NEWSFLASH! Less educated Americans have less opportunity! Next in todays news, water discovered to be wet! Jokes aside, I really was annoyed with Andy Carvin's article. Carvin says, "The digital divide is about content" excluding Pokemon and porn, Carvin puts WAY too much faith in "information" available on the Internet, case in point, this article Carvin has available on the Internet; lets go ahead and toss my blog in there too. With the good comes the bad, so I understand the good the Internet has as a potential for an abundance of information; but the bad is the validity of the information one receives from the Internet.Would you want your child to be raised with a "fair" amount of his/her education to come from exploring the Internet? In a perfect world yes, it would be great, but that's not how the world works; and that's not how the Internet works.
Getting back to Carvin's point about the digital divide and those getting left behind I had an interesting observation. Last week in my molecular biology lab we watched a youtube video of a group of 11 year olds at a private Jewish Academy in San Diego conduct our lab; so we would have a better understanding on how to do our lab...well, I'm 25 and I'm paying a lot of money to do a college course 11 year olds are doing at a private school, ouch. The point is you not only can put a price on education, you can also put a price on opportunity.
The wealthy are always going to have an advantage, and the poor are always going to be left behind. Look how societies and nations have evolved, first world countries, third world countries, the poor and technology inept countries have always been left behind. Does that make the digital divide morally right? No, but it is evidence of the realism of mankind, the realism of greed.
Until Americans vote in a bill that pays American public school teachers 90k year salary, nothing will change. There's no competition for public school teachers, they don't get paid shit. The problem with low pay is there's not enough passionate teachers to fill all the positions in public schools, which leaves "competent" teachers to fill the abundance of positions. With a higher paying salary for public school teachers, public schools would attain better applicants, creating competition and the best applicant for the job. But public school teachers are so undervalued and currently get paid so little, the better applicants I'm speaking of end up taking higher paying jobs. It all comes back to the realism of mankind, the realism of greed.
Until the voters of America recognize and use greed as a tool, greed will continue to be the problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Actually, you're right, at least in part. There will always be rich and poor, as long as there is an education gap. And as long as there's a gap, some people will have access to certain tools while others will not. So in that sense, you can't ever bridge the digital divide unless you grapple with education tool. But that was a big part of the work I did back then at the digital divide network - working on improving how schools and teachers utilize these tools, and encouraging broader reform efforts that make more schools more successful.
But let me ask you this - is it possible for a student to receive a competitive education if their schools lack Internet access and their teachers don't know how to use digital tools effectively? Probably not, particularly if you're in a low-income area where people are less likely to have access to computers at school or in libraries. It's getting harder and harder for people without Internet skills to compete in the workplace and continue their education. So if schools aren't wired and teachers aren't trained, the students there might as well have one hand tied behind their backs.
Meanwhile, you should go read my writings on education reform from the mid-90s, where I talk about paying teachers competitive salaries, among other reforms.
Ryan, I have a few friends that are teachers and I totally agree with you that they get paid way to little, and I also see your point about them not "caring" enough. I also think that you brought up a good point about the validity of the information that is on the internet, because as you said with the good comes the bad. But how could we change that and make the internet full of "good" information? Would that even be possible? I think that you brought up some good points. Good post
Ryan,
I agree with you that the content of the internet should not be the end all resource for knowledge since it is filled with untruths and speculations. On the other hand it does contain a wealth of important and factual information about our world. Those that have access to the superhighway at least have an opportunity to converse and be part of this global babble network.
My father has been admitted to a Nursing home and without his computer he feels at a great loss. He can not email family and friends who are out of town and as a result he feels out of touch with society.
Computers will never take the place of good old fashion one on one instruction in the classroom, but it is an invaluable tool for educators to illustrate experiments and introduce people to a global world never before seen.
At one time I argued why anyone, especially me, would want a cell phone and now three years later I can't imagine not having one. I can't imagine not using the internet either. It's a matter of inclusion over exclusion. You don't have to use it, but you should not be denied access either.
-good post.
Jennifer
Post a Comment