Tara Conley 11/18/10 Tara Conley 11/18/10

Social Implications of Technology in Education

Despite being a bit outdated, I found Castells' article The social implications of Information and Communication Technologies relevant to what's currently happening with technology and education. Castells breaks down the implications of information and communication technology on society based on several categories:

Education
Economy
Society (inequalities)
Space/Time (history and urbanization)

I'll limit my discussion to Castells points on education since it's necessary to think about technology in terms of how it impacts current trends in education, particularly urban education. Castells point of view is that ICT tools should be knowledge production tools that supplement, not necessarily replace, other learning tools in education. I appreciate Castells consistent points about generating relevant knowledge through ICT tools. Castells writes,

Our economy is informational because the capacity to generate relevant knowledge, and process information efficiently, is the main source of productivity and competitiveness for firms, regions and countries (237).

Interestingly enough, Castells' point about a productive economy reminds me of Mayor Bloomberg's recent comments about his choice for Chancellor of NYC public schools, Cathie Black. He says of Black,

"There is no one who knows more about the skills our children will need to succeed in the 21st century economy,"

On one hand, I can understand why it's necessary to consider how technology, for instance, can prepare learners for a productive and competitive economy, even if it does come across as Orwellian. Though I wonder what a complete focus on technology's role within education as tool to increase productively and competitiveness in our economy, says about our view of technology and education in general. I come back to Castells main point that technology should be seen as a supplementary tool in schools, and that "increasing computer equipment is not the answer" (236). Technological determinism aside, I think the quantity argument is an important point for us to consider because it speaks to how we use ICT tools as opposed to how many or what type of "latest" tech tools we use.

On another note, I wonder if Black, being a former high profile publishing executive, has any plans for implementing more technology into public schools seeing as how she and Bloomberg seemingly want to prepare our children for a competitive economy - like the little worker bees.

*cough cough*

Tara Conley 9/13/10 Tara Conley 9/13/10

Who Owns Cyberspace? (MSTU 4020; Week 3)

Source

This week's reading discussed the implications of cyberspace on (and as) society and economy. I was particularly drawn to Dyson's et al. piece "Cyberspace and the American Dream: A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age" and Webster's "The Information Society Revisited." Admittedly, I found myself distracted by the date on which these pieces were published, especially the Magna Carta piece (1994). How might these articles best relate to technological advances since 2009? We've discussed before the rapid changes in technology and how these changes almost certainly influence our social, cultural, economic, and political lives.

For the most part, the Magna Carta article came across as a melodramatic argument for technological determinism of cyberspace. Released in 1994, this "living document" constitutes a guide, (akin to The Constitution perhaps?), which encourages future readers to learn from and add to ideas about the impact of cyberspace on society. I'm not sure if or when this document was last updated, although I hope, for the sake of its purpose, that this document is still a work in progress.

However, one of the most notable quotes from the Magna Carta article came from a 1964 quote by libertarian Ayn Rand. It reads:

Government does not own cyberspace, the people do.

This quote immediately made me think about net neutrality. Sure, the government does not own cyberspace, but neither does, or should, corporations like Google and Verizon.

Net Neutrality Explained

It's interesting that Dyson's et al. piece talked about the idea of property rights in cyberspace since it appears like the founding mothers/fathers of this document didn't account for The Great Recession of 2010. Neither, perhaps, did they consider that the election of the first African-American president of the United States would ignite a fire storm within U.S. politics. Could they have ever imagined that conservative and libertarian media personalities like Glenn Beck would publicly condemn the president and his Administration as socialist for expanding broadband Internet access to poor and rural communities? Did the authors of this piece ever wonder about how the progressive left and far right would fight to the death about government regulation of the Internet? From a 1994 perspective, I can only imagine how easily it was to romanticize an open, neatly regulated, and "demassifyied" virtual landscape. Though in present-day reality, it seems as though cyberspace has turned into an even more contentious landscape.

The Young Turks Vs. Glenn Beck on Net Neutrality

If anything, the views expressed in the Magna Carta article could be best categorized as technological determinism. Tech advancements of cyberspace as a determining factor to the progress of our society as a whole does not necessarily signify a happy ending of a utopic society, but perhaps best functions as a starting point to a very long, exhausting, and controversial debate.

