澳门跑狗论坛

The 鈥渄igital divide鈥濃�攁 focus of national attention in the 1990s鈥攈as slipped to the policy periphery since the start of this decade. But dozens of educators who gathered here recently for a agreed that gaps in access to computer technologies and digital media have not gone away, and that it is time to get them back onto policymakers鈥� radar screens.

鈥淭here鈥檚 definitely been a loss of momentum,鈥� said Jerry Crystal, a 鈥渢echnology integration coach鈥� for magnet schools in the Hartford, Conn., school district. The divide, he added, has been overshadowed by the federal No Child Left Behind Act and the demands that its accountability requirements have placed on school resources.

Mr. Crystal was one of about 90 educators at the June 23 summit, which fell one day before thousands poured into the city for the National Educational Computing Conference, the nation鈥檚 biggest annual conference on educational technology in K-12 education.

Critics of the 鈥渄igital divide鈥� concept say it has disappeared as low-income and racial-minority families have acquired computers, and as state and federal money, from such sources as the E-rate program, has been used to redress technology imbalances among rich and poor school districts.

But Bonnie Bracey Sutton, an educator and long-time activist on this issue, said at the gathering that some progress in closing the divide is slipping away. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a new divide developing around Internet 2 and Web 2.0,鈥� she said, referring to the latest generation of online technologies, including videos, social networks, and software that allows students to work collaboratively.

Defining the Divide

The digital-equity gathering was hosted by the International Society for Technology in Education, a Washington-based membership organization that also hosts NECC. The larger conference, which runs through June 25, is expected to attract more than 18,000 educators and company representatives to a feast of the latest education-related gadgets and software, and of speakers and workshops on the intricacies of using them in running schools and improving educational outcomes.

Debates over the digital divide have been dogged by disagreements over how the gap is defined, and therefore quantified, as a report that the ISTE released at the summit suggested. 鈥淭hough an exact definition remains elusive, the term 鈥榙igital divide鈥� generally refers to the disconnect that occurs between those with access to technology and those without, while recognizing the myriad factors that can have an impact on that inequity,鈥� the report states.

Rather than the 鈥渄ivide,鈥� most participants used the term 鈥渄igital equity,鈥� which the report defined as much by educational outcomes as technological inputs. 鈥淲hen considering the role of technology in development of the 21st-century learner, digital equity is more than a comparable delivery of goods and services, but fair distribution based on students鈥� needs,鈥� the report says.

The report, offered ideas for addressing the digital divide, such as using project-based learning to 鈥渆xplore the intellectual capacity of non-English speaking students,鈥� providing open labs after school and on weekends, and tapping local colleges and universities to help with technology training for teachers.

Speakers at the digital-equity summit underscored what they described as the technological malnutrition that continues to put children who belong to racial or ethnic minorities, are female, or come from low-income families at educational disadvantage.

鈥淲hy are the same children losing out, as we keep redefining the digital divide?鈥� asked Sylvia G. Rousseau, a professor of clinical education at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, in her keynote speech at the digital-equity gathering.

Gaps in Use

Arguing that technology has posed particular educational and social problems for disadvantaged children, Ms. Rousseau sketched a history of technology鈥檚 negative impact on African-Americans, sweeping the cotton gin, the Cadillac automobile, movies and television, the boom box, the iPod, and drill-and-practice software into her analysis.

鈥淎s much as I admire technology 鈥� it has a mixed history in the way it has impacted our lives,鈥� she said.

And she pointed to contemporary technology鈥攊ncluding television, video games, the Web, and educational software鈥攁s reinforcing a cultural 鈥渃onstruct鈥� of race, class, and gender that sets limitations for the academic achievement of disadvantaged children. 鈥淭he issue isn鈥檛 all technology,鈥� she said, 鈥測et in this day, it has everything to do with technology.鈥�

In today鈥檚 schools, Ms. Rousseau said, low-income children of color too often are using educational software that has them engage in skill and fact drills rather than in creative, 鈥渃onstructivist鈥� experiences more often available to white or middle-class children.

Her point resonated with Mr. Crystal, the technology-integration coach from Hartford.

After the session, he said school districts were spending their educational technology budgets on 鈥渄rill and kill鈥� tools because of the overwhelming pressure to meet federal requirements.

鈥淭he focus on NCLB is like just looking at the blue threads in a tapestry; you don鈥檛 see that [student achievement] is a manifestation of lots of other areas,鈥� Mr. Crystal said. With a broader focus and more creative tools, disadvantaged students miss out on important learning modes, such as cooperative learning and sharing ideas with others, he said.

Not all educators agree that drill technology is a bad thing; some say that with powerful data-collection systems and a focus on key building blocks of learning, drilling students is a valuable use of technology. That perspective, however, was not voiced at the summit.

鈥楤eing a Nerd鈥�

The roundtable discussions that followed the keynote speech highlighted various aspects of the digital divide. Those included the special needs of rural schools; the need to rally local school leaders; programs to refurbish computers or subsidize technology for needy individuals; concerns about technology鈥檚 impact on Native American culture; and the importance of including students in decisionmaking.

Among the sessions at the gathering was a panel discussion involving four African-American students from three Atlanta public schools who discussed their avid use of video games, iPods, music-editing software, and the Web, for entertainment as well as schooling.

鈥淢e being a nerd helps me,鈥� said Akanima Effang, who attends a high-tech high school in Atlanta. 鈥淚 get good grades.鈥�

Another student, Lamar Richardson, said his love of video games gave rise to his interest in robotics and an ambition to create his own video games. But he learned that technology was not always educationally optimal, at least for him, when he took an online course: 鈥淚 found it difficult to learn, because you couldn鈥檛 see your teacher.鈥�

Lauren Alford, another panelist, acknowledged that she and the other panel members were privileged, and advised the participants to 鈥渇ocus on getting technology to more schools that don鈥檛 have it.鈥