Drew Kelly for The New York Times
Alejandro Zamora, an eighth grader, calls himself “a Facebook freak.” His mother would prefer that he use the computer for homework.
In the 1990s, the term “digital divide” emerged to describe technology’s haves and have-nots. It inspired many efforts to get the latest computing tools into the hands of all Americans, particularly low-income families.
Those efforts have indeed shrunk the divide. But they have created an unintended side effect, one that is surprising and troubling to researchers and policy makers and that the government now wants to fix.
As access to devices has spread, children in poorer families are spending considerably more time than children from more well-off families using their television and gadgets to watch shows and videos, play games and connect on social networking sites, studies show.
This growing time-wasting gap, policy makers and researchers say, is more a reflection of the ability of parents to monitor and limit how children use technology than of access to it.
“I’m not antitechnology at home, but it’s not a savior,” said Laura Robell, the principal at Elmhurst Community Prep, a public middle school in East Oakland, Calif., who has long doubted the value of putting a computer in every home without proper oversight.
“So often we have parents come up to us and say, ‘I have no idea how to monitor Facebook,’ ” she said.
The new divide is such a cause of concern for the Federal Communications Commission that it is considering a proposal to spend $200 million to create a digital literacy corps. This group of hundreds, even thousands, of trainers would fan out to schools and libraries to teach productive uses of computers for parents, students and job seekers.
Separately, the commission will help send digital literacy trainers this fall to organizations like the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Some of the financial support for this program, part of a broader initiative called Connect2Compete, comes from private companies like Best Buy and Microsoft.
These efforts complement a handful of private and state projects aimed at paying for digital trainers to teach everything from basic keyboard use and word processing to how to apply for jobs online or use filters to block children from seeing online pornography.
“Digital literacy is so important,” said Julius Genachowski, chairman of the commission, adding that bridging the digital divide now also means “giving parents and students the tools and know-how to use technology for education and job-skills training.”
F.C.C. officials and other policy makers say they still want to get computing devices into the hands of every American. That gaps remains wide — according to the commission, about 65 percent of all Americans have broadband access at home, but that figure is 40 percent in households with less than $20,000 in annual income. Half of all Hispanics and 41 percent of African-American homes lack broadband.
But “access is not a panacea,” said Danah Boyd, a senior researcher at Microsoft. “Not only does it not solve problems, it mirrors and magnifies existing problems we’ve been ignoring.”
Like other researchers and policy makers, Ms. Boyd said the initial push to close the digital divide did not anticipate how computers would be used for entertainment.
“We failed to account for this ahead of the curve,” she said.
A study published in 2010 by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that children and teenagers whose parents do not have a college degree spent 90 minutes more per day exposed to media than children from higher socioeconomic families. In 1999, the difference was just 16 minutes.
The study found that children of parents who do not have a college degree spend 11.5 hours each day exposed to media from a variety of sources, including television, computer and other gadgets. That is an increase of 4 hours and 40 minutes per day since 1999.
Children of more educated parents, generally understood as a proxy for higher socioeconomic status, also largely use their devices for entertainment. In families in which a parent has a college education or an advanced degree, Kaiser found, children use 10 hours of multimedia a day, a 3.5-hour jump since 1999. (Kaiser double counts time spent multitasking. If a child spends an hour simultaneously watching TV and surfing the Internet, the researchers counted two hours.)
“Despite the educational potential of computers, the reality is that their use for education or meaningful content creation is minuscule compared to their use for pure entertainment,” said Vicky Rideout, author of the decade-long Kaiser study. “Instead of closing the achievement gap, they’re widening the time-wasting gap.”
Policy makers and researchers say the challenges are heightened for parents and children with fewer resources — the very people who were supposed to be helped by closing the digital divide.
The concerns are brought to life in families like those of Markiy Cook, a thoughtful 12-year-old in Oakland who loves technology.
At home, where money is tight, his family has two laptops, an Xbox 360 and a Nintendo Wii, and he has his own phone. He uses them mostly for Facebook, YouTube, texting and playing games.
He particularly likes playing them on the weekends.
“I stay up all night, until like 7 in the morning,” he said, laughing sheepishly. “It’s why I’m so tired on Monday.”
His grades are suffering. His grade-point average is barely over 1.0, putting him at the bottom of his class. He wants to be a biologist when he grows up, he said.
Markiy attends Elmhurst Community Prep, located in a rough area (the school has a tribute hanging in its hallway to a 15-year-old girl recently stabbed to death by the father of her baby). Thirty-five percent of the students, like Markiy, are black, and most of the rest are Hispanic.
Alejandro Zamora, 13, an eighth grader, calls himself “a Facebook freak.” His mother, Olivia Montesdeoca, said she liked the idea of him using the computer (until it recently broke) but did not have much luck getting him to use it for homework.
“He’d have a fit. He’d have a tantrum,” she said, adding that she really did not understand some of what he did online. “I have no idea about YouTube. I’ve never even heard of a webcam.”
Ms. Robell, the principal, said children needed to know how to use technology to compete, but her priorities for her students were more basic: “Breakfast, lunch and dinner.”
Many lower-income families take great pains to manage how their children use their devices.
In Boston, Amy and Randolph Ross, neither of them a college graduate — she works in a hospital and he at a bookstore — recently bought their twin 15-year-old girls laptop computers as a reward for good grades. The parents make sure the computers are used mostly for homework or for the girls to explore their interest as budding musicians.
“If you just buy the computer and don’t guide them on the computer, of course it’s going to be misused,” Ms. Ross said.
Her mother-in-law, Edna Ross, the matriarch of their African-American family who lives nearby in Dorchester, Mass., feels the same way. She got a new Hewlett-Packard computer last year through a project funded by the National Institutes of Health intended to provide both access and nine months of digital literacy training.
Edna Ross is strict about how her grandchildren use the computer when they visit. One of her grandsons once sneaked onto the computer and put a picture of himself on his Facebook page making an obscene gesture.
She told him if he could not control himself, he could not use the computer. Training, she said, is crucial.
“If you already have a child who feels like anything goes and you put a computer in his hand,” she said, “he’s going to do the first negative thing he can find to do when he gets on the computer.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: June 9, 2012
An article on May 30 about the way in which families in different socioeconomic strata use technology misstated part of the name of an organization whose members will work with digital literacy trainers this fall. It is the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, not the Boys and Girls Club.
Logging in, please wait...
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Hm…really? Some kind of study citation or footnote would be helpful!
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
Kyle, I second Michelle’s comment that a citation would be helpful. Slightly off subject, a good article will have citations no matter where it is printed. A newspaper article without citations sometimes leads more to sensationalism. This kind of sweeping generalization automatically has me critically reading the rest of the article looking for flaws and reasons to doubt the article’s main premise.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
I guess intuitively you’d think children from poorer families wouldn’t have access to devices in the first place, although that isn’t necessarily true either (and the argument seems to be about parental monitoring than access to technology, anyway). Socio-economic status seems dismissed in the rest of the article, too…
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
This may not be the intent of this sentence, but the article seems to be suggesting putting the blame on the parents. “A reflection of the ability of parents” seems like it could be blaming statement.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I feel this article does put a lot of the onus on the parents for making sure technology is used productively, as well it should. Kids shouldn’t be expected to know how to manage their time well, that’s a huge part of being a parent, instilling the right values and priorities in your kids.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I feel like the gist of this paragraph is similar to the idea of having technology in a classroom. Because the boundaries of technology is endless, so are the pros and cons of having it both in class and at home. If we cannot monitor or come to a mutual agreement with the students to stay on task in class, we should as well do class the traditional way most of the time. I agree with the saying that technology is not a savior. If it is used in the wrong way, students will not benefit from technology as much as they should; instead, they will be wasting time.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
How do people feel about government involvement, like the Federal Communications Commission, in getting involved in “fix[ing]” (from second paragraph/9) the digital divide
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I personally think that if the government did this it would be like a social service. Parents have a variety of reasons why they do not know about computers. This is by no means the same, but I think of it like the free lunch program. Parents have many reasons why they cannot feed their kids correctly; the government feeds these kids because they need to eat regardless of the circumstances.
Similarly, parents and students have a variety of reasons to lack technological knowledge. But students (and their parents if they are going to monitor usage) need to understand how to use computers in constructive ways in such a digitally dependent world.
