The End of Poverty!

"Currently the international-development community is having a love affair with the mobile phone…disseminating technology is easy; nurturing human capacity and human institutions that put it to good use is the crux."
- "Can Technology End Poverty" by Kentaro Toyama, Boston Review November/December 2010

I love the idea that technology can not only produce incredible gains of productivity and prosperity, but that with ubiquitous application it will eradicate extreme poverty and lead to global harmony... I just don't buy it! In Jeffrey Sachs' 2005 book, The End of Poverty, he devotes the first two chapters to painting A Global Family Portrait and The Spread of Economic Prosperity. In graphs and a brief overview he explains how over the past 200 years the world shifted from all regions supporting a relatively equal living standard, to incredible inequities of global winners and losers. The industrial revolution lead to the United States enjoying a twenty-five fold increase in living standards between 1820-1998 (from $1,200 to $30,000), while sub-sahara Africa has increased three fold (from $400 to $1,300). His thesis simplistically stated is,

"I believe the single most important reason why prosperity spread, and why it continues to spread, is the transmission of technologies and the ideas underlying them... The beauty of ideas is that they can be used over and over again, without ever being depleted." (41)

This belief in the benign power of modern technology is fueling a global movement for self-organized learning. The concept children can teach themselves using the web is a powerful idea that is being taken seriously for both the developing world and here in the U.S.

My attention has been peeked recently by University for the People, "the world’s first tuition free online academic institution dedicated to the global advancement and democratization of higher education." A non-profit founded in 2009, they currently have 500 students from over 100 countries. The idea is pretty incredible, to offer people anywhere in the world access to a free education, as long as they have an internet connection, English fluency, and are self-motivated.

Professor Sugata Mitra from Newcastle University, is in the process of developing (SOLE), a Self Organized Learning Environment, based on his research dropping technology off in India, Cambodia and other parts of the developing world. He's the guy who in 1999 put a computer terminal in a Dehli slum and recorded the effect. His belief is that young people can learn to solve problems collaboratively without direct instruction or facilitation from adults. A professor at Newcastle University in England he is sure to grow in popularity as technological autonomy is the zeitgeist.

The democratic possibilities of learning technology is most popularly championed by One Laptop Per Child. Through the development of a cheap, durable portable computer, the XO, it has reached over 1.85 million people around the world. The educational impact and feasibility of programs such as this are attempting to reach the over 1 billion children without access to universal primary education.

You combine these ITC4D, Information and Communications Technology for Development, innovations with the revolution taking place in the education market here in the U.S., and you see just how disruptive the impact of digital learning is on our education system.

The most public example of this movement here in the U.S. is Chancellor Klein's decision to leave the New York City Department of Education to work for Rupert Murdock's new educational technology division. Murdock in one fell swoop bought influence into the nation's largest public school system with 1.1 million students. Klein had mixed success with the Small School movement and increasing efficiency with data driven report cards, but his most lasting legacy may be his investment in the School of One model. Together with the $360 million purchase of 90% of Wireless Generation, the tech platform behind the city's Aris school data port, Murdock is poised to be an immediate player in the personalized online learning revolution.

This rose colored world of autonomous learning is attractive. It promises to close the digital divide and offer learning anytime, anywhere... a transformation of learning through the proliferation of hardware and its ubiquitous application. Kentaro Toyama, from the University of Berkeley's School of Information, critiques this assessment in a forum on Can Technology End Poverty for the Boston Review. I liked it because it questions the frenzy to embrace technological innovations. Here's what I see missing in this debate on the glorification of technology to promote universal education:

The Social Context of Poverty

Kids with schools and access to technology choose not to pursue education! The U.S. has a 70% high school graduation rate and a 30% college graduation rate. For low income communities only 25% of those who start college graduate within six years. Why? It's not lack of access to information, but a lack of understanding of how to navigate the system and support systems to overcome obstacles along the way. Yes, kids love video games, you tube videos and texting their friends, but how many know how to translate their geeking out and entertainment into real value for others. Young people still need adults to role model positive behaviors, to provide a safe haven in an often dangerous indifferent world, and to inspire them to dream a bigger world. Our current factory model of education is broke, but automating the assembly line isn't the solution. Free the workers (ie. teachers) and products (ie. students) from the one size fits all approach, but you need to offer an alternative, more adaptable, and people rich learning environment to take its place.

The reason poor kids struggle with learning is because poverty is stressful and it delays intellectual development. Take a middle class or wealthy child at birth from the global elite and put them in the South Bronx, East Oakland, Southern Sudan, or New Dehli. The struggle to make ends meet, to be emotionally and physically ready to learn, and to understand how to apply knowledge to solving real world problems is not easy. Access to information alone will not solve the resource and experience gap which is at the heart of global inequity.

Content Knowledge & Human Networks

Content knowledge in isolation is not valuable. We learn best in community and for a social purpose. The grammar translation method used in most American high schools to teach foreign language is ineffective, but an immersion experience in a foreign country works. Why? Because relationships with native speakers, the innate desire to communicate, and real world applications of knowledge foster intrinsic motivation and deep learning. The social context of learning counts. Software programs that drill content or skills through games may be engaging, but unless you are connecting with native language speakers from around the world through Skype you are not reaching the potential of the technological tool. Technological tools are only as powerful as the human networks willing to connect with learners on the other side.

Credibility
The value of a college degree is not just a summation of the skills and content knowledge acquired through years of study, but the relationships and credibility a degree confers on the individual. Graduating from an Ivy League school puts you in contact with a certain social class which opens opportunities. Anya Kemenetz, in her book on higher education DIY U (Do It Yourself University) does a fine job describing how a university education became a part of the American dream, and how the proliferation of higher education has not had the intended effect. Private university tuition has skyrocketed, predatory for-profit colleges have loaded the poor with student debt they cannot default on, and public education has buckled under a dwindling tax base. Community college is not a true stepping stone to a B.A. degree and many public state schools like the U.C. system and S.U.N.Y. are raising fees and serving a more priviledged student population.

In order for virtual learning communities to be valuable and allow their graduates to find work and access in the real world these learning communities need to be validated. Our current higher education system uses high costs and selectivity to develop brand scarsity. In a world where a college degree is free and open to everyone, how are employers going to evaluate new hires. What is the value of a college degree when everyone has one? How can virtual learners translate their learning communities into strong social networks that translate into social capital and mobility? In a world where college grads are already driving taxis and waiting tables, what will we do with millions more?

Conclusion:
I know that we are looking at a watershed moment in education, where the rules of the game are about to change. Today we are told that teacher quality is the most important factor in student achievement and at the same time that the internet will do the teaching for us. It cannot be both. We are building the technological platforms, but are we building the human capital to make them work?