Access and the Kaiser Foundation Report

I thought this report was useful, though not surprising. Anyone who works with adolescents and literacy knows that their definition of that word (literacy) extends much further than the definition given by previous generations. Their definition, as the report supports, not only expands the notion of navigating different and emerging types of literacy but also of navigating them simultaneously and continuously. I was also glad to see the report mention the significant access gap that exists between members of low and high SES. I have noticed this in my limited experiences with trying to incorporate media into my lessons. During my middle school practicum, I was given a cart of mac laptops which the students could use to surf the internet and do research on radio programs (which was the topic of the class). Eventually, we were able to create podcasts, which we then compiled into a class "radio show".
During my high-school student teaching, I tried to incorporate an online writing component into my first unit. When I showed this intention to my cooperating teacher, she did not laugh, b she emphatically told me to do my best, but that it would be just about impossible. At a school of 1300 students, there were perhaps 60 usable computers. Further, only 3 students (out of 86) raised their hands when I asked who had access to a computer at home. I tried not to let this lack of computer access mean a total lack of media in my classroom. Predictably, my middle-school practicum was in the suburbs and drew from a higher SES than did the high school I where I student-taught.
I think that all of these issues of access get to the heart of the question of whether or not schools are relevant, and which things they do wrong, which they do wrong. I think that schools are as relevant as they want to be; that is, when schools try to prescribe learning on a population that is resistant, and they don't give that population any incentive to accept the school's prescription, they make their presence irrelevant. However, when schools actively respond to the changing world of their student population, and thus make learning in school more closely resemble learning in life, they will continue to solidify their relevance in our society. This means that administrators and teachers need to be as tech-savvy or more so than their students. We would not allow people who did not know how to read become teachers; not knowing how to use a computer and navigate the internet is like not knowing how to read. Showing students that you know how to use technology and that you are willing to incorporate it into the learning environment not only gains their interest but also their respect. My students have often asked me if I have an ipod or a cell phone (and I hope it's not been because they were thinking about stealing it), and when I respond that I do, they are full of questions about what kind, what version, what sort of music do I listen to, have I heard of this music, or this cell phone program, and do I know how to text, etc. This is their world. I know that schmaltzy policy wonks always say that about children, but in this case I mean that because they are so much more accustomed to our media-driven world, they are more equipped to understand and manipulate it, which means that they can literally control a good deal more of our society than their parents, and sometimes do it without their parents even knowing it's going on. Again, schools (teachers and administrators) are as relevant as they want to be, and in my opinion, it should be clear that irrelevance really isn't an option.
All of this leaves me to wonder what it would take (aside from political will) to increase access not only for students but also for teachers. It seems unfair that the richest students should get the "richest" education, but it seems that old problem remains. Is it simply a question of money? Or is there a "generation gap" or "cultural gap" similar to the divisions that existed at other turbulent times in our history?