The Digital Divide is becoming less and less about access, according to the Pew Internet and American Project. That's fine, but the disenfranchisement of the poor and poor districts still remains. And it is growing. Recently, much as been said of Netbooks and free Web 2.0 tools going to pay formats. These two things have the possibility of creating a larger, more complex Digital Divide then we have ever seen.
Netbooks and Web 2.0: Pandora's Box for Poor Schools?
Vicki Davis, stated recently regarding this issue that " it is vital to plan." But are schools? Netbooks stand a chance to make the Internet available to more students than ever before, but at what cost? The old standard model for budgeting PD has always been 10/1, meaning that for every 10 dollars you spend, you spend $1 on PD. That model has to be thrown out the window when districts' new Netbooks arrive. The Internet stands to be a Pandora's box for school districts who are not prepared to pay for the PD that should be required for teachers to use wikis, manage student information, and create student-teacher social networks and so much more.
Inevitably districts are going to buy those Netbooks anyway. But they won't really be low cost, because someone will be paying a price for their lack of foresight- the students and their personal information.
I've always been a Web 2.0 fanatic, but having worked in a struggling district, I've seen how a large, urban district makes decisions. I've also seen how little supervision teachers in a poor district are given, and wonder how student information could be affected.
Disenfranchisement is Free
Web 2.0 tools are starting to go to a pay model as Gcast has recently done, along with others. Now that this is happening, Ryan Bretag, in his latest post, wonders what the Total Cost of Ownership will be. For me, I see something larger happening. I see a Digital Divide growing. When the free tools go pay, what will the poorer districts do? They will use other, less secure free offerings that will most likely be ad-based, and may put student information and development at risk.
I think that there will always be free options for educators, but wealthier districts are going to have the freedom to use Internet tools that poorer districts can't, and this is really a form of socio-economic disenfranchisement. As for Gcast, judging by Ed Allen's tweet the other day, poorer schools will find the free options. His teachers and other schools will, most likely, look for free, but will that be the best thing for those students?
Maybe what we are seeing here, is that nothing truly is free. There are costs everywhere, whether it's in student information, security, socio-economic costs, and education quality. The most oft-used tools, the most vetted tools, will remain the most secure.
The Internet is not free.
