Scott Crellin’s Edtec Blog

It became almost cliche.  Something that I heard so much that it began to be annoying, and I cringed at it the way I do when I hear some oldster say he enjoys ’surfing’ the web.  Maybe others tired of hearing about it too.  The digital divide may not be getting the attention that it was ten or more years ago, but that does not mean it is no longer an issue.  Kathryn Montgomery points out in her book, “Generation Digital, ” that, “While public policies have helped ensure greater access through schools and libraries, they have not yet erased the troubling gap between children with access at home and those without it.”

I work in a school where I see this troubling gap each day.  About half of my students each year have access to the

internet and reliable computing technologies, while the other half remains without.  Most can’t even go to the library,

because that would require their parents to be available to take them instead of being at their second or third job.  Our school site makes an attempt, but its computer lab is under-utilized and the administration is married to a program that basically ammounts to digital test prep rather than any creative or interactive use of our machines.

But then I began to consider the bigger picture and what the digital divide means on a larger scale.  Turns out that as of 2005, the United States was number 11 on the list of most connected countries on the digital access index.  This article discusses efforts to increase the availability of computing technologies in places that are truly on the other side of the digital divide, like most of Sub-Saharan Africa.  As of the publishing of that article, only 3% of Africans had internet access.  Makes my complaints about 50% in my class sound like whining.

Some folks will say that the falling prices of computers and bandwidth will inevitably lead to technological equity.  However, many families in my district, across the country, and around the world have virtually no disposable income, and will continue to live on the non-digital side of the digital divide.

“We have to be where they are in this world.” Kathryn Montgomery quoted an anonymous company spokesperson speaking about social networking sites and blogs.  Generation Digital details the long history of the advertising and marketing industries’ web savvyness  in taking advantage of the youth presence on the internet that was ripe for the picking.  By the time social networking started to grow, industry had already been data mining and marketing to kids for years using sites that they created under the guise of education or entertainment.  With the growth of MySpace, Friendster, Facebook, and other sites, new avenues were opening up to allow corporations to get their message to children and teenagers.  They were and are adept at using what has captured kids’ attention to their advantage.

social networking logos

I personally condemn much of what industry has done to take advantage of kids on the web, but at the same time, I have to admire their skill and guile.  Would that education had done or would do the same, but our school districts are so afraid of the potential dangers of students running into anything inappropriate, that they restrict the very thing that could help to engage and motivate students.  The advertisers and marketers know that they “have to be where they are,” I wonder why my district and school administrators don’t see the value of education having a presence where the students are online.  My district continues to block far too many valuable online applications, and advocating the use of computer software that is dry and boring, and resembles nothing more than electronic test prep.

Useful applications are in wide use in higher ed.  Blackboard, Moodle, and other learning management systems could offer much to primary and secondary education, not to mention sites like Ning,  Wikispaces, and others.  One of the classes that I am currently enrolled in in my Masters program at SDSU uses a Ning site as a hub for much of the learning that takes place in the course.  Discussion boards, assignments, a syllabus, and a space to organize and communicate in collaborative groups are just some of what the Ning site offers.  Many others have done so as well, though they remain a rarity among teachers I meet in my district.   I use Facebook, but not MySpace or others like it, and I can see potential for learning in the sharing and social groups that occur there.  Sure, my friends share all kinds of useless information and annoying applications with me.  I’m not particularly fond of being hit with virtual pillows or being recruited for battle in mob wars, but I have also learned quite a bit from useful links and groups that I come across from time to time.

It seems that throughout the history of media, education has lagged behind industry in taking advantage of  new media.  Radio, TV, and now the web.  We need to be where they are, so we can get them where we want them to be.

Generation Digital Cover Art

Kathryn C. Montgomery’s book about the issues surrounding children growing up immersed in digital media highlights the recent history surrounding the advent of the internet during the last 10 to 15 years.  Among the many concerns that Montgomery reveals in her book is that of children and privacy issues.  Privacy on the internet has been a serious issue since its inception, and will likely continue to be so into the foreseeable future.  Two things that came as a surprise to me in reading this book were the blatant way that corporations began targeting children with advertising and data collection, and how passive the government was in letting industry go unregulated for so long.

I found it astounding to learn that there were sites created to collect data from children that were being billed as educational sites and being promoted by school districts and teacher organizations.  I began using the internet in the 90s when these things were happening, but, not being a child at the time, or having children yet, I have no recollection of such sites.  I find it hard to imagine it happening today when my kids go onto sites that have games for kids.  I can’t remember seeing a single one that asked my kids for any information at all, and the idea of them supplying such facts as our address, or income, or such things, I find horrifying.  It also highlights how little parents at the time knew what their kids were doing on the internet.  Whether or not the trend has changed and parents are more aware these days is hard to say.  They certainly have fewer excuses for not knowing what their kids are doing, given these days it would be hard to remain unaware that there could be harmful content on the internet these days.

Equally surprising to me as I read was that, in the face of such an obvious problem, the Clinton administration and congress suggested that industry self-regulate.  To suggest to corporations that they come up with their own set of rules for how they should be allowed to collect data on the internet is like me telling my kids that they should decide how they should what chores they should have to do each day, and by what time the should be done.  Of course they’re going to drag their heels.  They have no incentive to make any changes.  As long as things stayed the same, they would continue to benefit, and the consequences for not making changes basically just amount to a meaningless reprimand.

Happily, things have changed considerably since those days, as is evidenced by a variety of sites that my children use that do not gather data or advertise in such a predatory manner.  Unfortunately, as I learned from such sites as privacy.org and privacyrights.org, the battle for an internet free of data collection and intrusive practices is not going to happen soon.  Anyone with an email account knows that spam can find you despite your best efforts to filter it, and at this point, best we can do is  learn to deal it.