COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\\M1BASL30\M2BASB30\M3BASI30
C00014 ENDMK
C⊗;
\\M1BASL30;\M2BASB30;\M3BASI30;
\F1\CAugust 22, 1981\.
Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber
c/o Simon & Schuster Publishers
Simon & Schuster Bldg.
Rockefeller Center
1230 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020

Dear Sir:
\J
Hal Abelson  at MIT recommended  your book
\F3The World Challenge\F1 to me. I  located it and, in the next twenty-four
hours, read it cover-to-cover; twice. Maybe there \F3is\F1 some hope; I'm 
a bit pessimistic however.

As you  say, technology
and its educational applications are a challenge to the world. Unfortunately,
I am fearful that the United States will not, or cannot, respond to that
challenge in a constructive manner. I have spent many years trying
to  influence the educational system to the intellectual as well as 
technical opportunities dormant in the "new technology".
I have tried,  using
LISP --LOGO's parent, to
bring the notions of mathematical theory of computation 
 through colleges to high schools. The ultimate
intent is to revitalize mathematical
education in the  high schools,  heading off the 
 "mathophopia" of higher mathematics much like LOGO addresses the
issues in the primary grades.

It has been my belief that
a fundamental problem in science education
is the debasement of mathematics, either
making it a purist's game --the new math-- or making it a simpleton's
mechanical exercise --the  back-to-basics movement.  As usual, there is
a middle ground: building from a computational intuition based on
high school algebra (which can be reinforced using computers and graphics),
there is a simple progression that yields either a foundation for
advanced mathematics, or a foundation for computer science.
The approach is similar in intent to that Abelson and diSessa demonstrate
in the \F3Turtle Geometry\F1: their target is physics; mine, mathematics and
computation. 

I think we all agree that
if the foundations
are lacking, any   structure 
built on these foundations is precarious at best. Unfortunately,
the foundational issues in computing are seldom explored: "computing"
means either "programming" or "hardware" --as if mathematics means either
"accounting" or "engineering".  Education in computer science is coming
more and more to mean the cultivation of a job-skill.
I believe this lack of foundational strength
is at 
 the root of  the oft-quoted statistic that professional computing
knowledge is  effective for at most \F3five\F1 years; such degradation
is surely the result of an emphaisis on technological training rather than
fundamental principles and mind-training. One might even go so far as
to place the US productivity problem at the doorstep of superficial
education. 

Of course,
foundational approaches  seldom
stir the soul of the 
masses; but, in computing we have a chance. We now have \F3real\F1 
devices that can carry out what would be tedious paper-and-pencil
simulations, and utilizing LISP-like
languages,
we can call upon exciting motivational applications from 
Artificial Intelligence. Given  graphical interfaces to such languages,
 we can even supply "instantaneous gratification"
without sacraficing the quality of the language.
LOGO is a step in this direction.

My latest  efforts in this vein occurred at Santa Clara University
this spring in an undergraduate special topics course (outline enclosed).
That course was supposed to blossom into a  faculty
workshop and university-wide computer
literacy program, complete with  administration support.
What in fact happened was quite different and is at the heart
of my pessimism. After numerous promises for
courses this fall, the proposal was finally "sent
back to committee" --a committee to be formed later this year.
For part of the issue here was one of "turf": the Schools --Arts, Sciences, and
Engineering-- all have their own conception of computing and all have their
own domain to protect; each views computing as a tool to be applied to
that domain, rather than as a fundamental discipline. A classic example
of the "Sufi elephant."

The next step was my termination at Santa Clara: it seems I and the proposal
stepped on some political toes. This is the other part of the issue:
a real stumbling 
block to change is politics; as long as there are vested interests,
innovation within the system
will be next to impossible. Of course, therein may also be the
hope: Japan and the Third World may in fact have a chance to exploit
the ideas that the US creates but is unable to acclimate. We will see.

Santa Clara is, unfortunately, not an anomaly in the educational business:
the political atmosphere may vary, but in general, US
educators, publishers, and computer manufacturers  all emphasize
the superficial technology of computation: the edifice on our shakey foundation.
The real issue  in the demise of the Santa Clara program 
is the quashing of 
a solid step towards a literacy program with \F3substance\F1.
If literacy is to have meaning, it must be grounded on fundamental ideas.
 Otherwise the general populace will be floundering in the swamp of 
transient computing ideas: what good would a literacy course discussing
 card readers, tubes, and  core memory be given today's personal computer?

I believe that the typical "literacy-through-BASIC"
is today's "cards-tubes-and-core" approach to languages:
 superficial at best and
offering a limited growth path for one's intellect. 
The irony is that  the foundational approach is in fact \F3easier\F1
to grasp than the "real" view as presented in 
languages like BASIC, Fortran, and Pascal. LOGO represents one brand of
foundational language; LISP represents another, more mathematical, strand;
Smalltalk is a third, growing from LISP and LOGO.

Languages like LOGO, LISP, and
 Smalltalk can at least offer the potential to
enhance  creativity and curiousity, 
to  illuminate computer science techniques,
and to open vistas on exciting applications --graphics and artificial intelligence.
Thus I was a bit saddened to see you offer the Santa Barbara
computing camp's program in BASIC and Pascal as a view of the future.
To me, these and related languages, represent an immature computing
 past that should not be encouraged.
I would suggest, and indeed organize, such a camp utilizing
the more substantial LISP, LOGO, and Smalltalk; given the San Francisco
talent-base and climate, such a program could have substantial impact.

How to sustain the program? I have been unsuccessful in finding 
 sources for support,  and government
organs have been pillaged by the new administration.
Where to turn?
Given the  bureaucratic structure of educational systems,
it seems  the only effect alternative is a  privately endowed 
organization.
It occurred to me
that perhaps you might know of sympathetic souls who would help fund
such ventures. I have exhausted my resources, but still believe that
my objective  is correct and will pay off in the long term.

If you would like further information, my address is below; please
contact me. Thank you for your attention.\.
\←L\→S\←R\-L\/'2;\+L\→L
Yours sincerely,


John R. Allen
18215 Bayview Dr.
Los Gatos Ca, 95030
(408) 353-3857
\←S\→L
enc:	Bankruptcy of Basic
	EECS 129 Outline