I am not thinking of it just in terms of time wasting. I am thinking of this in terms of these students’ futures. We need to give all students their best chance at success.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think that this is a good idea. At least “parents, students, and jobseekers” will be given the knowledge of how to use technology in a productive way. Whether or not they actually do it would be up to them.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I absolutely understand a digital literacy corps dedicated to job seekers as that would make many more people qualified for jobs they couldn’t get before. But I don’t see teaching parents about the productive uses of a technology, as beneficial as it may be, as a function of government.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Assuming they are the ones federally commissioned…just wonder how representative/knowledgeable of what actually goes on in classrooms, and how effective it is to generalize methods to reduce the digital divide (esp when it looks so different in different places)? I would argue that it would be a more effective issue for local districts, and even individual schools, to address since they are intimate with their school settings and needs.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
People rushed in to give these kids all of the tech in the world without thinking about all of the possible consequences and now they have ended up creating a new, possibly bigger problem. I’m not necessarily against tech in the classroom because of all of the upside potential but I am against blithely adding tech without implementing proper programs or plans first.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I completely agree with this statement. As I suggested in my previous post, the computer is such a staple in the modern world that everyone will need to know how to use one soon.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
If economically advantaged students get to use their tablets at home to do homework, but the kids less well off who don’t have internet have to use paper/pencil methods, the division will be noticeable. I think a teacher would have to be rather clever to avoid students picking up on this.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Of course computers and technology are going to be used for entertainment, it’s impossible to resist. But instead of focusing on that side, I think it’s important to pay attention to the benefits that technology does provide for education- which I think can be a lot. I read an article in the Kid’s Post today (don’t judge, I love their hidden picture!) and in a fourth-grade classroom the second favorite internet site after Youtube was some educational site (I don’t remember the name). If that’s not progress, I don’t what is!
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree with you Tracy that the use of technology can be very helpful in education, but I think the use of personal technology for each student hurts more that it helps. Most students I know cannot use a laptop or anything with access to the internet without going to their most visited favorite websites first. Once that’s done, they then tune into what they had gone online for in the first place. The huge waste of time is not only in personal time but also occurs in the classroom, which is why I never use my laptop in class because I know I will inevitably go on facebook or twitter and tune out a piece of the lesson that’s important. Technology can absolutely provide benefits for education, but I think the use of individual technology for students does not.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I know I am not the greatest example since I do not have Facebook or anything like that, but it has taken a lot of self-discipline to avoid becoming addicted to the Internet. I find that if you are taught that the Internet is mainly for education at a young age and you have a lot of rules (I wasn’t allowed to go on YouTube until well into high school), it becomes easier to control your usage when you gain independence. Perhaps teaching students skills in time management and self discipline would lessen the amount of time they waste?
I really don’t know if this would work. What do heavy technology users think?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
I feel that it is both. I’m sure back in the 1950s people lacked self-discipline too. What really irks me though (and I don’t want to make too many judgements) is that people who are tight with money, like Markiy, decide to spend the extra money on entertainment. Now I feel that people’s priorities are Facebook/gaming, when it seems that they have the resources available, they just can’t allocate their time effectively. This seems more like an internal issue of self-control, but I feel that it’s caused by the social media trends of today.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
With so many other people around him (in school/the environment) using technology, it is easy for the trend to rub off on him. We all want to try things that other people find fun and/or engaging, so we do. After reading about Markiy in the following paragraphs, it is clear that he doesn’t have too much self-discipline. He has a 1.0 GPA, which should encourage him to leave technology alone, unless it is helping him bring his grades up/do homework. If he was self-disciplined, he would have no problem with leaving technology alone until he is satisfied with his position in school.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
It’s disheartening to see that he has some kind of drive (wants to be a biologist, which isn’t easy although a little vague in terms of jobs), but it seems to me that he doesn’t know how to use the technology to his advantage. This seems to be a rather big time management issue.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
Maybe she doesn’t have the time to learn about technology? How much time does she get to actually spend at home and not at work? Why are they at a low socioeconomic level?
There are so many factors at play when you discuss low socioeconomic status besides money itself.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
If many families take great care to manage their children’s devices, then it cannot just be because of their income level that we are seeing a problem in how kids use these devices.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree with your conclusion that SES doesn’t necessarily change how parents monitor their children’s electronics.
I wonder if parents are focusing more on keeping their kids on the right sights etc. instead monitoring their homework progression. That might be because they don’t know how the technology works themselves (and this could play into the SES idea that parents in lower income families don’t have as much time to familiarize themselves with academic technology).
