Centering Ability in Our Discussions of the Digital Divide (McSpadden 2019 )


In “Bridging a Digital Divide”, Cecilia Kang explores the digital gap amongst students across the socioeconomic spectrum. The author presents data and anecdotes that demonstrate how the digital divide maps onto class lines and affects student performance in the classroom. As teachers rely more and more on online homework and technology-based learning, students without access to the technological tools necessary for success are either falling behind or struggling to keep up with their more affluent classmates. “The Digital Divide Between Poor Kids Is Not What We Expected”, written by Nellie Bowles, discusses the changing trends in digital use in schools. High-income families and pricier private schools are moving away from screens in the classroom. Researchers found that the reliance on digital learning resulted in “tech-addicted children of middle and low-income families”(Bowles). While the readings focus primarily on themes of socioeconomic status and briefly touch on urban/rural differences, I would like to propose another key issue in the digital divide discussion: ability.

Ableism is the background theme for our class this semester, and this week’s readings offer useful information for us to analyze through the lens of ability. In class, we defined “ableism” as the “discrimination in favor of able-bodied people”. An example would be viewing disability as something that needs to be fixed. While Bowle makes valid points about the less desirable effects of technology – addictiveness, potential for danger, etc – technology and digital accessibility are integral to full participation in many societal arenas. A lack of access to the internet and digital tools negatively affects someone’s access to educational opportunities, career advancement, and, in some cases, social life. According to a published Letter to the Editor published in response to another digital divide-focused New York Times article, “Digital inclusion is a civil right”(Feingold). Do we all have a right to digital inclusion? And is this synonymous with “digital access”? Additionally, as much as schools increasingly rely on technology as a learning tool, I wonder if they are investing as much thought into making sure these digital tools and teaching practices are accessible for all students, regardless of ability.

Technology is inarguably becoming an increasingly prominent part of American life. Every day there is some new way to integrate technology into a new part of our lives that never required it before. The Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet we all read for class today demonstrated how often we all rely on technology and digital tools. As the report was put together by the Pew Research Center, I was surprised to see it included demographic-based data for age, race, gender, income, education, and community, but failed to consider ability as a key demographic group. According the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 1 in 4 US adults live with a disability. That’s roughly 60 million people. I think it’s time we all started considering disability more in our discussions of technology, and schools are an important place to start.

Image result for accessibility web
Image: Light blue background with various icons of accessibility technology overlayed, such as closed captions and web accessibility code. 


NYT Letter to the Editor:
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/opinion/inequality-and-the-internet-why-some-remain-offline.html?_r=0


Bowles, Nellie. “The Digital Divide Between Poor Kids Is Not What We Expected.” New York Times, n.d. Accessed September 16, 2019.

“CDC: 1 in 4 US Adults Live with a Disability | CDC Online Newsroom | CDC.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 16, 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0816-disability.html.

Feingold, Laney. “Inequality and the Internet: Why Some Remain Offline.” New York Times, August 19, 2013.

Kang, Cecilia. “Bridging a Digital Divide that Leaves School Children Behind.” The New York Times February 22, 2016. 



Comments

Sydney Otis said…
I think it's really interesting to look at the reading through an ablest lens. I hadn't considered this form of analysis. I think it's an important point that you mention about whether teachers are considerate of what resources students have available to them. I think it's particularly interesting within public schooling. While I know of many public middle and high schools (instances of no tuition) that provide some sort of laptop or tablet to students to use throughout their school years and return at the end of the academic year. I think this is interesting and important to consider as I wonder if schools that do not provide access to technology to students who need are less dependent on technology to facilitate in-class learning or, if in these situations, students are too use whatever desktops may be available to them within the school building, without the opportunity to bring or advance upon their work at home.
September 17, 2019 at 1:09 PM
Carrie Phillips said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
September 18, 2019 at 9:09 PM
Carrie Phillips said…
In class, Roschan and I discussed the difference between digital access versus digital inclusion. We concluded that access is a matter of possessing the technology - whether that be internet or a physical device; whereas inclusion extends to factors such as interface design and representation of many identities, abilities, beliefs in online content and media. Because of the pervasiveness of technology and its keystone role in education, the workforce, the dissemination of news and content, and social ties, I agree that we need to start thinking about digital inclusion as a civil right. Perhaps digital anti-ableist legislation could be achieved through securing protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990? I had not initially noticed the omission of ability demographic information from the PEW data and agree that such data would be an excellent first step towards a more inclusive virtual space.
September 18, 2019 at 9:11 PM
Prof S said…
I've been thinking a lot about your post Lauryn, and was excited to come across a really interesting article today that highlights the lack of representation in the Pew study that you mention:

https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/19/3/610/4067617
September 26, 2019 at 10:23 AM
Eileen Cho said…
It is interesting to see how ability and the list of other demographics are considered exclusively. The blog post mentioned how larger discussions of technology and the digital divide touches upon most demographics, but leaves out ability. Before reading your article, I did not know that 1 out of 4 adults in the US have a disability, which leads me to question why more hasn't been done about this issue. I am not saying that I do not think that people should push for more digital inclusion--I completely agree with you on that. I just can't help but wonder why it has taken so long. Even from a commercial standpoint, with so many people included in this demographic, it would be better to do so than not.
October 12, 2019 at 5:52 PM
Josh Miller said…
I completely agree with your view that digital inclusion is extremely important and that more should be done to make digital spaces more easily accessible by all. I think one of the reasons this is so hard to do is that technology and the internet evolve at such a fast rate that programs which are made accessible are simultaneously made obsolete by new programs which may not be accessible. This is also a very hard problem to tackle because some forms of disability may render internet consumption much harder than other forms of disability, which means efforts to be digitally inclusive may at times be outside of the resources of the site. This does not mean it is not important to keep endeavoring for more ways to make more digital spaces inclusive, it just means that the problem becomes increasingly complex the more you analyze it.
October 14, 2019 at 5:28 PM
Post a Comment