One of LO*OP Center’s volunteers sent me the following questionnaire as part of his college research on Computers and Society. The wording of the questions suggested to me that we need to get smarter about the factors that impact ‘equity’ and ‘access’ to digital technology.
The first question seemed to be designed to establish my bona fides:
What has your experience been with providing low-income communities with access to technology?
ComputerTown USA! News in neighborhoods in 1980
My response:
Before personal computers became prevalent and smart phones were invented I was filling the trunk of my car with small computers and demonstrating their use across California.
I ran a public access computer center that provided extremely low-cost access. I participated in ComputerTown, USA!, the first project to put computers in libraries for patrons’ use. This greatly facilitated access in low income communities. I also introduced computer literacy to teachers.
My experience is that members of low-income communities are just as capable of using computers and other high-tech devices as wealthy people. Access is related to having the means to purchase hardware and software but it is much more. Effective access requires a sense of agency, a commitment to continuous learning, permission to do things differently, and the availability of long-term mentors, factors that are often lacking in low-income communities.
The questionnaire continued:
Do you feel as though people from low-income households have equal access to technology?
My response:
Of course not. Income determines access to all commodities including food, health care, digital devices and connectivity.
To me the question seems like a throwback to the early 1900s when many people believed that poverty was an inherited trait like eye color or being able to curl your tongue. It’s not the poverty that’s inherited in our DNA. The poverty is maintained through cultural practices, the learned behaviors that are passed from grandparent to parent to child. Some cultural practices allow us to survive, thrive and celebrate our unique community identities. Others sap our self confidence, tell us things like, “our people are farm hands, not land owners.” Traditional cultures often rely on what worked in the past because the environment didn’t change much from one generation to the next. Schools can counter this stay-the-same mentality. They can give children permission to go beyond their heritage, to carry forward the language, art, cuisine and styles of their ancestors while revising work habits, attitudes toward money, and rejection of new technologies.
Are people from low-income communities any more or less inclined to pursue technology related studies than those from higher income communities?
Although it isn’t politically correct to admit it, most of us “apprentice” in our own families and follow careers that are similar to our parents. Our studies are highly influenced by our career choices. If your family is economically stressed you are usually less “inclined” to take risks because you have little or
no financial cushion to absorb the blow if you fail. We (educators and technologists) are making strides toward bringing low income students into our ranks but the cultural and educational barriers remain high. It’s important that we not “blame the victim.” Instead we need to analyze more deeply the relationship between low-income and adoption of untried technologies and the risks of pursuing them.
What do you think our education system can do to assist in giving equal access to technology and technology related skills?
Access is just the first step in the process of creating equal representation in electronic technology ownership, use, and employment. Schools are discovering that simply giving each child a tablet computer helps but does not solve the problem. Motivation is just as important. To address motivation our educational system must improve student perception of self-efficacy and overcome cultural inhibitions that prohibit participation in new employment patterns and financial success.
There is no one “silver bullet”, no single intervention that schools can implement that will magically lead to equal access to ed tech and subsequent economic success. Even multiple changes in schooling will not be enough. We need to see schools as one in a chain of community institutions that surround and support those among us who are not thriving.
Word Cloud from Africa Voices Dialogue Workshop on 5 Feb., 2022
Many of us who read research literature may notice that research is a very “trendy” business. For example, the areas of “personalized learning” and “individualized instruction” became very popular for about 10 years between the late 1990s and the early 2010s. Subsequently this subject has faded away and few papers address the topic. Why?
New video on Jamaican girls using LOGO
But we are still making major educational decisions on the basis of anecdotal evidence. We have now been using LOGO with kids for over 40 years. Where are the longitudinal studies to tell us what the outcomes have been in these children’s lives? It’s not enough just to notice that kids enjoy the activity, can generate artistic displays or to claim that it “works”. We need evidence of whether learning to code in this way correlates with changes in future education, work and leisure activities. 
The studies must be “goal free”. In other words, the research design cannot be biased so that negative findings are suppressed. Although I am a strong advocate for everyone to learn the rudiments of programming, I still want evidence that indicates that the proposition “there is no relationship between exposure to programming in LOGO and desired educational outcomes” is false.
