Derailing
the Digital Divide
A U.S. Department of Commerce report,
Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide (1998), illustrates
that even though a higher percentage of Americans currently own computers,
certain groups are still considerably less likely to have computers or online
access. Lack of such access affects the ability of students to improve their
learning with educational software and learn valuable technological skills. In
addition, families cannot benefit from online connections to important health
and civic information. A follow-up study released by President Clinton in July
1999, documents that the "digital divide" continues to grow.
Similar data gathered by the U.S.
Department of Education highlights a "digital divide" in our nation's
schools and the children attending high poverty schools are less likely to have
access to computers, the Internet, or high quality technology programs.
"U.S. Department of Education programs provide substantial funding to help
American schools and communities bridge the "digital divide,"
reducing inequities in access to information technology and the Internet"
(Education Programs that Help Bridge the Digital Divide, 1). But will this be
enough?
History has witnessed a number of
inventions, which have revolutionized the ways people communicate. From the automobile, to the telephone, to the
television, these products have allowed people to drive and meet with others
miles away, call and converse across oceans, and broadcast motion pictures
nationwide, respectively. We are in the midst of another
There is a correlation between high
population levels and greater degrees of political power. Majorities determine voting outcomes, which
in turn decides plans and funding. The gap between racial majorities and
minorities is shrinking at an unprecedented rate. "By mid-century, no
single racial or ethnic group will be a significant majority of the U.S.
population. By 2050, the longstanding non-Hispanic white majority will be 53%
of the population, down from 71% in 2000.
Shortly after 2050, the U.S. will become a nation of minorities"
(Marx, 1991, p. 5). Subsequently,
greater is the likelihood of political and social opportunities.
The unequal accessibility of
technology and our steady reliance upon it, however, may be a people's demise. "As for the instructional use of
computers in K-12, broad statistical research consistently disclosed systematic
inequities throughout the 1980s and early 90s" (Sutton, 1991, pp 1-9).
This research also documented computer use both in and out of school, at all
ages, and in several countries. The
results concluded that there was less access for girls, students of color,
children from low-income families, and students labeled "low-ability.” In addition to the mere access to computers,
it is essential that they be used in a meaningful way.
The type of use in this study varied
along similar paths: even when students from these groups were provided access
to computers, they were disproportionately engaged with drill-and-practice
software, "mastery" learning of decontextualized basic skills, and
vocational training in the use of specific software. In contrast, boys, white
students, middle-class children, and students labeled "high-ability"
were disproportionately involved with open-ended simulations, integrated applications,
and programming. "(For a current point of comparison, see Gartner 1998,
reporting that 'Internet access initiatives...may actually increase the gulf
between high- and low-achieving
In politics, commerce, and education
the web is leaving minorities behind. Government officials are using the Web
more often to disseminate information; political parties are holding major
on-line events; companies are using the Web for making job announcements and
collecting resumes; distance education
via the Web is being offered more and more. The equitable distribution, use,
and training of students in technology is the major moral issue about
computers. "The poor cannot afford them. Thus, they will be shut of the
booming hi-tech job market and forced to do the culture's menial jobs"
(Sutton, 1991, p. 1).
The problem in education, which most
affects the Digital Divide, is the inadequate funding of impoverished
communities. Nearly half the funding for public schools in the United States is
provided through local taxes, generating large differences in funding between
wealthy and impoverished communities
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2000a). This issue needs to be
addressed not only because it is central to meritocracy, but also because the
United States will prosper when it provides a good education to all; there will
be more qualified applicants from which employers can choose. If the goal is to
have an equal opportunity for everyone, it must be determined how best to make
this a reality.
Better-funded schools generate higher
levels of achievement, and various studies have begun to explore this question,
with interesting findings. So far, the main factor is associated with teacher
qualifications. "Better-funded school districts can attract teachers with
higher levels of education, more experience, and higher scores on competency
tests; these teachers, in turn, seem to generate better achievement scores
among students" (Darling-Hammond & Post, 2000; Elliott, 1998;
Ferguson, 1991; Ferguson & Ladd, 1996). In addition, better-funded schools
are usually able to reduce class sizes, and smaller classes equates to the need
for fewer resources.
The effects reported thus far
regarding class size appear to be weaker than those for teacher qualifications;
however, this conclusion may not be valid. For instance, some studies of the
problem have not examined class size directly but rather the effects of a
student-teacher ratio that is wrongly
assumed to represent class. Student-teacher ratio is usually measured at the
school or district level and often includes the school's coaches, nurses,
social workers, and other faculty who do not teach. Evidence indicates that
class size reduction raises achievement when applied in the early grades, but
evidence has not yet appeared indicating that class size has much effect in the
middle school or high school years. Thus, to study the effects of
funding-associated differences in class size on achievement properly, one
should focus efforts on class size in the early grades.
One study has already done this
(Ferguson & Ladd, 1996), and that study reported strong effects for class
size. In addition, strong field experiments and trial programs have confirmed
that smaller class sizes in the early grades generate both immediate and
long-term advantages in student outcomes and that these effects are
greater for minority or impoverished
students (Biddle & Berliner, 2002a, 2002b). Given the evidence reviewed
above, it is probable that
students from disadvantaged families
will suffer the most from the U.S. system of unequal school funding; students
who are disadvantaged are more likely to attend poorly funded public schools. A
plethora of research is beginning to
support this notion. In a recent study, Harold Wenglinsky (1998) found that
gaps in achievement between students from high and low socioeconomic-status
homes are greater in poorly funded schools than in well-funded schools.
Elizabeth Harter (1999) reported that the achievement effects of funding levels
associated with school upkeep are greater in schools serving impoverished
students. The funding of public schools through local property taxes goes back
several generations in our country, and suburban tension to plans for greater
equity in public school funding has been powerful.
Given such facts, what is the best
plan of action? Because there are
funding inequities both within and between states, one of the most effective
ways to address these issues is through changes in federal policies; however,
interest in school-funding issues has not yet seen much publicity among the national media. It is
necessary to set forth a concentrated effort to change this situation. By
addressing this issue through the local media, a national debate may follow,
making the public aware of the inequities that currently exist. Subsequently, school funding and technology
in particular would become a key issue for politicians.
Ironically, the inadequately funded
districts, which have the most to gain, would be less able to vote. Their
districts are poor and they are poor. By
extension, many in their community may not have transportation to vote for the
candidates who promise to focus on this issue. To combat this effect, activists
could solicit private bus companies who may share these concerns. If they too
are concerned that funding be equally distributed, the businesses may provide
free
advertisement via the news.
Such an approach would be more
effective than pleading a case to the federal courts, despite contentions that
inequitable school funding creates conditions which violate U.S. citizens'
claims for equal opportunities. In a landmark ruling on San Antonio Independent
School District v. Rodriguez, issued in
1973, the U.S. Supreme Court denied that it violated the constitutional right
of equal opportunity. By a 5-4 vote, the
court ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not require equal funding among
school districts. This decision halted federal court action to rectify
inequities in school funding. "This does not mean the funding equity issue
has been silent in state courts.
Rather, many state constitutions
mandate equal opportunities in education. As a result, lawsuits challenging the
legality of unequal funding based on district property taxes have been filed in
more than three-fourths of the states, and these lawsuits have been upheld or
are still pending in at least 31
states" (Morales, 1997; Murray, Evans,& Schwab, 1998; Rothstein,
2000). Details of these efforts have varied dramatically from state to state,
but the following four statements summarize the results:
·
When
successful, the suits have stimulated both public interest and follow-up
actions by state Legislatures designed to provide greater funding equity.
In
many cases, the actions have provided additional money from state taxes for
impoverished school districts while leaving levels of funding for affluent
school districts in place.
·
The
reforms tend to reduce but not eliminate the within-state inequities that they
were designed to address. The actions have not addressed inequities in school
funding among other states.
One of the immediate and attractive alternatives
for districts with less than adequate budgets is to strike up a deal with a
company called Zap Me. "Zap Me provides computer labs and Internet access
to K12 schools in return for advertising or promotional access to students and
their families. The structure of Zap Me illustrates how marketers can exploit
the current emphasis on electronic technologies to integrate schoolchildren
more fully into America's advertising and marketing system" (Molnar, 2000,
p. 1).
Rick Inatome, president and chief executive
of Zap Me refuted some of the criticisms. "We are dealing with the number
one issue: how to deal with the 'digital divide'" while letting schools
offer safe Internet access, he said in an interview..." (Mendels 2). The
main distinction that ought to be made is the difference between safe and
quality access; students who use these technologies through the Zap Me company
witness hundreds of commercials for candy bars, chewing gum, and soft drinks.
"Where will this end - aside from bad education and bad teeth - unless
what is happening is exposed and vigorously challenged?" (Mendels 4)
Similar to the issue of what students should and should not be exposed to,
censorship and the internet filters are key issues. Unlike the advertisers who
try to sell their product, these advertisers are selling something far more
dangerous and with fewer regulations: flawed
ideology. " [W]ith respect to the Internet, there now is a much
greater need to stress the teaching of skills of discrimination, analysis, and
interpretation. Since getting so-called facts is now easy, the need is to teach
children and young adults how to handle large amounts of information, isolate bad from reliable, and critically
unravel facile connections that now can be made with the push of a button"
(Botstein, 2001, p. 14).
Internet filters are capable of
censoring hate groups, which may intentionally mislead those they wish to
persuade. In contrast, filters have the potential for corruption by making
available harmful ideology while simultaneously repressing movements to
equalize rights. For example, the students of Davenport (Iowa) Community School
District became involved with the situation in 2000 when they discovered the
original filter removed sites like the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People (NAACP) but left Ku Klux Klan (KKK) sites opened (Malcolm,
59). One of the main causes of racist ideology, ignorance caused by ignoring
others ideas, beliefs, and values, can be lessened if not eliminated on the
Internet. In "White Privilege and Male Privilege," Peggy McIntosh
cites a list of observations, which illustrates that Caucasians holds many
privileges, most of which are unknown to the possessor. These privileges
include, but are not limited to, the following: "I can be fairly sure of
having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race; I
can be casual about whether or not to listen to another woman's voice in a
group in which she is the only member of her race; my culture gives me little
fear about ignoring the perspectives and
powers of people of other races" (McIntosh, 1986, p. 4). In this respect,
the entire realm of communication is altered when online.
"As you move around the
Internet, most of the people you encounter cannot easily tell who you are. System operators and some technological
savvy, motivated users may be able to detect your e-mail or Internet address,
but for the most part people only know what you tell them about yourself. If you wish, you can keep your
[ethnic] identity hidden" (The Online Disinhibition Effect, n.d., 2). In
most cases, everyone on the Internet has an equal opportunity to voice him or
herself. Everyone - regardless of status, wealth, race, or gender - begins on a
level
"Technology allows N-Geners
[those belonging to the Net Generation, now aged 3-23] to talk with others
worldwide. Hence, a greater openness and global awareness exists in many in
this group. E-mail and chat rooms let them talk with others without regard to
racial or ethnic stereotypes or geographic boundaries" (Dorman, 2001, p.
31). For teachers to capitalize on the opportunities of the Internet in
equalizing rights, they might begin by improving student's writing and computer
skills. Many minorities as well as majorities are currently excluded from high
paying jobs because they make poor impressions in speech and writing, never
having the opportunity to make known their insight, silenced by the
inaccessibility of quality education and computers.
By utilizing the internet to force
the suspension of ethnic judgment, teachers can begin to break down
stereotypes. That is, by having the students "meet" one another
online prior to meeting face-to-face, the students will judge their classmates
more subjectively. Judgment would first be made on their ability to hold a written
conversation. Later, when the students link these interactions to the actual
students, some of which will be minorities, their stereotypes will be proven
false. Standard English, then, as it is currently defined, becomes of paramount
importance. There is for many teachers, as well as members of the public, the
feeling that Black English Vernacular (BEV) is, "merely a pass-through
language, only to be used to get to Standard English" (Perry, 1997, p. 5).
"To imply to children or adultsthat it doesn't matter how you talk or
write is to ensure their ultimate failure. I prefer to be honest with my
students. Tell them that their language and culture style is unique and
wonderful but that there is a political power game that is also being played, and
if they want to be in on that game there are certain games that they too must
play[S]tudents must be taught the codes needed to participate fully in the
mainstream of American life" (Delpit, 1988. p. 100).
"In introducing new technologies
in the classroom, educational policy-makers, researchers, and school
administrators seem reluctant to systematically consider possible drawbacks of
information technology at the same time they consider the benefits"
(Nelson, 2000, p. 1). It is and will be crucial to analyze not only the
accessibility of this technology, but also the quality of instruction. As our
society becomes more reliant upon technology, those who can readily manipulate
its functions will prosper - economically, politically, and scholastically - while those who are ill
prepared will not. Technology has the equal potential for good and evil. That
is, it can be used to equalize opportunities or it can be used to further the
current inequalities. With this in mind, it will be essential to have a representative
panel of policy makers who will enact legislation for the good of the entire
nation as a whole.
The Basic Psychological Features of Cyberspace. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.rider.edu (2002, October 2). Biddle, B. J., &
Berliner, D. C. (2002a). Small class size and its effects. Educational Leadership, 59(5), 12-23.
Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (2002b). What research
says about small classes and their effects. Rockefeller
reports on poverty and education. Columbia: Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri;
and Phoenix: College of Education.
Botstein, Leon. (May, 2001) High-Tech's "Brave New World
Braggadocio. The Education Digest,
7, pp. 11-15.
Bringsjord, Selmer. (February, 2001). Just Imagine: What
Computers Can't Do. The Education Digest,
4, pp. 31-33.
Bromley, Hank. "What to Ask About Technology."
(November 2-5 1998). Initial Statement for Itforum
Discussion.
Delpit, Lisa. "The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy
in Educating Other People's Children."
Dorman,
Steve M. (April 2001)
Gartner, John (1998). "Net Access May Increase
Inequalities." TechWeb, May 11 (no page numbers)
Harter, E. A. (1999). How educational expenditures relate to
student achievement: Insights from Texas
elementary schools. Journal of Education Finance, 24(3), 281-302.
(April 17, 2000).
Kahn, Robert E. The Role of Government in the Evolution of
the Internet. (n.d.)
(2002, October 4).
Marx, Gary. (2001, May). 10 Trends for Tomorrow's Kids. The
Education Digest, 4, pp. 4-10. Malcolm,
Deb Buttleman. (2000, December). Fighting Internet Filters Unites Students Against Censorship. Education Digest, 6,
pp. 57-63.
McIntosh, Peggy. (1986, April). White Privilege and Male
Privilege. Virginia Women's Studies Association.
Mendels, Pamela. (2000, February 2) Criticism for Company
Offering Free Computers to School. The
New York Times Job Market.
Molnar, Alex. Zap Me! Linking Schoolhouse and Marketplace In
a Seamless Web. Phi Delta Kappan 81
no8 601-3 April 2000.
Morales, J. (1997). The courts and equity: A state-by-state
overview. In S. Karp, R. Lowe, B. Miner,
& B. Peterson (Eds.), Funding for justice: Money, equity, and the future of
public education (pp. 61-67).
Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1998).
Inequalities in public school district revenues. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
U.S. Department of Education.
Nelson, Susan A. (2000, May). Technology in Schools: Whose
Best Interest. The Education Digest,
5, pp. 45-47. The Online Disinhibition Effect. (2002 September 22).
Perry, Theresa. (1997, Fall). I 'on Know Why They Be
Trippin'." The Real Ebonics Debate: Power
Language, and the Education of African American Children Focus Issue. Rethinking Schools 12. pp. 3-5.
Sutton, Rosemary E. (1991, Winter). "Equity and
Computers in the Schools: A Decade of Research."
Review of Educational Research 61:4, pp. 475-503. Unknown author. nextcity.com. 7 January 2006.
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Finance equalization and within-school equity: The relationship between education spending and the social distribution of achievement. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 20(4), 269-283.