The Winners are The Wealthy


In Technopoly, Postman (1992) urged his readers to think about both the benefits and detriments of technology. However, he also admitted that the mysterious nature of technology once released into society makes the benefits and detriments difficult to predict. Nonetheless, Postman told his readers that all technology creates winners and losers.

While I do not think it is possible to determine who the individual winners are, I think it is possible to figure out a general characteristic of the winners. By looking at the digital divide, the environmental impact of technology, and corporation-owned educational technology, I will argue that the winners are often the wealthy.

Digital Divide

Despite Postman’s assertion that teaching students how to use computers is not a valuable use of their time (1992), computer technology, when used for pedagogically sound purposes, can be used to enhance learning. For instance, asynchronous communication software encourages higher quality participation from a larger amount of students than in a face-to-face setting (English, 2007; McLoughlin & Mynard, 2009). As well, Wikis facilitate knowledge-building and collaboration (Beasley-Murray, 2008; Bruns & Humphreys, 2005; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). Additionally, using concept map software is much easier than drawing concept maps by hand, and it aids students’ metacognition of their learning (Novak, 1998).

Unfortunately, the students are not benefiting equally. In what has been called the “digital divide”, the students from wealthier schools and school districts are benefiting more than those from poorer districts (Mccollum, 2011; Morriss, 2011). Even when schools from poorer districts have access to technology, many of the students don’t have access to, and thus cannot benefit from, computers at home (Mccollum).  Wealthier schools can afford more computers and software, and better professional development for teachers to use those computers (Mccollum). Also, Reinhart, Thomas, and Toriskie (2011) found that students from wealthier social economic areas tend to use internet communication technology to support higher-order thinking and to produce information, whereas students from poorer areas tend to use the technology for basic, remedial thinking and to consume information. Reinhart, et al. attributed this to the wealthier districts’ and schools’ ability to hire technology facilitators to train teachers to use technology to enhance teaching and learning.

Environmental Impact

The poor are not losing out only in our own countries, but in other countries as well. Electronic waste (e-waste) from educational technology is often shipped to developing Asian and African countries where the environmental laws are less strict and the workers are cheaper to pay (Terada, 2012). In fact, in the Western United States, anywhere from 50% to 80% of e-waste is exported (Terada). This e-waste, whether put in a landfill or disguised as being recycled, creates a pileup of materials, such as mercury and lead, in the developing countries that accept the waste (Terada). The result is a toxic environment that is dangerous to the workers who take apart the waste, to the people living in the surrounding area, and to the environment as a whole (Terada).

For now the winners are the affluent countries that purchase the electronics and benefit from their educational use. However, with the downsides mentioned above, it is hard to say that the affluent countries will remain winners forever. Damage to the environment and mistreatment of people has a way of affecting all of us eventually.

Corporation-Owned Educational Technology

Corporations that supply educational technology are also emerging as winners. Both Google and Microsoft offer a suite of educational apps that are free for K-12 schools (Dessoff, 2010). Among other things, they offer e-mail clients, calendars, and synchronous and asynchronous communication and writing software. Blackboard is another big name in educational technology. Blackboard offers course management systems (CMS) that are especially useful for distance education courses (Caplow, 2006). Blackboard’s CMSs offer everything that Google and Microsoft offer as well as a wide range of additional features used for such things as grading, assignment submission, and administration of courses. Of course there are many other businesses invested in educational technology as well.

However, often these businesses are not invested solely for the good of education. Blackboard charges for the use of its CMS, and, thus, profits whenever schools purchase it. As well, Google Apps’ education manager makes it quite clear that Google is providing its free services to K-12 schools because it wants the students be become used to Google and turn into lifelong Google users (Dessoff, 2010).

The appropriateness of corporate involvement in schools is an ethical debate that has extended for almost 100 years (Johnson, 2010), so the debate about whether schools and students are winners or losers is best left for another essay. Nonetheless, businesses and corporations are benefiting from educational technology and, therefore, are winners.


Postman (1992) said that technology’s winners and losers cannot be predicted. To a degree, he is right. It would be difficult to predict exactly which business or individual would benefit the most. Yet, on a more general level, as a look into the digital divide, environmental impacts, and corporation-owned educational technology shows, the winners tend to be those who are wealthier.


Beasley-Murray, J. (2008). Was introducing Wikipedia to the classroom an act of madness leading only to mayhem if not murder? Retrieved:

Bruns, A. and Humphreys, S. (2005). Wikis in teaching and assessment -The M/Cyclopedia project. Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on Wikis.

Caplow, J. (2006). Where do I put my course materials?. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(2), 165-173.

Dessoff, A. (2010). Google and Microsoft Go to School. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed For Quick Review, 76(4), 4-7.

English, C. (2007). Finding a voice in a threaded discussion group: Talking about literature online. National Council of Teachers of English, (97)1, 56-61. Retrieved from

Johnson, B. (2010). The Ethics of Corporatization: Competing Visions for University Leadership. Philosophical Studies In Education, 4195-105.

McCollum, S. (2011). Getting Past the “Digital Divide”. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(2), 52-55.

McLoughlin, D., & Mynard, J. (2009). An analysis of higher order thinking in online discussions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, (46)2, 147-60. doi: 10.1080/14703290902843778

Morris, J. (2011). Digital Bridge or Digital Divide? A Case Study Review of the Implementation of the “Computers for Pupils Programme” in a Birmingham Secondary School. Journal Of Information Technology Education, 10IIP.

Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations (pp. 49-78; ch 5 – Ausubel’s Assimilation Learning Theory). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books.Reinhart, J. M., Thomas, E., & Toriskie, J. M. (2011). K-12 Teachers: Technology Use and the Second Level Digital Divide. Journal Of Instructional Psychology, 38(3), 181-193.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.

Terada, C. (2012). Recycling Electronic Wastes in Nigeria: Putting Environmental and Human Rights at Risk. Journal Of International Human Rights, 10(3), 154-172.


This entry was posted in Commentary 1 and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply