with regard textbooks. For example, over the years compkition amone eeneral chemistw textbook oublishers has become keen.'P;blisbers seek to gain an edge in the competition among texts with essentially equivalent content by employing features that increasingly add to production costs. Thus, a competitor's sinele color text is met hv a multi-colored production; genera( chemistry textbooks now come with increasingly involved support packages. Workbooks are stan.. . dard f G slides of figures in a text &e countered by overhead transparencies for another text, and texts are now supplemented by computer programs. Some would contest the pedagogical usefulness of such supplementary materials in relationship to the costs incurred. The decisions to produce such materials are based on perceived corporate advantages in the marketplace. This kind of escalation has meant that publishers must be prepared to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars of "front monev" before a manuscrint is even ready for the editor's pen. ~ i t L f i n a n c i acommitments l at this level. it is not surorisine that oublishers have been overlv cautious about th; prudktion ;~fsuch texthooks. ~ l t h o u g h no ~uhlisherwould intrude directlv in the creative orocess of writing a textbook, it is not unreasonable for them tb insist on careful review of the develo~inemanuscript a t nearlv everv stage of its evolution to moiitor their financial investments. The creative process, when it occurs, is undoubtedlv closed t o all but a reiatively few persons who are generally selected bv the publisher. -Perhaps the magnitude of the potential p r h l e m is mnst obvious with computer-hased methods uf education. The future shape and nature of the use of computing in education is being strongly influenced-determined-by computer manufacturers. The details of what computers can and cannot do and, which of their capabilities are expressed to the user, and the parts of the system can be accessed by the user are completely dictated by the manufacturer. Profit margins and sales rods drive decisions in these areas. which rarelv coincide with lducational considerations. We may not know, br be able to know, the basis of the educational effectiveness of using computing in education, but even if we did, these factors probably would not be taken into consideration in corporate-level decision making. The educated public's apparent boundless enthusiasm for
td
computers and the corporate dominance of educational computing are excerbated by the general innocence of educators and administrators. Responses to questions associated with academic computing can often be characterized by a "buy f i r s t t h i n k later" approach. This is not likely to assure results of lasting educational value. The current rush to require "computer literacy"-whatever that term means-is only short-term obfuscation of the real problem, because the apparent concerns associated with the so-called computer literacy issue will disappear rapidly with time. The more impon> issue here-is that a growing proportion of commercial software has been identified as "educational." e.g., the more sophisricawd cnursework successors of 'Speak and Spell." T h r magnitude uf the general problem hecomes obvious in the light of a recent estimate that 16 million home computers with attendant learning programs will be sold in the next four years; the home education market is expected to reach an annual level of $3 billion. Traditional educators and scholars probably will not have much to say about the content of those learning programs. Perhaps the only realistic response of the educational community to this situation is the classical caveat emptor. Still, we will have to deal with the debris generated by "profit-driven education3'-the products of poo~pedigogicalpractices, erroneous content, and disappointed or turned-off students. Our current capacity to respond to the challenge of computing is probably inadequate even though there are some pockets of hope in federally-funded projects, projects a t statewide levels, and some private philantEropicallv supported projwtii. Although there is an i"creaing 1ikrat;re and a growing numher of workshops and conferences denling with the computer's emerging role in education, these tend totofocus on technology rather than addressing the long-term educational and intellectual objectives possible with these devices. We are treated to endless enumerations of who is doing what, and often it is dazzling; yet there appears to be little critical analysis of the educational significance of what is being done. The information currentlv beine collected is of substantial interest and use to manuf&tureri, but i t is of little real use to those interested in the substantive auestions in education. Specifically, how can instructional computing, which gives us moving books, good drill and practice exercises. and imnroved methods of teaching skills, be emplo;ed to change the very basis of the educational system? Some observers suggest that we have now reached the position of enhancing obsolete educational processes with new technologies. If this point of view is correct, has not the time come to redesign the educational process? A bold stroke could harness technology to produce a new educational milieu and return curricular design to teachers and JJL scholars.
Volume 61 Number I2 December 1984
1031
