A reviewer for an AERA proposal I submitted this past summer, directed me to these schools as a counter argument to the participation culture/gap and digital inequalities issues that I feel rather passionate about.  In our submission, my colleagues and I looked at factors predicting the Web 2.0 status of middle-school aged students.  Like many PEW reports, we found that students own a great number of gadgets.  Students are, at times, frustrated that schools are utilizing technology more for instruction and learning.  We also found that the schools with larger numbers of at-risk students and lower average incomes do less with technology than do others, which is all the more concerning, since these are the very children who likely cannot afford their own.

None of this is particularly surprising, however.

What we were trying to find extended beyond at risk and low socio-economic status.  In fact these factors were not included. Instead, we looked at gender, age, # of technology tools owned, etc.  We wanted to know what made a child a Web 2.0 user when the most enabling/disabling factors were taken out. The submission did highlight the need for educators to evaluate the Web 2.0 status of their own students and to take action accordingly.

The reviewer wanted to point out that not all schools feel that technology use by students was appropriate before high school.
The Waldorf schools are an elite set of private schools which follow the century old curriculum of Rudolf Steiner.  There are approximately 160 schools ranging from nursery through high school.  Tuition costs are: Well, you can imagine.

This last paragraph should immediately give one pause for thought.  The children who go to these schools have advantages most public school children do not have.  If they don’t own a mp3 player, it is because Papa or Mama won’t allow it.  Often Papa or Mama are executives from Google, Microsoft, or Apple.  They feel today’s children are over-exposed and the arguments on technology dependency hit home with them.  But what about the rest of the children?  In particular, what about the children Jenkins is specifically referring to when he discusses the participation gap?  What about the college students who make it to college, but lack technology skills because they had no exposure as children as Harigittai discusses.

The Waldorf children are going to college.  They are excelling in academics.  They aren’t worrying about where tomorrow night’s meal is coming from, or if they are going to get beat up on the way home.  Waldorf parents and the school are trying to instill basic foundational knowledge without the hazy mess of technology.  They’ll get that technology later in high school.  But for children who do not have that advantage, they need to use the technology tools provided by their schools.

My immediate thought when reading this article was, “Here’s another example of digital inequality.”  Not necessarily in the traditional form.  This one is exabberated by the wealth threshold.  Waldorf children will get it eventually, even if for now, they can afford not to.  The socio-economically depressed children from the other side of the tracks, might never be able to afford it. They also can’t afford to not have it.

Many of our public school children can’t wait for minimal exposure in high school. Public schools, particularly the ones serving under-privileged students, only have so much technology to share between students.  They have to start younger, so that these students have amble exposure to technology that even comes close to equaling what these children will ultimately get in high school.  I agree that foundational skills, basic study skills, are very important for children to develop; however, I also believe that children who do not have exposure to technology skill development through their schools until high school, and only minimal exposure thereafter, will be at a HUGE disadvantage when it comes to life beyond high school.  In fact, maybe Waldorf’s decision to eschew technology for their students until high school, will give our other children time to cross that digital inequality bridge.
I still say that school, particular public school,  is where we need to attempt to build that bridge and guide those students across who may find themselves left behind, technologically speaking.