Will Free Benefit the Rich?

Posted by on Nov 14, 2011 in Digital Divide, Leadership, Oped, Video | 10 Comments

Today I have a video op-ed up on the Harvard Graduate School of Education website, where I address some of my concerns about the role of education technology in expanding educational inequalities. Here’s the video, and I’ll expand on my concerns below:

Basically, I think there are two visions for free and Open educational resources and technology, that can be summarized by these two figure:

 

Two Scenarios of Education Technology and Equity

 

In the left figure, we have the “closing gaps” vision. In this vision, everyone benefits from new educational technologies, but low-income students disproportionately benefit. The hope here is that as the ecology of education is flooded with new free and nearly free resources, low-income students will have access to resources previously only available to students in schools in affluent places. Take Khan Academy as an example. It’s possible that students in wealthy schools have access to great instructors and plenty of content resources, so Khan Academy is just one more tool in their kit which only offers a minor benefit to these students. But maybe students in schools serving low-income kids have more novice teachers and fewer content and instructional resources, so Khan Academy with it’s free material represents a major boon for these learners. This is a hypothetical scenario of how Khan Academy might disproportionately benefit low-income students.

In the right figure, we have the “rising tide” vision. In this model, everyone still benefits, but now the wealthy disproportionately benefit. From a John Rawls framework, this is still a good thing–everyone is better off than before–but the opportunity gap between wealthy and poor has expanded. Consider Khan Academy again. Maybe teachers in wealthy schools–with fewer students per teacher, more students passing tests, more prep periods, fewer classes to teacher, more curriculum support, more IT support, etc.–are better able to use Khan Academy videos not just to push content to students, but to reimagine pedagogical models. These teachers use the content to flip the classroom, differentiate and personalize instruction, release students from seat time requirements, etc. Any of these new models are possible because teachers can assume that every kid has reliable broadband internet access at home and on their mobile device. By contrast, maybe teachers working in schools serving low income students simply can’t make as much use of the Khan Academy videos because they lack the planning time, broadband access, etc. In this model, schools with greater fiscal and human resources have more capacity to take advantage of even free and open resources.

This second model is actually quite troubling in its implications. If this model is generally true, then virtually every education technology initiative which does not specifically target the needs of particular populations will disproportionately benefit the wealthy, even if the materials are free.

We don’t necessarily have to sit around and guess which model is true, we can use research to answer these questions empirically. This is what I have tried to do with my research with wikis. My assessment of our findings is that in the case of wikis, the second scenario is certainly true. Wikis are more likely to be created in wealthier schools, more likely to persist longer, and more likely to create opportunities for students to develop 21st century skills. Even within schools, wikis are more likely to be used with AP and honors tracked students (who in turn are more likely to be affluent) than with lower tracked students. I don’t think low-income students are harmed by the innovation of wikis, and I think there are plenty of instances where low-income students have had great opportunities with wikis to work collaboratively and create multimedia publications of their understanding. But I am also very confident that wealthy students have benefited much more from these innovations. (This research is forthcoming in Educational Researcher this January, a pre-print paper is in my publications link above.)

Of course, research about wikis doesn’t answer every question about these two models of ed tech and inequality. Are blogs any different than wikis? Possibly, though I can’t imagine why. Are Khan Academy videos different? Possibly, although again, it’s not clear why they would be. But these are empirical questions that we can answer with research.

So if education technology does disproportionately benefit the affluent, what should we do about it? Let me offer three suggestions for teachers, developers and funders.

For teachers, the orientation towards inequality with technology is very important. Educators need to make a commitment to using social technologies with all their students, not just honors and AP students. Many teachers working with at-risk youth are concerned about inequities with technology access within their classrooms, but urban school teachers need to be more concerned with inequities between schools. We need to ensure that urban and rural students have the same opportunities as their suburban peers. We can’t make it so no students in a class have a tech-rich learning experience because some students have difficulty with access. That’s fair within a classroom, but not within a society.

Technologists, designers and researchers need to develop technology initiatives that specifically target the neediest students. TechGoesHome is a fabulous program that provides netbooks and internet connections to students, along with computer training for the entire family. The Glitch Game Testers in Atlanta, have built a program that hires African-American male students as game testers, teaches them the AP Computer Science curriculum, and has an incredible placement rate in not only getting these kids into college, but into engineering and CS majors. Bootstrap is a terrific program that teachers students to program their own video games, developing algebra and computer science skills at the same time. . The Leadership Public Schools use CK-12 Flexbooks to develop content for math and science courses that build literacy skills while teaching domain knowledge. These programs are much more likely to benefit the students who most need our support and investment.

Finally, the big foundations supporting ed tech innovations: NSF, Gates, Hewlett, and MacArthur need to be sure to focus a considerable part of their funding streams on students who most need support. A terrific example of this are the Gates/Hewlett Next Generation Learning grants, which target specific kids in specific high-risk courses. I’m sure down the line that all students will benefit from these kinds of experiments, but if we start by focusing on the kids with the most needs, then we’re more likely to create a scenario where education technology is vehicle for meliorating rather than exacerbating educational opportunity gaps.

So those are some of my thoughts on the topic… obviously there is much more to say. If you are interested, I will be giving a Berkman Luncheon talk on the topic this January: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2012/01/reich. If you have questions or reactions, please leave me a comment!

 

10 Comments

  1. James Croft
    November 15, 2011

    Very interesting stuff. The challenge I see for your position regards the plausibility of the first of your two scenarios. Can you give an example of any technology whatsoever that has so drastically improved the learning of low-income students while affecting high-income students significantly less?

    Further, is there good evidence that, while these technologies might be USED in high-income areas more often, that they in fact promote positive development?

    Reply
  2. Justin Reich
    November 15, 2011

    First, I think my point is that scenario one is hoped for but seldom realized. Rather than a specific example of a technology that might help realize the “closing gaps” scenario, let me provide an example. The Leadership Public Schools are using CK-12 Flexbooks and Open Education Resources to create curriculum materials for science and math with embedded literacy supports (http://www.ck12.org/about/leadership-public-schools-case-study/). Louise Bay Waters gave a fantastic presentation about it at Hewlett Grantee meeting last year (www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wQOSDxDpIg). This particular initiative has very promising early results for supporting the population of kids served by Leadership–mostly low income and ELL. And the books might do some good helping populations with similar reading difficulties in wealthy schools, but the technology innovation is clearly targeting students with a particular set of needs.

    I don’t totally understand your second question. There are reams of evidence–entire journals, whole scholarly careers–devoted to demonstrating that technologies can promote positive development.

    Reply
  3. Prof. Dr. Aynur Unal
    November 19, 2011

    How about the impact of the open innovation for the two groups and overall?
    I think two factors need to be elaborated upon:
    1- Open Innovation leads to cheaper innovation
    2-Open Innovation leads to faster innovation
    Innovation is the greatest equalizer and QED.

    Reply
  4. Berkman Buzz: November 18, 2011 - Top Rated Online Degree Programs - Online Degrees Direct
    November 19, 2011

    […] VIDEO: Justin Reich discusses technology and educational equality * Juan Carlos de Martin publishes an op-ed in La Stampa on Italy’s digital agenda [in […]

    Reply
  5. Berkman Buzz: November 18, 2011 | Berkman Center
    December 5, 2011

    […] being discussed…take your pick or browse below. * VIDEO: Justin Reich discusses technology and educational equality * Juan Carlos de Martin publishes an op-ed in La Stampa on Italy's digital agenda [in Italian] * […]

    Reply
  6. Open Educational Resources Expand Educational Inequalities « Educational Technology Debate
    December 8, 2011

    […] post first appeared as Will Free benefit the Rich?, and is republished here with Justin’s […]

    Reply
  7. karen wilson
    December 20, 2011

    “Thanks for this very helpful “glossary of OERs”. Open online resources open up endless possibilities for both K-12 educators and students. They give students the power to choose and access content in their own time and teachers the flexibility to access the best educational content online to tailor it for their students, enabling a remarkable personalization of K-12 education. Various open content textbooks available at CK-12, I customized and created my own ebook using CK 12 flexbook concept, http://goo.gl/ASnq9

    Reply
  8. JackCWest
    December 31, 2011

    I am re-posting my comment from Audrey Watter’s site here in case there are others who might like to respond. Thanks, Justin, for your willingness to take risks. BTW I am an HGSE alum myself – class of ’98

    Response to a metaphor raised by a commenter that OER is like Tesla cars. They are expensive at first, but will eventually be cheaper…

    I like the metaphor, and have even thought about that myself; with regard to expanding the use of electric cars, anyway. OERs are already as cheap as they can get, however. And I am afraid that even with access at school and at home, Reich’s scenario 2 is a likely one; though, no reason to quibble about whether OER is good or evil.

    I have worked as a teacher and program director with kids living below the poverty line in the US for almost twenty years. There will always be the one in one hundred kids with amazing resiliency who will spin any straw into gold. But there are some basic things that folks who have never done a home visit neglect to consider when envisioning silver bullets hitting the target of inequality.

    Take space for example. Kids with a computer and an internet connection need a relatively quiet space free from distraction to work. Many of my students who live in the apartment on the corner of my old block are six or seven to a one bedroom apartment. Imagine trying to work in that environment.

    Have you ever eaten a bag of Flaming Hot Cheetos, then slurped a twenty ounce soda? Neither have I, but my students do so regularly at school (unfortunately), and at home. I watch my own children bounce off the walls when we let them have a cookie after they eat their edamame and fish. I suspect the adolescent equivalent of bouncing off the walls on a sugar high might be something better saved for the new .xxx domain. In any case, not focused on learning how to apply the quadratic formula. Learning at home for kids in poverty is a statistical improbability.

    OER is a fantastic gift from our public trust, but the real benefit is not what it will do for inequality. The real benefit, just as with the Linux operating system, is that the users (in this case teachers and students) have the opportunity to create and use high quality curriculum materials. I worry that the big three publishing houses will use SOPA to lock out much of OER and continue to force schools like mine to use their state adopted materials (courtesy of expensive political junkets to European resort destinations for our state education officers). Maybe Carnegie’s and Gates’ can work on that one for us too?

    Reply
  9. Software Carpentry » The Fire Last Time
    December 31, 2011

    […] in November, Justin Reich wrote a post titled “Will Free Benefit the Rich?” (re-posted as “Open Educational Resources Expand Educational Inequalities“). In […]

    Reply
  10. Software Carpentry » The Fire Last Time | The Timely Custom Carpentry Blog
    December 31, 2011

    […] in November, Justin Reich wrote a post titled “Will Free Benefit the Rich?” (re-posted as “Open Educational Resources Expand Educational Inequalities“). In it, he […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply