COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\\M1BASL30\M2BASI30\M3NGR25\M4NGR20
C00019 ENDMK
C⊗;
\\M1BASL30;\M2BASI30;\M3NGR25;\M4NGR20;
\F1\CJan 23, 1981




Dr. Robert Calfee
Dr. Michael Kirst
School of Education
Stanford University
Stanford CA, 94035




Dear Dr. Calfee and Dr. Kirst

\J
This is a late response to the September 8
U.S. News & World Report article on high school education and
the related interview with E. L. Boyer;
I didn't see the article until last week. It wasn't
a case of slow mail, or a trip
to a doctor's office that finally
brought the magazine to my attention; 
rather, I was  talking with someone about education
and computing.

I have been trying to move on the problems of education from the perspective
of computation, using this notion and its twentieth-century realizations as
computers to revitalize the mathematics curricula. My interest is both
personal (I have two sons --eight and ten) and professional (I enjoy
what mathematics and computation have to offer).
I am enclosing a paper, \F2The Bankruptcy of Basic\F1 that addresses
what I feel is the current
empty approach to the use of computers in education.
I believe
 that computing is a fundamental discipline, valid for the future
as traditional mathematics has been valid for the past; a computer or calculator
is more than 
another worksaving device lke the
automobile or the typewriter --it is \F2not\F1
simply a  "technological toy" to save the brain from
thinking.

I have spent much of the last eighteen months learning how little I know
about "changing the world"; I does seem to be difficult, but not hopeless.
This fall I was invited to propose an interactive educational 
computing curriculum to Texas Instruments in conjunction with their interest
in Artificial Intelligence; unfortunately their financial outlook was
not sufficiently robust that they could support the effort.
I am enclosing an abbreviated copy of the proposal: \F2
A Plan to Establish a Credible Curriculum for Mathematics and Computer Science\F1

Currently, I am teaching a series of courses at Santa Clara University,
moving from the graduate level, as I consolidate my thinking, to the
more elementary, and therefore more sensitive, levels.
This spring I will be teaching an undergraduate course --\F2The Art of
Computer Science\F1-- at SCU. This course will address the computing phemonenon
at a substantive level (for example, computing theory as an 
alternative deductive system
to classical geometry) as  well as the more usual 
experience with computing devices. This class will therefore have an "interactive
programming laboratory" associated with it.
The point of the class is not to teach people to program; rather it is to
teach them to think. 

Coming from a mathematics
background, I have  felt that the
point of an undergraduate mathematics program was "mind training", not
the presentation of particular mathematical results.
Alas, most computer-related courses equate the teaching of
programming with a dispensation of a job-skill  and, even more unfortunately,
most programming languages are poorly suited to 
the task of teaching one to think. The latter is particularly unfortunate
since computing has the potential for being a more effective tool for 
training  minds than  traditional mathematics.
Thus I view with distress Mr. Boyer's attitude,
in the companion US News article,  equating mathematics with
fluency in calculation. It is ironic to see him advocate the introduction
of calculators and computers in schools, while deriding driver education.
I see his attitude toward computation as just "electronic driver's ed".
Of course, without access to contrary information, it is not suprising
that this lack of understanding exists.

I am attacking this problem, transforming my courses at Santa Clara into 
a book after widening its scope and deepening its coverage.
Early this summer I will emphasize the technical aspects in a course for
 computer science professionals, and later this summer I expect to teach
a seminar to professionals in the humanitites and social sciences. This
seminar is particularly exciting  since there I expect to explore
the philosophical and cultural aspects of computing.

The ultimate target of this work is the high school, particularly
the  mathematics and  sciences programs. 
At best, computing is currently  taught as a tool for
solving problems (engineering); at worst it's introduced as a toy.
Computing should be approached as a fundamental discipline like mathematics and,
as as such, can revitalize the fundamental educational goal --the
training of minds-- in ways never possible  with the traditional 
disciplines --classics, logic, and mathematics. Computing is the fundamental 
mathematical principle of the twenty-first century.

