For this reason, the authors find the focus of the study to be of extreme relevance in understanding the ways in which students and families interact and understand technology, and the potential impact that might play in the education of a child. The authors highlight the following:

“[b]ecause digital devices and the Internet have become so essential, digital inequality can exacerbate educational and economic inequality as well…Therefore it is critical that we understand how low- and moderate-income families in the U.S are engaging digital technologies and how they perceive opportunities- and potential risks-that these innovations present for their children” (Rideout & Katz, 2016, p. 4).

 

 

Consider the following, for example:

Half (53%) of all low- and moderate-income parents who use the Internet say that their child helps them, including 63% of those whose child is between 10 and 13 years old. Parents with lower educational attainment are more likely to turn to their children for help: 62% of those who did not graduate from high school do so, compared with 45% of those with a college degree. Hispanic parents are the most likely to say that their child has helped them use Internet connected devices (63%).  Among the 53% of parents who say that their child helps them with computers or mobile devices, 21% say this “often” happens. Parents who have less confidence in their own Internet skills are more likely to report getting help from their children (Rideout & Katz, 2016 p. 29-30). 

 

[T]hese activities are most observable among siblings in the lowest income group and those whose parents have less education. [B]ecause they might be the only source of knowledge, siblings from lower income homes rely on each other much more than those who have better access. 

 

I don't agree with the presumptions arrived at by this statistic. It fails to acknowledge that folks from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds (not just folks from Spanish speaking countries) have differing styles that are conducive to their learning. Unlike dominant western views of learning as an individualistic endeavor, other cultures view learning as a communal and deeply personal, collaborative, interactive process. I would also be concerned if my child is spending 1/3 to 2/3 of their instructional time sitting in front of a computer screen. 

 

Also, as a previous teacher, I understand there are many expectations/presumptions set on teachers and the ways they should use many of the "personalized/paced" computer literacy/math programs. But I challenge the authors with these ideas in mind:

 

1. Rarely are teachers fully trained to use and implement these programs in their classroom. (If you believe a one day 3-hour PD training is enough) 

 

2. Time constraints on teachers inhibit their ability to look at the daily/weekly data for each child, develop and follow-through with one-on-one teacher-student (or even small group) activities to re-teach or reinforce the skills that students are having difficulty with. I wouldn’t object to the pervasiveness of such programs in low-income schools were this otherwise. 

 

3. In my personal experience from working at public schools, in order for the school/district to keep their funding for said computer program, teachers were EXPECTED to have students complete a certain # of minutes per week; taking valuable time from learning that is critical and relevant to the academic lives of students. We must acknowledge that the curriculum used by many of these programs is NOT the most culturally and critically relevant or engaging. 

 

4. The format of these curriculum driven digital programs mirrors that of current state and federal standardized test, which reaffirms the idea that our current public education system is structure around teaching to the test; an approach we know fails students of color.