In the UK the government is keen to get rid of, or at least reduce, the digital divide. For this reason it introduced a home access programme, the aim of which is to help the poorest families acquire a computer and an internet connection.
But what if this were a food relief programme? The specification of the hardware and software has to be approved. Miles Berry has drawn attention to the fact that laptops purchased for the Home Access scheme has to have ‘relevant’ software – but who defines ‘relevant’? (See slide 45 of our presentation entitled ‘What are your kids learning while you're not looking?’).
Graham Brown-Martin, speaking at the Naace 2009 Conference, went further. He said that if this were a food relief programme, people would be given food they’re allowed to have rather than food they actually want, because they’re poor.
He was being deliberately provocative, but is he right? Who decides what hardware and software is ‘good for you’ or ‘relevant’? There’s a case to be made for providing a range of stuff, including games devices and phones! After all, if people have chosen things they actually want to use, isn’t there more chance they will use it?
Perhaps there could be various ‘set menus’ on offer, which acknowledge the value to learning of different hardware-software sets. Perhaps there could be a free choice as long as the potential learning gains justify it? Or perhaps we should be pleased that there is such a thing as the Home Access program in the first place, and not pick holes in it?
I’d be interested in your opinion about these issues.
Wordle summary:
This is reflection #15 of a series of 25 reflections of the Naace 2009 Conference.
Subscribe to article summaries