A group of us from the LISP, Smalltalk, LOGO, and personal computing
 communities are organizing a conference session this fall to address the 
questions of computing languages as a tool for training minds.
A central issue is the proper combination of the technical form (computers)
with the substance (computation); I believe  that the
only way to make an impact is by presenting the  material in an integrated
approach: a text and a machine.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't always see things 
in an integrated fashion. Four publishers
are pursuing the book segment of my approach, but all shy away 
from  the prospect
of dealing with computers. Several
computer manufacturers
desire the technological parts of the proposal, but  shy away from
involvment with the educational concerns. The irony of  Mr. Boyer's
remarks about driver education appears again: 
there \F2is\F1 a "driver's ed" component to
 computation; one must use the instrument to become fluent with it. However,
the intellectual legacy of traditional
mathematics (and computing) far outstrip such
considerations.  Just
as the ability to use a calculator does not imply an ability
to do mathematics, so too, the ability to program does not imply an understanding
of computation. Alas,
from what I have seen of the high school
computing programs in this county
and the attendees at the Western Educational Computing  Consortium, this
superficial attitude  is rampant.

Overall I am optimistic, however;
there's some hope to finesse
the problem, and drive the solution from outside the existing educational 
framework.  I see the "personal computer" community as a hopeful sign --a
talented, highly motivated, but often ill-informed and ill-focused
 sub-culture.
It is my intention to develop this potential, feeding their
intellectual curiousity on the substance of computing principles.
In conjunction with the development of the book, a group of us
have  organized a special LISP-related
session at the next West Coast Computer Faire; this
session will include papers, demonstrations, and a tutorial to 
present the basic concepts.
It will be interesting to see 
if my faith in human nature is well-founded.

Furthermore, there are  some hopeful signs within the computing community.
The most widely known effort is the work at UC San Diego on applying
the language Pascal, to general education. They
developed an elegant, accessible, interactive Pascal,
and coupled it with a extensive, self-contained book
for learning about programming in Pascal.
Their work is, in large measure,
responsible for the growing acceptance of Pascal. 
Though Pascal is useful as a programming language, there are severe problems
with using it to discuss fundamental computational ideas; much like
using a course in Civil Engineering as a basis for explaining Geometry.

At MIT, the newly formed "Educational Computing Group" is building on their
LISP/LOGO experience to develop a new undergraduate mathematics and physics
program. Though of like philosophy to mine
in terms of language, their program stresses applications of
computing, not computation as such; and of course it is directed to 
a rather select undergraduate population.  I truly worry about the
minds being wasted and destroyed in high school
before (or if ever!) they reach a university.
The LOGO and Smalltalk projects address some of the pre-university issues, 
but overlook
the foundational aspects, opting to stress the applications rather than  the
 principles.

The major stumbling block to the
advancement of my proposals is money.
 I am working outside the educational system except
for my part-time position at Santa Clara. Knowing who, where, when,
and how to apply for grants; locating educational
groups that would be interested in experimenting with the approach;
discovering publishers or computer manufacturers who have a somewhat visionary
view; all these are issues that I am ill-prepared to deal with.

If you are intrigued with my proposal, want more information, and/or
could put me in contact with some supportive agencies, please
 contact me. I can be reached through several sources: at Santa Clara University
through Dr. Ruth E. Davis (408)984-4358; messages on an answering machine
(408)353-2227, or at home (408)353-3857. I am also on the Stanford campus
several times a week and available as JRA@SU-AI  on the ARPA Net.


Thank you for your time and attention.
\.




\←L\→S\←R\-L\/'2;\+L\→L

Yours sincerely,


John R. Allen
18215 Bayview Dr.
Los Gatos Ca, 95030
(408) 353-3857

Santa Clara University
EECS Department
Santa Clara, CA 95053
(408) 984-4358

\←S\→L

Encl.

The Bakruptcy of BASIC

Proposal for Math. Curriculum