Once upon a time, “the digital divide” was thought of as the number of poor children who did not have access to computers and the internet. And though there are still very poor families without this access, basic computing power and internet connectivity are cheaper and more available. As seen over the past year, it has become much easier to substitute screen time for in-person learning.  The day is coming when wealthy families will receive live instruction while middle and lower class families are told that screen-learning are adequate. In fact, many school systems are arguing that online learning this year “was just fine.” The Digital Divide 2.0 has already begun.

But it did not begin with COVID. In 2016, The New York Times wrote about kids with no internet access pulling up outside of their schools to do homework, a time when two-thirds of people in the US already had broadband internet service. But two years later, the reporting concerns were very different. In 2018, the story was about children who were being babysat by screens, 

But now, as Silicon Valley’s parents increasingly panic over the impact screens have on their children and move toward screen-free lifestyles, worries over a new digital divide are rising. It could happen that the children of poorer and middle-class parents will be raised by screens, while the children of Silicon Valley’s elite will be going back to wooden toys and the luxury of human interaction.

“The luxury of human interaction” - Doesn’t that sound like what families with access to higher-end schools experienced this past year? Those with resources and space did everything they could to get back to in-person schooling and to be face-to-face with teachers. But even before then, Silicon Valley parents preferred the high-end Waldorf school advertising no screens while the nearby public school, Hillview Middle School, advertised their 1:1 iPad to kid program.

In fact, in a heading describing the differences, The NYT used the words “the privilege of choices.” It referred to families who could have the privilege of quality in-person learning vs. those in public schools who were more likely to be learning on a screen. Isn’t it hard to believe that this is pre-pandemic language? All this reporting in 2018 focused on the parents of those working in the tech industries and their concerns with screens as people who interact with them constantly. And what does research say about screen time and learning?

According to findings from 58 research studies in 2019, their concerns are valid. The key finding summarized from all this research was as screen time went up, academic performance went down. The studies included 480,479 participants ranging from four to 18 years of age from around the world. They also included research on all types of screens - computers, mobile phone, television and video game use individually, as well as overall screen time. Much of this was recreational screen time, but it still begs the question about virtual school and screen-focused learning.

Families should be able to find clear facts about how screens affect their children, and then have the opportunity to decide whether screen-heavy education is what they want for their children. The opportunity for in-person learning should be an option for everyone.