prerequisite for admission to many colleges. Affluent school districts have begun purchasing computers for their primary and secondary schools. A joint commitment from schools, business, and the government is required to insure all our school children have access to computers.

The issue is not whether computer literacy is a worthwhile goal. All sides agree decisive action is required. The real issue is what the program should be.

We believe tax expenditure legislation like the Apple Computer Bills is an expensive and inefficient way to promote computer literacy. It may satisfy a few computer manufacturers, but it will not satisfy educators or the public interest for the following reasons:

From the educator's standpoint:

1. Loss of control. Under this tax expenditure legislation the computer manufacturer will decide which of its products to "give" and which schools to give to. Teachers and school administrators will have no control over the type and number of computers that will be placed in their schools, even though the program is at public expense. Teachers will not be able to develop a coherent, logical plan to acquire computer equipment that meets their students' special needs. Instead they will be forced to take what manufacturers offer them "or leave it". The most probable result will be a crazy quilt of donated computers, peripheral equipment and software in each school that cannot be used interchangeably with computer equipment already in place or with equipment donated by other manufacturers, and disjointed

computer education programs that do not build from one year to the next. Schools will be forced to spend large sums on fill-in purchases of peripherals, software and later generation computers to rationalize the computer equipment they are "given".

2. Program too narrow. The Bills require computers be donated pursuant to a written plan which provides for donations across geographic and economic lines. It is hoped these written plans will insure fairness. They will not. Some school districts will receive no computer equipment at all or so little (one computer per school) as to be meaningless. Every child should have significant access to a computer. These Bills will not achieve that result.

3. Bills discriminate against worthwhile computer products. As written, these Bills contain technical limitations that discriminate in favor of expensive "high end" computers computers and actually and actually exclude less expensive computers, even though these less expensive computers have unquestioned educational value and may be more suitable to teach computer literacy. We believe these Bills would not cover 80-90% of the personal computers sold in 1982. The limitations that exclude many worthwhile computers are discussed at greater length below.

From the standpoint of public interest.

1. Cost. The cost of this legislation is open-ended and cannot be

controlled.

2.

Neutrality.

Tax

legislation is a an inefficient and

unpredictable way to promote social policy goals, no matter how worthy. The Internal Revenue Code is already too complicated. Every addition to the Code makes tax simplification less likely.

These bills are not even satisfactory

from the computer manufacturer's standpoint: Enforcement will be unsatisfactory.

Enforcement of these tax

expenditure measures, through the IRS audit process, will be particularly unsatisfactory. These Bills will leave it to the IRS agent to determine whether a particular computer is "suitable for educational use," whether it has sufficient memory capacity, computer language capability, etc. and whether the manufacturer's written plan for donations is fair. This asks too much of the tax audit process. How can IRS agents be expected to make make these determinations when some of the Bill's proponents are unsure about some technical aspects? A taxpayer will not be able to determine whether its donations will be allowed on audit.

2. Bills favor established manufacturers. Not all computer manufacturers can take advantage of tax expenditure legislation. Established computer manufacturers and manufacturing divisions which are part of large conglomerate corporations are sure to have taxable income, including income from other products and activities, which increased tax deductions will offset. Newer entrants, which normally experience losses in their early years, can't use additional tax deductions. These new companies will be

22-894 0-83--25

foreclosed from the educational market, perhaps permanently, because schools will become tied to the products given them by more established is surprising the Congress would consider fostering anti-competitiveness in the electronics industry through tax legislation.

manufacturers.

are

The Bills cannot be amended to cure these problems - they inherent in all tax expenditure legislation. We therefore oppose the Bills in principle.

SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS IN THE BILLS

In addition to the general problems above, we believe the Bills have specific problems. Correcting these specific problems will not correct the general problems discussed above. Even if all the specific problems were cured, the general problems remain so serious we would continue to oppose the Bills.

The Bills define "qualified computer equipment" too narrowly, excluding less expensive computers with unquestioned educational value. These limitations were intended to insure the tax expenditures in the Bills go to purchase "the best possible computers" and not electronic game machines.

We agree that public funds should not be used to purchase game

machines, but these limitations will not work.

For one thing, the Bills confuse price/computing capability with educational value. Teaching computer literacy can be done much more

effectively with 20 $100 computers which are somewhat less powerful than with one $2,000 computer that is more powerful but only occasionally available for a student's individual use. Students must have meaningful, regular access to

a computer. When we teach children to write, we don't buy one electric typewriter for the entire class and require the children to stand in line to use it; we provide each student with his own pencil. The same teaching principle must apply for computer literacy. Requiring a high price and a lot of computing capability may exclude game machines, but it will also exclude the very computers that should be covered.*

For another thing, these definitions will prove too restrictive over time. Any definition of "qualified computer equipment" would be too narrow because no one can say what new computer products will be introduced in the next few years.

be

Particular technical problems with the Bills are as follows:

1.

Suitable for educational use. A qualified data processor must (S. 1194, proposed new

"suitable for educational

Section 174A (c)(1)(B) (I)).

use".

*This points up the problem of putting control of the program in the hands of manufacturers, a problem which is inherent in this type of tax expenditure legislation. If educators rather than manufacturers could control what computers the public's money will buy, there would be no danger that game. machines would be purchased with federal funds.