Tara Conley 3/2/10 Tara Conley 3/2/10

A 2.0 Modest Proposal for U.S. Urban Cities

Over the past few months I've been perusing Craigslist for real estate properties in NYC and New Jersey partly because I like to window shop in virtual space, and partly because I'm nearing that stage in my life of wanting to own a piece of the American pie. While scanning the classifieds I came across tons of new housing development projects in areas like Newark, New Jersey, for instance. Home developers are offering to pay closing cost with $8,000 tax incentives, 10-year warranties, 5-year tax abatement, and even 42" big screen TVs to lure new buyers. I couldn't help but think, "hell, I need to get in where I fit in!" Though, the techy-nerdy-community-activist in me wondered why these same housing developers weren't offering computers or laptops along with Energy Star appliances or, in the very least, include 1-year's worth of free broadband Internet connection service as part of an incentives package.

Surely, families in urban areas would benefit more from having a new computer and high-speed Internet access (with quality bandwidth space) in their homes than from having a 42" big screen TV mounted on the wall.

But apparently, it's not that simple.

While the federal government has set aside funds to support broadband infrastructure projects in rural areas, there are no mandates ordering that these funds be specifically allocated to lower income communities through urban renewal projects or by way of public housing initiatives. So as long as the federal government doesn't mandate or provide subsidies for broadband Internet, then chances are local urban governments won't set aside extra funds for these initiatives in their annual budgets.

New research from The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies indicates that broadband use is highest among those with greater levels of income or education. Yet, despite this, and older studies, federal and local governments appear apathetic toward ensuring that across-the-board broadband Internet access is provided within lower income residential communities.

Granted, issues concerning how local governments and business provide services to communities, through either ISP (Internet Service Provider) or subscriber, indeed matter. Who will fit the bill if our federal government won't mandate or subsidize city governments and private companies to offer these services and infrastructure?

If what is currently taking place in the UK with the Digital Economy Bill is any indication of what might happen in the US, that is, governments not exempting universities, libraries, and small businesses to provide open Wi-Fi services (h/t @blogdiva)--then yeah, we're screwed.

Or maybe not.

As the Founder and President of Media Make Change, it is my responsibility to incite discussion and offer ideas that address the disproportionate relationship between marginalized communities and broadband Internet access, including digital literacy--while, at the same time, agitate community leaders and politicians to act in the very best interest of these communities.

So with that, I offer the following 2.0 Modest Proposal, with the promise that infants won't be offered up as food.

Since "age, family income, and educational attainment are three major barriers that critically stifle minority Internet use and home broadband adoption," I propose that urban city governments and housing developers include at least one computer or laptop per household with at least 1-year free broadband service as part of their incentive packages to attract new, young, and lower-income (including fixed-income) home owners.
If condo developers in Los Angeles can provide free Wi-Fi access to its buyers, then so can developers (with large amounts of money, supplies, and credit set aside for each project) in urban neighborhoods like Cleveland, Detroit, D.C., and Newark. (H/T @sjean70).
With Teachers Villages springing up in cities like Newark, NJ, why not build "Internet Villages" made up of small Internet Cafes and Learning Centers that directly provide residents with Internet services right in their very own backwards? Organizations like Media Make Change can work with local governments and housing developers to host free digital media and web training workshops that encourage using technology as means for civic engagement and social entrepreneurship.
Since Google plans "to build and test ultra high-speed broadband networks in a small number of trial locations across the United States . . . [and] offer service at a competitive price to at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people," then I propose that these same urban city governments and housing developers take Google up on its offer and build Internet Cafes within a one-mile radius of these residential areas. So the question of who will fit the bill if our federal government won't mandate or subsidize public and private companies to offer these services? is answered. In fact, Google can, if you let 'em. (H/T @AUFBRAND).

Seems easy enough. However, the reality is if we had the full support of the federal government to encourage mandate implement these initiatives, life would be a helluva lot easier for advocates, businesses, and community members alike.

So for now, I suggest contacting the following government officials and urge them to consider a 2.0 Modest Proposal, which encourages implementing projects that address broadband Internet access and digital literacy disparities within low-income communities, communities of color, communities with dis/abilities, and senior communities.

Feel free to tell them that I sent you.

The Feds:

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

House Committee on Science and Technology

The Congressional Black Caucus

Mayor Offices in Urban Cities: