The desire for a uniform, fresh-out-of-the-package and blanket solution to educational woes is as understandable as it is futile. The simple truth about K-12 educational reform is the same as the simple truth about education technology - there is no simple truth. There are a variety of complex, subtle truths, and the demands upon our policy makers, both elected and professional, are that they level with the public and 'fess up that improving our schools is much more complex than simply buying things.

The hallmark of faith in technology-as-a-solution is almost mystical or religious in nature. Recently, however, even profoundly pro-technology bureaucrats have begun to discuss the need for more research to bolster their position. Others believe that no multi-billion dollar public policy should proceed without sound research which shows whether, and to what extent, a new "solution" actually solves anything.

Challenges and classroom environments vary enormously as students progress from kindergarten to the twelfth grade. What works in second grade reading may not be appropriate in in tenth grade biology. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to ask not only, "Does it work?" but also, "Is it the best of all available options for this particular grade and subject area?" Also, in the cases of all but the wealthiest schools, "Is the proposed solution the most cost-effective?".

When we propose replacing textbooks with laptops, answers to these questions appear to be: "The jury's still out" and "The answer depends largely on the grade level and subject area." Imagine the public reaction if someone proposed a one-size-fits-all solution for gym uniforms and science lab equipment in a state the size of Texas! The simplicity of the notion of all public school students lugging around their laptops is almost charming, if it weren't so expensive.

One major weakness of school technology plans has been that so many ignore or underestimate the annual cost of maintenance, replacements and upgrades - which McKinsey & Company estimates to be 33 per cent of the original costs. Many, naively so, tend to believe that the greatest costs are those of the initial equipment and networking costs. Realists among us realize that the McKinsey estimate may be low. Once we invest in education technology, we must constantly upgrade, or we leave our students with equipment that is as up to date as the Linotype (tm) machine.

This last point bears directly on the Texas proposal to replace textbooks with laptops. One of the rationales for replacing textbooks is that laptops can be cheaply updated and textbooks contain obsolete information. The tradeoffs in terms of costs alone may actually favor textbooks - considering that the rate of change for updates varies depending on subject area and grade level.

That observation should not be taken as a blanket defense of textbooks as they currently exist. Many critics of the publishing industry point to a variety of failures or compromises which have rendered textbooks inferior or "dumbed-down" editorially. (Historically the Texas State Board of Education has not been blameless in the "dumbing down" process.)

We should not fool ourselves into believing that the method of delivery will automatically impact the quality of editorial content. Even if instructional text and/or graphics are delivered electronically, the editorial, selection, adoption and purchasing processes are likely to be dominated nationwide by many of the same players as today. Remember, too, that updating laptops will not be cost-free, no matter how easily the manufacturer makes updates available through networking, infrared links or ports built into the recharging bays. Instructional material will always require a rewrite, review and adoption process and, as with all copyrighted material, this will not be free nor is it likely to be cheap.

What are the likely, predictable consequences of millions of students being told, "You will read from the screen, not the page"?

* Legal and financial headaches for school districts will multiply exponentially as students' laptops are lost, broken, or stolen.

* Like opening a can of worms, extended technology use may reap schools more problems related to students' real or imagined ocular or repetitive stress injuries.

* Equity issues, which recently have dominated some ed-tech conferences, will become more prevalent because of the simple fact that not all laptops are equal.

* Attention spans may diminish as students skim and skip, even more than they do today, when trying to read for extended periods on a laptop's screen.

* Attention to detail may suffer in such areas as biology, algebra, geography or any subject in which graphical information is vital. (This is simply a factor of the nature of the LCD screen versus the page in even a moderate quality printing process.)

* Lastly, as pointed out to me by a business executive, "If I see something worth remembering on the computer, the first thing I do is reach for the print button." This tendency, and need, to print is not limited to those who grew up in the ink on paper era. (The paperless office never occurred.) So how will our schools accommodate the need to print? Or will this become yet another unsolved equity issue.

Displaying information, so that the eye can absorb it and the brain can grasp it, is both an art and a science. In his book, Envisioning Information (page 98), Professor Edward R. Tufte of Yale University, points out that, "...Computer displays are low-resolution devices... 1/10 to 1/1000 [as effective as] a map or book page..." And Tufte was writing about regular desktop monitors! Anyone who has looked at laptops made for the K-12 market know that the screen quality range is enormous, from nearly as good as traditional monitors to vastly inferior.

It is beneficial that Dr. Christie and his board have questioned the wisdom of continuing with traditional textbooks in all subjects of K-12. Perhaps his proposal will allow us to create a mixed media solution, which will include traditionally bound books, computers (either desktops or laptops), non- traditional printed media and other yet-to-be-invented technology. Such a solution can be modified to fit the actual needs of individual classes and can be much more effective (and cost-effective) than any blanket solution.