The Digital Divide in Brooklyn's Public High Schools
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Digital Divide in Brooklyn’s Public High Schools Scott Dexter Jack Shuler Associate Professor of Computer and Project Director, Brooklyn College Information Science Community Partnership for Research Brooklyn College of CUNY and Learning [email protected] [email protected] Is there a way to harness the power of computer technology to serve my students’ search for meaning in their learning and in their lives? Lowell Monke Breaking Down the Digital Walls One of the many issues debated in the World Summit preparatory discussions was whether or not a concept of "communication rights" should be endorsed by the Summit. This issue arises, of course, from the question of how Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be interpreted. The Article itself states that, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." When we put this Article into the framework of the digital divide discussion, it is clear that we must view these freedoms as positive ones; as the UK-based organization Article 19 notes, “the right to freedom of expression is recognized to include a positive element, placing an obligation on States to take positive measures …” (Article 19 2). The Summit’s Draft Declaration of Principles elaborates on the ways in which the rights identified in this Article must be supported: We recognize that young people are the future workforce and leading creators and earliest adopters of Information and Communication Technologies. They must therefore be empowered as learners, developers, contributors, entrepreneurs and decision-makers. We must focus especially on young people who have not yet been able to benefit fully from the opportunities provided by ICTs. (WSIS paragraph 9) That is, in order for the freedom of expression to be truly realized, we must ensure that all citizens have the dual capabilities to formulate and apprehend ideas and to use appropriate means of communication to access and disseminate ideas. Or, as Bolt and Crawford say in their book on the digital divide, “This is not a question of newer school texts or better school uniforms, it is literally a social fulcrum point that we… have come to which will determine the face of our society well into the next century.” (Digital Divide 32) In the United States the broad statistics used to measure the digital divide indicate that the problem is all but solved. According to one government report, in 1994, 35 percent of public schools had access to the Internet while in the fall of 2002, 99 percent 1 had access. Further, “In 2002 the ratio of students to instructional computers with Internet access in public schools was 4.8 to 1, an improvement from the 12 to 1 ratio in 1998 when it was first measured” (Internet Access…). But numbers don’t and can’t measure the kind of impact that the increasing presence of computer technologies in the schools has actually had. New York City’s public school system provides a microcosm of the global digital divide. Despite the City’s rhetorical commitment to embracing technology within the curriculum, few schools have managed to meet this commitment successfully. While even the weakest schools have been “wired,” and many teachers are interested in integrating computing into their teaching, a number of infrastructural hurdles remain. These hurdles range from inadequate staffing and maintenance of teaching facilities to inappropriate use of security and “filtering” technology. We suggest that the simple goal of “wiring” schools, that is, providing necessary hardware, often only further entrenches the digital divide. It allows policymakers to offer evidence of cutting-edge technology at the same time they cripple schools’ ability to maintain these resources. In this talk we will begin a discussion about the digital divide as it is manifested in two Brooklyn high schools. We will share stories about the state of affairs in the schools, discuss a survey of the technological fluency of students in these high schools, and engage in the larger debate regarding the pros and cons of computer technology in schools. In order to begin an investigation into the existence of a digital divide in New York City’s high schools, we conducted a survey in two “zoned” high schools in the borough of Brooklyn. Students living in the vicinity of these schools attend them when they have not chosen to attend another school. New York City allows students some degree of choice in which high schools they attend, but exercising this choice is often contingent upon good grades and behavior. Thus, many students simply “end up” in zoned schools, even if they would rather attend a more prestigious school. Zoned schools have an unfair reputation as “dumping grounds” for under-performing students. This is not always the case, but it is true that most of the lowest performing schools are in fact zoned community schools. New Utrecht High School, a zoned community school, is one of the most diverse in New York City. Nearly 1 in 6 of its students are recent immigrants, many from China, Pakistan, and Russia. Significant numbers of students are bi-lingual in English and Cantonese, Mandarin, Russian, Urdu, Bangledeshi, Spanish, Italian, and Arabic. New Utrecht’s diverse student population, however, suffers a significant lack of funds and resources. The second school surveyed was Bushwick High School. In the fall of 2003, administrators initiated a process of breaking the high school into three smaller schools complete with new bureaucracies. Thus, Bushwick did not admit a 9th grade class this fall as the three new schools filled that void. This restructuring is due to the fact that the school has some of the lowest scores of all New York City high schools on standardized tests. These low scores can be linked to numerous educational impediments including an unstable teaching staff that lacks adequate training and the poverty of the surrounding community. Table 1 provides some basic demographic about the two schools and their respective neighborhoods. 2 New Utrecht HS Bushwick HS Hispanic (59%) and Black Officially white; many (27%); many undocumented undocumented Asian Latino immigrants immigrants Neighborhood 40% below poverty level Median household income 76% children born into $50K poverty English Language Learners 23.4% 29.4% (14% average in NYC) Eligible for free lunch (poor) 24% 77.1% (51.8% average in NYC) Capacity Utilization 139% 99% (107% average in NYC) % Passing English/Math 62 / 48 23 / 21 Graduation Assessment Dropout Rate 13% 36% (20% average in NYC) Spending per Student 7620 9567 ($9348 average in NYC) Table 1. Demographics New Utrecht and Bushwick High School, with all their difficulties, will form the bedrock for our investigations. They are not shining-lights in the United States public education system, and are often viewed as “problems” for elected officials to deal with. The reality is that these are stereotypical urban high schools in the United States and are responsible for engaging and educating almost 4,000 youths with myriad backgrounds and preparations. Simply teaching these students the traditional “reading, writing, and ‘rithmatic” is an immense task. Thus, the prospect of incorporating meaningful education about computers and related technologies is daunting at best. The surveys we created to begin our investigation into the issue of the digital divide at Bushwick and New Utrecht were administered by four Brooklyn College students from my inter-disciplinary class, “Service Learning for Youth Workers.” These 3 students work with high school students participating in after-school programs run by the Brooklyn College Community Partnership for Research and Learning. Table 2 summarizes our survey results. One of the most salient points gathered from this survey is the fact that so many of these students note that Internet filters hinder their research. Of course, the use of filters in public schools is not at all uncommon. According to a recent report from the National Center for Education Statistics, New Utrecht Bushwick Students Surveyed 31 36 Have Computer in Home 30 26 Use Email 25 26 Have Computer in Classrooms 14 15 0-5 hrs 15 25 Weekly Usage 6-10 hrs 8 8 10+ hrs 5 3 Filters 17 20 Not enough 9 13 Limits time Don’t know 0 4 how Table 2. Survey Results. Schools use various means to control student access to inappropriate material on the Internet. Ninety-six percent use blocking software, 91 percent report that teachers monitor students’ access, 82 percent have a written agreement that parents have to sign, 77 percent use contracts that the students had to sign, 41 percent have honor codes, and 32 percent allow access only to an intranet (Internet Access…) One of the authors (Dexter) spent a semester working in an after-school program at Bushwick, and, like students there, found the filters to be a significant impediment to meaningful teaching and learning. It’s important to note that although schools must install filters in order to receive federal subsidies for computer equipment, there are very 4 few guidelines for what these filters should or should not block.1 In the case of Bushwick, where one staff person is responsible for the entire school’s computing infrastructure, filters – and computer security in general – are configured to minimize the amount of maintenance required. Thus, students may save nothing on these computers, no software may be installed – including browser plug-ins that might be needed to use some interactive educational website, and a bizarrely broad range of websites are blocked. These blocked sites are not just those that may contain controversial material.