The question of “Technology has led to a more equitable society” was a great debate topic. Both sides argued their points very well, and I enjoyed the different approaches in the opening statement videos. Who doesn’t love a good hockey meme?
THE DEBATE
I choose “disagree’ in both the pre and post-vote. I did so as I looked at the debate question through the narrow lens of equity in the classroom. I appreciated the breadth and depth of Kennedy and Ummey’s video where they outlined the many ways technology leads to a more equitable society. They expanded the reasons how technology can benefit society in ways outside of the classroom (for social justice, assistive technology, health opportunities, fundraising and awareness, and cultural diversity/language barriers). The points raised were compelling, and correct, and much information was packed into a 6-minute video. This was no easy feat!
The focus of the second debate was mainly related to technology use in the classroom. Yes, the focus was a bit narrow compared to the first debate, yet it is how I also interpreted the debate question. I agreed with Jeff and Graeme when they said, “If a student doesn’t have a device or access to high-speed Internet at home, they won’t show the same academic results.”
The answer to the debate question is bigger than the classroom and is not really about technology. The question can only be addressed by creating an equitable society.
THE ARTICLES
The articles “Bridging The Gap” (presented by the agree side) and “Equity and Technology Use in Education” (presented by the disagree side) make the same arguments. “The matter comes down to pure economics.” (Hall, 2006, p.4). I stated this in class during the discussion when I said we are really talking about money. Those who have money can access technology, and their quality of life generally improves. Those who do not have money cannot access technology, and their quality of life generally weakens. (Bruce, 2020; Hall, 2006). I gave the example of how technology has given me the opportunity to enroll in Master’s courses, yet it is my chequing account that turned the opportunity into reality.
At the heart of the debate is the question of equity and how to create a more equitable society. This thought is reflected in the “Bridging the Gap” article when it was written, “… and we feel that equity in learning opportunity is the answer.” (Hall, 2006, p. 2). Hall wrote how his school district made intentional choices to bridge the gap by creating a student advisory board, including families of the students, knowing the community, and looking outside the walls of the classroom to create equity to close the digital divide. This article shows that only providing access to technology is not enough. Educators must do more than teach the curriculum; they must provide creative solutions so the students can bridge the digital divide. The answer to the debate question lies in intentionally looking at creative ways each educator can close the gap in their school district. What worked for Hall in Kent, Washington may not work for you in your school district. Victoria Gold is a mining company that runs a gold mine north of Mayo, Yukon. Vic Gold, as it is called by Yukoners, has partnered with The Yukon Government and created an “Every Student Every Day” program to help boost student attendance and achievement. This is a partnership that is unique to the Yukon, yet creative solutions are there for every school district. I can appreciate the amount of energy, time, and dedication Hall and others in his school district have made to close the digital divide in Kent, Washington. The first step is to look at what is within the scope of our control as educators and take advantage of what those opportunities can mean for our students.
CONCLUSION
This post leans heavily on the singular article “Bridging the Gap”. It may seem contradictory to agree with the article that was presented by the side I did not vote for. Twice. This illustrates how complicated the debate question is and also illustrates that the discussion is not about technology; it is about how it is used. This is the third time I have used this image in my blog posts, but it is so relevant. It is my new meme!
Laura,
I really appreciated your post for this week. It was so neat to read through all the blogs this week when they involve my presentation & the points that were made. I feel like depending on the point being made in the argument, I was even being pulled in different directions. It is a broad topic with many many layers to pull back, and even then, I’m not sure this debate question can be properly answered. I’m about to post my own blog for this week and I mentioned you. This is because I felt the most “real” thing that was said during that debate was when you said this actually about money. It is true! Technology can only do so much when money will always be a factor & play a part in this.
– Kennedy
Awesome post, Laura!
I also voted on the disagree side when it came to technology creating equity in the classroom. Your comment during the debate about the most important factor being “money” is very true. This swayed me even further in my belief of technology’s inability to create an equitable society in the classroom or otherwise.
Thanks for your insightful post!
I totally agree with this statement on your post “Those who have money can access technology, and their quality of life generally improves. Those who do not have money cannot access technology, and their quality of life generally weakens. (Bruce, 2020; Hall, 2006)’.
An egalitarian society cannot be created through technology; rather, it could only be achieved if everyone had access to money, which is unrealistic given the current socioeconomic structure.
I disagree that technology will lead to a more egalitarian society.
Excellent Laura! I thank you for sharing the complexity of this topic and really enjoyed your local connection, showing that approaching the topic of equity around technology is just like everything else – solutions are rarely one-size-fits-all, as the local dynamics and politics will always have a very heavy influence on the success of a plan, solution, or policy.