The problem is that computers in the home may not change outcomes for low income students. In fact, some studies have shown that giving poor kids computers actually makes things worse [1]. I certainly don't think that we should keep computers away from poor kids, but we need to think carefully about how to maximize the social value of the money spent on these programs.
As an example, I have lived with at least one computer my entire life (that I can remember), starting with a Commodore 64. My parents encouraged me to explore, and my dad helped me learn BASIC when I was 9 or 10 (I may have given up without his assistance). The computer was important, but so were my parents. One without the other would have created a very different outcome for me.
Parents of disadvantaged children are less likely to have the time, knowledge, or energy to provide the motivation and assistance to help their children benefit from having a computer. So then, how much social value are we getting when we drop $500 or $1,000 (or more, with support costs) and hand a disadvantaged kid an iPad or a laptop?
In my view, having worked in academic technology, albeit at the college level, we would get better results by providing an excellent technology curriculum, taught by competent teachers, with a low-pressure, low-risk environment (AP Computer Science doesn't work here because disadvantaged kids don't take AP classes). The cost would be about the same, or even less, but in exchange for the money we could get both pieces of the puzzle, hardware (computer labs, imagine in-school hacker spaces), and the knowledge and direction to actually make something of it.
[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w16078