Digital Divide: Technology Access in Schools and Education

Introduction: Technology and the Educational Landscape

Not more than two decades ago, when computer technology was still under development, the inclusion of computer knowledge within school settings was one of the most intriguing and ambitious recommendations made by A Nation at Risk (1983). Even while technological advancements were still being tested, the use of computer technology across various domains of life was yielding more advantages than disadvantages and benefiting the community at large. Educational standards and policies had not yet incorporated technology for academic purposes, but many experts agreed it was only a matter of time before computer knowledge would become not only a popular curriculum subject but also an efficient source of academic service.

Since the recommendations of A Nation at Risk, major reforms and enhancements within the academic structures of U.S. schools and colleges have been traceable. There have been substantial investments from both the private and public sectors to promote the use of technology in schools. Dickard confirmed in a related study that over $40 billion had already been invested over the preceding decade to improve school infrastructure, professional development and training, and the use of technical mechanisms (Dickard, 2003). Many of these investments aimed to improve the overall familiarity with technology for both teachers and students, enhance record-keeping and data management for school administrators, and improve student performance, communication, research ability, and critical thinking skills.

Despite these significant investments, much ground remains to be covered. A pattern of unequal access to technology has emerged in which some schools are highly advanced in their use of technology while others struggle to access it at all, let alone use it appropriately. As noted in a study conducted by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, "To cope with the demands of the 21st century, people need to know more than core subjects. They need to know how to use their knowledge and skills — by thinking critically, applying knowledge to new situations, analyzing information, comprehending new ideas, communicating, collaborating, solving problems, making decisions" (as cited in McDevitt, 2007). By establishing a national standard requiring students and educators to know how to use technology and understand its basic functions, policymakers are indirectly working to ensure techno-literacy across the U.S., regardless of the size of local investment.

Many researchers and academic administrators have been concerned with how to enhance the use of technology while simultaneously minimizing the negative impacts that technology deficiency has on student and teacher performance. Another central concern is maintaining consistency of exposure to technology over the long run. This is one of the primary reasons why researchers and administrators have focused on getting basic policies right, informed by the full range of public and private sector investment patterns and the recommendations of A Nation at Risk.

Impact of the Digital Divide on Students and Teachers

Most knowledge-based economies like the United States, which depend on intellectual capital to maintain their standing in the global market, must ensure their citizens have access to technology in order to sustain a rising level of excellence across all fields. One of the most significant areas of new technology investment in the education sector has been internet access for students. Internet connectivity allows students to pursue their educational endeavors beyond the constraints of time and location, and to access resources that may not be available offline. This is the clear advantage that technology provides when made accessible. By contrast, students and teachers without internet access have a comparatively narrower expanse of knowledge at their disposal.

For teachers specifically, access to technology has a major impact on administrative efficiency. Processes such as admissions — gathering, sorting, and retrieving information — can be completed in far less time with technology than without it. In schools and colleges where technology is unavailable, admissions processes are often time-consuming and require extensive manual work. Furthermore, the absence of technology at an institution effectively excludes teachers from the professional training opportunities that have emerged as a valuable development pathway. This restricts teachers' personal job prospects and limits their ability to function in technology-driven environments. It also prevents the school from improving its overall academic standing.

One of the most pressing concerns to emerge with technological advancement has been its differential impact on minority and underrepresented groups in society. Private and public investors often direct resources toward sectors that promise the greatest financial return, leaving low-income communities, racial minorities, and other marginalized groups with little to no technological investment. This pattern places their schools near the bottom of the resource chain. Students and teachers in these environments rarely experience the positive impacts that technology can have on learning — such as the use of Cooperative Work Groups (CWG) in online environments, access to online courses that complement chosen majors, or the vast digital reference libraries available on virtually any topic. This inequity is perhaps the strongest argument for administrators and investors to come together and discuss how to ensure fair and equitable access to technology across the educational sector.

Problems Schools Face Due to Inconsistent IT Provision

Numerous studies confirm that a school's policy principles are the main determinants of how technological mechanisms can be designed and incorporated into the instructional structure to positively impact teaching techniques, administrative efficiency, and the overall learning environment. One of the primary problems schools must overcome is the presence of policy gaps that hinder the incorporation of technology. McMillan and colleagues (2003) documented many of the most significant educational technology policy milestones in the U.S. from 1983 to 2003, including:

1983 — A Nation at Risk, National Commission on Excellence in Education; 1988 — Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment; 1989 — Linking for Learning: A New Course for Education, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment; 1992 — Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment; 1993 — Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment; 1995 — Connecting K–12 Schools to the Information Superhighway, McKinsey & Co.; Education and Technology: Future Visions and Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection, both from the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment; 1996 — The Learning Connection: Schools in the Information Age, The Benton Foundation; Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century, U.S. Department of Education; Kickstart Initiative, National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIIAC); 1997 — Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools, Educational Testing Service; Overview of Technology and Education Reform and Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K–12 Education, U.S. Department of Education and PCAST; School Technology and Readiness Report: From Pillars to Progress, The CEO Forum; 1999 — School Technology and Readiness Report: Professional Development: A Link to Better Learning, The CEO Forum; 2000 — The National Technology Education Plan, U.S. Department of Education; The Power of the Internet for Learning, Web-based Education Commission; The Power of Digital Learning: Integrating Digital Content, The CEO Forum; 2001 — Any Time, Any Place, Any Path, Any Pace: Taking the Lead on E-Learning Policy, National Association of State Boards of Education; Education Technology Must Be Included in Comprehensive Legislation and Student Achievement in the 21st Century, CEO Forum; Investing in K–12 Technology Equipment, Education Commission of the States; 2002 — Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More About Technology, National Academy of Engineering / National Research Council; Visions 2020, U.S. Department of Commerce; 2003 — Learning for the 21st Century, Partnership for 21st Century Skills; The Sustainability Challenge: Taking EdTech to the Next Level, Benton Foundation / EDC Center for Children & Technology (quoted from McMillan et al., 2003).

One tangible obstacle that most school administrators face is the transportation of technology to distant branches of an institution. Additionally, while technology ultimately brings higher academic standing and long-term returns, initial implementation requires careful planning and investment of both time and money. This includes launching teacher training programs and implementing new pedagogical strategies to ensure that students not only understand technology but are comfortable using it outside of formal academic settings.

Another significant challenge is the conservative institutional culture that many schools have maintained since before the introduction of technology. Implementing technology requires serious alterations to the traditional teaching environment. Teachers and students must adapt to dynamic, complex, and rapidly evolving modes of writing, researching, communicating, and presenting ideas. They must also navigate the vast volume of information that technologies such as the internet make available, and develop the ability to filter and apply only what is most relevant. The overall learning process can feel overwhelming at first, and this is one of the greatest challenges administrators must anticipate and address through effective policy (CEO Forum, 1997, 1999).

According to a study conducted by the OTA, technology and its resources can "extend teaching and learning processes" — but more readily in some spheres than others (OTA, 1988). Technology can facilitate data and fact collection for both students and teachers, allow students to participate in out-of-school projects without leaving campus, and help teachers expand learning experiences in subjects such as art, communication, or mathematics through multimedia tools. However, it is important that before technology is implemented in school programs, administrators and teachers identify and prioritize the areas of education that will benefit most from it.

Research has also focused on how technology can meet teachers' instructional needs, and how the lack of it can restrict their capabilities (NASBE, 2001; OTA, 1995b). Studies highlight that technology enables teachers to use various mechanisms as complementary elements that help achieve academic objectives — such as clarifying complex theories. However, for this to function effectively, schools must develop ethical, professional, and social codes of conduct for technology use. Most schools can manage the ethical and social dimensions, but they often struggle to define what constitutes professionally appropriate use — particularly when administrators themselves are not fully familiar with the technologies being adopted. It is therefore essential that administrators first develop a thorough understanding of the technologies they are considering — both in their literal and transformative applications — before designing policies that define acceptable use. Each school's unique environment means that no two institutions will arrive at identical policies (CEO Forum, 2000; U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002).

Accessibility to technology should not be understood only in physical terms, since financial investment can address physical access over time. Intelligent accessibility also encompasses training, effective use of multimedia tools, filtering relevant information, and deploying technology to support an existing learning environment. All of these dimensions must be addressed by administrators before access can produce genuinely beneficial results.

Perhaps the most formidable challenge facing schools that wish to implement technology is the pace of change that technological adoption demands. When a school decides to introduce technology, it must act intelligently and swiftly. If implementation is too slow, the software and multimedia tools selected may already be outdated by the time they are deployed in practice. Furthermore, schools must recognize that the sustainability of technology requires constant upgrading. Even the most carefully selected tools will need to be updated over time, and all their functions — both literal and complementary — will need to be periodically reassessed as the needs of students and teachers evolve (CEO Forum, 1997, 2000; Conte, 1996; OTA, 1995a; PCAST Panel on Educational Technology, 1997; U.S. Department of Education, 1996, 1997). Selecting appropriate software tools and maintaining a disciplined upgrading strategy are therefore just as important as the initial decision to adopt technology.

Conclusion and Summary of Recommendations

This paper has highlighted how the lack or inequality of technological advancement impacts both the student body and teachers, as well as the problems schools face due to inconsistent provision of IT resources. Key issues identified include the need for cooperation between administrators and investors to reduce unequal investment patterns — particularly in schools serving minority and low-income communities — as well as the importance of long-term planning for technology access and implementation, internal cultural change, adoption of new teaching techniques, teacher training, and thoughtful familiarization of students with technology to avoid overwhelming them.

The second half of the paper examined the efforts and policies that can reduce these negative impacts and help teachers and students improve their academic and teaching results, both in the short and long term. Key recommendations include:

Increased and innovative styles of investment. Restructured management approaches that encourage teacher and student leadership. Promotion of online learning and virtual schooling. Controlled access to online portals and content. Integration of technology and school data structures. Study of successful examples from other school districts. Continuous re-evaluation of institutional policies. Formation of affiliations among schools, businesses, technology providers, investors, and the community. Initiation and continuation of teacher training programs. Ongoing investment in research and development after implementation. Guidance and appropriate incentivization of both public and private sector investors. Enhancement of technology-based activities to keep teachers informed of advancements. Maintenance of educational standards within any adopted e-learning structure.

References

Conte, C. (1996). The learning connection: Schools in the information age. The Benton Foundation, Communications Policy and Practice: Washington, DC.

Dickard, N. (Ed.) (2003). The sustainability challenge: Taking edtech to the next level. Washington, DC: The Benton Foundation Communications Policy Program & EDC Center for Children and Technology.

McDevitt, J. A. (2007). New students, new tools, new possibilities: Creating digital learning environments. Technology & Learning, NewBay Media LLC.

McMillan, K., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2003). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Education Development Center for Children and Technology, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.

National Association of State Boards of Education. (2001). Any time, any place, any path, any pace: Taking the lead on e-learning policy. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Office of Technology Assessment. (1988). Power on! New tools for teaching and learning (OTA-SET-379). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Office of Technology Assessment. (1995a). Education and technology: Future visions (OTA-BP-HER-169). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Office of Technology Assessment. (1995b). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (OTA-HER-616). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Phipps, R. A. (2004). How does technology affect access in postsecondary education? What do we really know? National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, Washington, DC.

President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel on Educational Technology. (1997). Report to the president on the use of technology to strengthen K–12 education in the United States. Washington, DC: Author.

The CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (1997). School technology and readiness report: From pillars to progress. Washington, DC: Author.

The CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (1999). School technology and readiness report: Professional development: A link to better learning. Washington, DC: Author.

The CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (2000). School technology and readiness report: The power of digital learning: Integrating digital content. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration. (2002). Visions 2020: Transforming education and training through advanced technologies. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Getting America's students ready for the 21st century: Meeting the technology literacy challenge. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Overview of technology and education reform. Washington, DC: Author.