“In the early 1980’s there were few microcomputers in schools, but those few were almost all in the classrooms of visionary teachers, most of whom employed them in “progressive” spirit, cutting across School’s practices of balkanized curriculum and impersonal rote learning.  The initiative and the power in the field of computers were moving from teachers to school administration—most often at the city or even at the state level.  When these were few computers in the school, the administration was content to leave them in the classrooms of the teachers who showed greatest enthusiasm, and these were generally teachers who were excited about the computer as an instrument of change.  But as the numbers grew and computers become something of a status symbol, the administration moved in.  From an administrator’s point of view, it made more sense to put he computers together in one room—misleadingly named “computer lab”—under the control of a specialized computer teacher.  Now all the children could come together and study computes for an hour a week.  By an inexorable logic the next step was to introduce a curriculum for the computer.  Thus, little by little the subversive features of the computer were eroded away:  Instead of cutting across the boundaries, the computer now defined a new subject; instead of changing the emphasis from impersonal curriculum to excited live exploration by students, the computer was now used to reinforce School’s ways.  What started as a subversive instrument of change was neutralized by the system and converted into an instrument of consolidation.” (Papert, 1993, p. 38-9)

Papert, S. (1993).  The children’s machine: rethinking school in the age

of the computer.  New York: Basic Books.