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Personally, I’m against it, because school-motivation is extrinsic enough without the promise of presents. And if the argument is that technology isn’t used for schoolwork but for games/entertainment… I don’t understand the appeal of doing this.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Back when I was in high school, I would hear about some students getting like $10 or $20 for all A’s or Honor Roll, but now the reward is a laptop?! I don’t understand. Rewarding kids with monetary possessions, like laptops, could further the problem with entertainment use unless if the laptop was strictly used for homework, which as we’ve read earlier in the article, it is not.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
These parents seem responsible. I cannot say that I am totally against what they did. A reward in the form of a laptop is a rather large one. But, this means they had to earn those computers by doing well. If they are mainly using them for homework, they will continue to do well.
On the reverse, if these girls misuse their laptops, I predict their parents would take away their usage privileges.
Granted, not every family would operate this way, but I don’t think it is bad for this particular situation.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
I don’t agree with this analysis of what’s happening at all. A student who decides to spend their time on the computer playing Minecraft instead of studying is making a decision that reflects his or her values, not deciding to do a “negative thing.” Finding games to be a better expense of time isn’t innately “negative” — it only becomes negative when schoolwork becomes negatively impacted. Otherwise, I think it’s just difference of interests. But he or she is not setting out to do a “negative thing,” and I think that labeling is more than a little judgmental.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree that gaming isn’t negative.
But obscene gestures? That is negative no matter what the context. If we take school completely out of the picture, it is inevitable that some children will misuse technology in ways that are vastly inappropriate and could definitely be labeled as negative.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think it has to be considered differently when it concerns technology that is provided in school or by the school. If a one-to-one school is having issues with kids going around their firewalls or whatever, they consider that negative (even if the website is just facebook or a game etc). Plus, consider that fact that technology in schools does face a lot of critique. A kid doing something negative could have a much larger impact on how a school uses technology than when it is a personal device.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
General Document Comments 0
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
I just think this whole thing just makes people look silly. They rushed to give kids these high-tech devices and just expected them to be productive with them? Did they really not expect them to take advantage of their new procrastinatory (not sure that’s a word) abilities? Having access to the technology to be abl to compete with more well of families is a great thing but if they don’t know how to use it properly, it’s just going to be another obstacle.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
If used properly I feel the Ipads can be beneficial. I just think it’s very important for the schools to monitor their use. Maybe the students shouldn’t be allowed to always bring their Ipads home, maybe only on certain days or for certain projects/assignments. Of course there is no easy way, or really even possible way, to prevent procrastination and entertainment, but hey- nothings perfect and technology is no exception.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think giving each student an iPad is somewhat foolish. Technology is very helpful however shoving it in little kids faces in hopes that they’ll learn it faster and it will improve their educational experience is not a good choice. The LA schools liked the way it sounded to say “each of our student’s have an iPad” and they didn’t think about the negative implications caused by the iPads. I don’t argue that using technology in education is a bad thing, however I do argue that giving a child too much freedom with the technology is harmful and defeats the original purpose of the iPads.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Whenever I was in middle school, I participated in a 2 week after-school study session class. In this class, we learned about how to set up a study area, how to organize our homework in our assignment books, and how to increase efficiency while doing our homework. Of course that was in the late 90’s and iPads didn’t exist yet. I personally am glad that I didn’t have Facebook around in 6th grade to distract me from my classes. I think working how to operate school-supplied technology into a study skills class or elective could benefit school districts like this one in LA. There is much more to introducing technology into the classroom than the mechanics because it effects the whole dynamic of how a student goes about studying.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I feel like the Los Angeles school board sat down and thought, “Giving each of our students an iPad is impressive” without really thinking about everything an iPad can and can’t do. An iPad is a powerful tool. It can play educational YouTube videos, launch mathematics apps, run programs that can help kids learn to read… all sorts of good stuff. But it’s a double-edged sword, because it can also play videogames, buffer decidedly-not-educational YouTube videos, and run Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. These are all things iPads can do.
What iPads can’t do is teach kids when it’s time to sit down and study and when it’s acceptable to be liking, repinning, and hashtagging. iPads can’t teach time management. It also can’t teach children to prioritize their education above games and entertainment — especially when so many educational programs rely on “gaminess” for appeal.
Not having seen the Los Angeles iPad system at work, I can’t really say whether I think it’s a triumph or a flop, but I think that’s the point: the decision to provide technology isn’t innately good or bad. What will shape the outcome of this experiment is the role adults (teachers, parents, guardians) play in children’s discovery and use of technology. I’m not saying that the iPads need to be policed, but skills like time management definitely need to be taught, and the prioritization of education over entertainment (at least to a degree) needs to be emphasized in schools and at home. The greats and not-so-greats of the experiment are going to come from the people, not the technology itself.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment