Class Computers Bring a Tast of...

Members of Congress have nothing on April Reese, a newly minted graduate of South Pasadena High School, when it comes to grasping the bottom line in the Washington budget deficit battle.

“No one wants to be cut . . . everyone wants to be happy,” Reese said.

That truism was a key lesson learned from a daunting civics class assignment--to balance the federal budget using a new computer simulation.

Rather than listen to lectures that teacher Jeff Cox acknowledged were superficial, the students had to choose from thousands of line items and decide which ones to slash. As a result, Cox said, the students “have a keener understanding of the issue . . . than almost any group of people.”

Fans of using computers as teaching tools have long promised such praiseworthy results. Beginning about 1980, school districts began investing heavily in that dream.

But even now, most classroom computer applications are pretty mundane. Computers are too often used as fancy typewriters or drill and practice devices--the instructional equivalent of electronic flash cards.

Until recently, high school students, especially at elite campuses, were taught now-obsolete computer programming languages.

Far more powerful computers with access to the Internet are now putting virtually limitless amounts of data at students’ fingertips. That is renewing hopes for students to pursue more real-world assignments with computers--such as analyzing pollution trends, dissecting animals in virtual laboratories, designing new cities or balancing the federal budget.

Such ambitious, complex assignments would be impractical, if not impossible, without a computer to manage the huge volume of information involved.

“Some of the futurists have been . . . saying that technology will not only change how you learn, but what you learn,” said John Vaille, executive director of Computer Using Educators, an organization based in Alameda in Northern California. “And the kind of instruction that goes on in school, because you can have the entire federal budget at hand is an example.”

The assignment in Cox’s class was deceptively simple. Using computer software developed by a Glendale engineer and his father, the students assumed the role of a U.S. senator who wanted to cut $30 billion from next year’s budget. The program assumes that over 10 years the cumulative effect of cuts of that size would wipe out the deficit.

Everything from the national helium reserve and the International Lead and Zinc Study Group to mega-items such as defense and Social Security were on the table.

To make the simulation more real, software designer David Orr created constituencies for each budget line item.

So eliminating National Public Radio, for example, provoked an outcry from the senators representing Hawaii and Alaska, where residents rely on NPR more than those in more-populous states. And to pass the assignment, each student team had to be mindful of their prospects of reelection and avoid making cuts that caused their voter approval rating to plunge below 45%.

Teams also had to fashion packages of cuts or tax increases that would win the support of a majority of the 100 cyber-senators, according to the simulation’s depiction of Washington politics.

Reese and her student partner, Lindsay Quan, cut spending more ruthlessly even than Republican budget point man Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio). They also gave a far more generous tax break. To pay for the 20% across-the-board tax cut, they had to cut billions of dollars from farm aid, defense, NASA and many other programs.

Education spending was spared and, in fact, received a 5% increase. All but two of the 15 student teams increased federal spending on education in their fantasy budget, illustrating better than any teacher’s lecture the impact of interest groups on political decision-making.

“For once we got to make our own decisions,” said Larry Lee, whose team cut defense spending 5% and increased the amount for education 16%. “We weren’t force-fed opinions. . . . It felt really good.”

Just as Republicans have found themselves squabbling over tax cuts and Democrats have been at odds with President Clinton over his budget-balancing proposal, the student teams at times struggled to find common ground.

Julia DiFiore said she had to leave the room when her teammate, Chris Mayne, pushed to make cuts in funding for Native American programs and a nutrition program for poor mothers and their babies. “It was a moral thing,” DiFiore said.

Students in Indiana, Vermont and Virginia also tried out Orr’s program, which he calls CIVIX, this year. Cox said that in addition to learning about the budget, his students experienced using a computer as a tool. “The computer is the future,” he said.

But Douglas Merrill, a RAND researcher, cautions that computers do not automatically change instruction. Rather, teachers have to see the benefit of using them and be trained to change their instructional methods to take advantage of what computers offer.

Schools also have to be willing to change, possibly scheduling longer class periods to allow students to spend more than 50 minutes working on a complex problem or even combining different disciplines--such as political science, biology and English--to allow students to pursue a single, multidimensional project.

So far, he said, few teachers are doing projects as interesting as having students balance the federal budget.

“Part of the reason for that is that you just can’t drop this toy, no matter how cool this toy is, into pre-existing classes,” Merrill said.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Grasping the Bottom Line on the Deficit Seniors in Jeff Cox’s civics class at South Pasadena High School used a computer simulation to learn lessons in Washington realpolitik. Student pairs chose from 10,000 line items to slash or boost. Every team cut defense, and nearly all gave more to education. Only two teams met goal of a 45% voter approval rating. Here’s a sample of the students’ budget priorities.

In millions of dollars Lee/Fong

Agriculture: -9,340

Defense: -13,371

Education: 5,219

HHS*: 4,231

President: -3,292

EPA: 981 Other items: Hit NASA hard; won 45% voter approval rating * Ugarte/Redmond Agriculture: 1,160 Defense: -29,372 Education: -253 HHS*: 389 President: -1,114 EPA: 81 Other items: Cut $26 million from IRS * Hom/Koh Agriculture: -181 Defense: -29,742 Education: 1,661 HHS*: -584 President: 19 EPA: 1,200 Other items: Won 45% approval rating * Lee/Chan Agriculture: -3,864 Defense: -46,163 Education: 3,069 HHS*: 20,631 President: -814 EPA: 801 Other items: Raised Ginnie Mae budget 72%. * Joy/Hung Agriculture: -6,606 Defense: -20,872 Education: 1,713 HHS*: -1,905 President: -314 EPA: 981 Other items: Cut Air Force procurement by 85% * Dolan/Brown Agriculture: -3,822 Defense: -18,816 Education: 290 HHS*: -450 President: -14 EPA: -19 Other items: Boosted NASA construction 1,205% * Reese/Quan Agriculture: -10,492 Defense: -57,436 Education: 1,661 HHS*: 3,064 President: -4,852 EPA: -993 Other items: Income taxes cut by 17% * Ho/Lee Agriculture: 4,118 Defense: -36,872 Education: 5,813 HHS*: 13,446 President: -6,814 EPA: -1,719 Other items: Slashed Dept. of Commerce 41% * Sykeh/Win Agriculture: 4 Defense: -19,424 Education: 711 HHS*: 47 President: -4,645 EPA: Other items: Battle monuments cut average of 20% * Lu/Tsui Agriculture: -6,314 Defense: -34,774 Education: 2,661 HHS*: 24,989 President: -2,559 EPA: Other items: Took 15% from Dept. of Energy * Mayne/Di Fiore Agriculture: 98 Defense: -5,751 Education: 32 HHS*: -903 President: -785 EPA: 2 Other items: Cut Supreme Court budget 34% * Rodriguez/Herbito Agriculture: 2,415 Defense: -2,872 Education: 248 HHS*: -2,647 President: -3,704 EPA: 11 Other items: All but ended aid to former Soviet Union * Park/Wong Agriculture: -10,840 Defense: -4,122 Education: -3,832 HHS*: -4,011 President: -1,914 EPA: -1,020 Other items: Increased housing funds 47% * Gorski/Grubbs Agriculture: 13 Defense: -4,503 Education: -2,257 HHS*: -6,643 President: -1,814 EPA: -219 Other items: 16% cut in nuclear weapons work * Chen/Quon Agriculture: -213 Defense: -33,659 Education: 6,155 HHS*: 28,561 President: -1,691 EPA: 981 Other items: Cut Housing and Urban Development 22% * Health and Human Services Researched by NONA YATES / Los Angeles Times