Download Rhetorical Analysis of Todd Oppenheimer`s "The Computer Delusion"

Cooper T. Kingston
10/27/2003
WR 121-018
Paper One: Analysis
2a: Rhetorical Analysis
“The Computer Delusion” by Todd Oppenheimer
Todd Oppenheimer, the author of “The Computer Delusion”, is a renowned investigative
reporter. In this essay, he “argues that the tremendous emphasis on computers and technology in
elementary and secondary schools, and especially in the lower grades, can actually decrease the
effectiveness of learning and teaching” (255). Oppenheimer says that government programs are
focusing more on bulking up the technological areas of public education rather than saving the
basic fundamentals of a good education. He gives examples of real life situations where school
districts have cut important programs such as art and physical education to make way for more
computers. Oppenheimer also introduces situations in which big businesses donate their services
to assist school districts in their technological advances, only to disappear as soon as the real
costs in maintenance and training enter the playing field. He argues that computers, rather than
improve learning, introduce another distraction to the learning process. Finally, Oppenheimer
proposes that a possible solution to this educational dilemma may be to “ban federal spending on
what is fast becoming an overheated campaign” (282). Oppenheimer’s overall objective is to
illustrate that too much emphasis has been put on learning via a computer and not enough on the
traditional hands on methods therefore hindering the effectiveness of education.
To begin his persuasion, Oppenheimer introduces a very important point regarding the
priority of computers over traditional education. He gives numerous examples of extreme
situations in which school districts cut music and art programs to make way for computers: “The
Kittridge Street Elementary School, in Los Angeles, killed its music program last year to hire a
technology coordinator” (257). His use of numerous detailed examples and statistics makes it
seem as though he does not expect his audience to have a very extensive background in the
educational field. His fairly complex vocabulary, however, requires that his audience be fairly
well educated themselves. It seems as though Oppenheimer is trying to shock his audience by
using fairly extreme examples as the general media coverage has not been centered on these types
of events. He wants to show his readers the extreme so they understand how large of a problem it
could grow to become if no action is taken. Oppenheimer does not say that computers are not
important in education, rather that they are taking the place of more important programs.
Oppenheimer also makes a point that hands-on classes, such as shop classes are also being cut to
make way for computers. He points out that “administrators are stuck in this idea that all kids will
go to a four-year college and become a doctor or a lawyer, and that’s not true” (258). There are
certain individuals who will never use a computer in their profession; therefore shop class is far
more beneficial for them than any computer technology class. Oppenheimer is scared that
important traditional areas of education have become increasingly endangered because they are
the most beneficial.
Oppenheimer also attacks this issue from a financial standpoint. He makes a point that
school districts lose a large amount of finances that could be focused towards other areas of
education in the process of advancing the school technology. While big businesses regularly
assist in the computerization of school districts, they often bail out of the situation once it is
installed. This raises problems for schools because the costs of upgrading software and
maintenance on the machines usually outnumber the costs of the original installation: “The
business community…offers tangible financial support…by donating equipment…Once a
school’s computer system is set up, the companies often drop their support…saddl[ing] the school
with heavy long-term responsibilities…which can cost far more than the initial hardware and
software combined” (276-277). The cost of computerizing schools often results in the loss of
other important school programs: “…in Mansfield, Massachusetts, administrators dropped…art,
music, physical education, and then spent $333,000 on computers…” (257). This is a large
problem when it comes to the education of the individual student. Students need the ability to
study a variety of different areas in order to decide what they want to do with the rest of their
lives. Without diversity in education, students who do not enjoy the areas offered may lose
interest and reduce their level of effort and participation, therefore reducing the effectiveness of
their education. Putting such educational programs at risk only causes a negative effect on
students.
Computers in the lower levels of education turn students’ attention away from what they
are learning and towards what is happening on the screen, according to Oppenheimer. He gives
an example of a second, third, and forth grade class in San Francisco during their weekly visit to
the computer lab for math exercises to illustrate his point: “Once the children arrived at answers,
they frantically typed them onto the screen, hoping it would advance them to something fun, the
way Nintendos, Game Boys, and video-arcade games do” (264-265). While the students were
working on mathematical exercises, their attention was not on how to arrive at the solution, rather
the reward if they happened to stumble upon the right answer. An effective educational tool
would adjust the students’ attention to focus onto learning the mathematics and away from how to
win the game. Therefore, the computers usage in the class proved more of a distraction than a
helpful educational tool. The teacher actually admits that she takes her students to the computer
lab “for the computer literacy” (266) rather than to learn the class material. Oppenheimer argues
that the distraction that the computer brings to the classroom deters students from learning,
therefore hindering the effectiveness of learning.
Oppenheimer ends his argument with a possible solution. He recommends to “ban federal
spending” (282) on the computerization of schools. He points out that the computer industry is
already handling the situation well enough that the government intervention is no longer needed.
Oppenheimer suggests that if schools and “technology donors” (282) could “impose some
limits…on themselves” (282) they would most likely see that they have no need for any more
help from the government. This solution also frees up billions of dollars that could be spent on
other areas of education such as “teaching solid skills in reading, thinking, listening, and talking;
organizing inventive field trips and other rich hands-on experiences; and, of course, building up
the nation’s core of knowledgeable, inspiring teachers”(282). These are the areas of education
that Oppenheimer believes truly assists in the learning process and are more important than
technology. While banning federal spending seems like a fairly good solution to the computer
dilemma, Oppenheimer contradicts himself slightly with this proposal. After convincing his
readers that accepting assistance from big businesses hinders education in the long run he gives a
proposition that requires schools to depend on such assistance. While he slightly reduces this
contradiction by adding that limits should be put on the computerization process, he contradicts
himself nonetheless with his proposal to “ban federal spending”(282) on the computerization of
schools.
In the era of an expanding technological society, Oppenheimer is skeptical of the
emphasis of computer technology on education. He points out that computers are taking the place
of fundamental educational programs such as art, music, and shop. Oppenheimer demonstrates
that the computer industry may assist schools in the advancement of their technology, but the real
funding crises occurs once the machines need maintenance and upgrades. His most important
point is that computers are more of a distraction than a useful tool. Students do not learn how to
solve the problems generated by the computer programs, rather how to run the computer
programs themselves. Oppenheimer’s solution to this computer crisis is to stop government
funding of computerizing schools as the industry will facilitate that on its own. His views on
computers in schools are only becoming more and more relevant in society. Oppenheimer’s
essay, “The Computer Delusion,” would most likely open the eyes of numerous individuals in the
educational field to some important problems in the educational system and at least one possible
solution to the ever growing problems with the computerization of schools.