Ida Hill, Editor

Digital Divide

The “digital divide” is the term used to refer to the gap between those who can effectively use new information and communication tools, such as the Internet, and those who cannot (Digital Divide Network, 2000). A more restrictive definition of the “digital divide” is a gap between those who have access to computers and the Internet and those who do not have access. Application of the more restrictive digital divide definition to Virginia schools (access to computers and the Internet) reveals a narrower gap than in schools in some other states. Virginia has a favorable statewide student to computer ratio of less than 5 to 1.More favorable, however, is the 8 to 1 Internet-connected student to computer ratio. While this statewide ratio for Internet-connected students to computers is commendable by comparison, the number of Internet-connected computers per student in classrooms (16.67 to 1) indicates that even though impressive progress is being made, the ratio is not at the State’s desired rate.

Additionally, a concern in Virginia is that factors of the digital divide such as teacher training, content-specific applications, access to advanced telecommunications, geographic and income gaps and network technical assistance are being addressed at varying levels and degrees in schools across the Commonwealth. It is in these areas that educators and many citizens cite a need to bridge the gaps. The following digital divide questions are explored in this brief:

• Are there gaps in both student and teacher access to technology?

• Is sufficient support for access and resources being provided to schools at the present time?

• In what ways has Virginia bridged the digital divide?

• How are national digital divide initiatives impacting Virginia’s solutions to the digital divide?

Supporters of aggressive action to close the digital divide believe that a gap in student technology access between the “haves” and “have-nots” does exist in K-12 schools. They purport that defining the digital divide in terms of access to hardware only is limiting. While Virginia has experienced commendable success in the provision of computers and access to the Internet, a digital divide in these and other areas is still present in schools. Supporters also warn that state averages mask differences that exist among school divisions and that a broader identification of digital divide components should include:

1. Advanced telecommunications capability that is high speed, switched and broadband to enable students to originate, produce, and use voice, data, graphics and video.

2. More effective use of existing technology by students and teachers.

3. Training, retraining and reassignment of teachers for more effective use of new technologies.

4. Appropriate online content and applications in support of Virginia’s Standards of Learning for core subjects and instructional technology standards.

5. More partnerships between community organizations, industry and state government.

6. Assessment to identify pockets of “have-nots” within geographic areas, demographic groups and income levels in schools.

7. More funding mechanisms to support the upgrade, replacement, and piloting of new technologies.

8. Digital divide solutions in long range comprehensive technology plans at division and school levels.

This perspective is based upon some of the following:

At the State Level

• The student to computer ratio in Virginia was 8.09 to 1 in 1999. However, the ratio for students to Internet-connected computers in classrooms was 16.67. A review of each region of the state reveals variability across regions of the State. For example, there are 30.78 students to one computer in Region II (Tidewater). In Region VI (near Southwest) the ratio is 14.46 and in Region VII (far Southwest) the ratio is 21.42. Gaps between these students to computer ratios and the 4-5 students to computer ratio recommended by the Advisors on Science and Technology (1997) reveal obvious needs among regions in Virginia.

• Data for Virginia schools such as the 2-3 students to computer ratio reported in previous studies should be re-examined to determine the percentage of Internet-connected computers with advanced telecommunications capability located in classrooms. Use of multiple telecommunications techniques is now required to complete some course requirements.

• Although a 1999 DOE report cites that only 2.73 percent of Virginia schools are not connected to the Internet, the study also reveals that only 58.9 percent of the state’s schools have Internet connection with T1 speed. (T1 speed allows schools to take advantage of the many new bandwidth intensive applications on the Internet.)

• Despite impressive technology appropriations in Virginia for the purchase of computers, printers and web access, existing technology has been impacted by changes in industry standards relating to hardware obsolescence, equipment upgrades, and networking. The Standards of Learning and curricular changes have resulted also in a demand for more advanced telecommunications.

• Gaps in Internet-connected computers have been found between small and large schools and classrooms and in labs and libraries (DOE, 1999).

• Internet-connected computers in schools are not primarily located in classrooms. Thirty-one percent are located in labs and 7-9 percent are located in libraries. While these computers are available for students to use, high demands for use and insufficient numbers of computers restrict access and often present scheduling problems.

• Network development in schools has been primarily a responsibility of localities. State appropriations to local schools have been generally incorporated as a small grant in larger programs. There are funds for infrastructure development, for example, incorporated in the FY2000-2001 Online Testing Initiative.

At the Local Level

• The training and retraining of teachers has been a primary financial responsibility of local schools thereby posing a greater drain on resources in less affluent schools. The requirement for training by the state has been limited to 5 percent of the total state technology grant.

• Subject specific online content for SOL core subjects and other instruction subjects must be purchased with local level. This creates a drain on local resources.

• In 1999, forty-one percent of Virginia schools had less than T1 capability. This means that more than one-half did not have T1 capability.

• The percentages of high schools and schools with large enrollments that have T1 connections are higher than the percentages for other schools.

• Over 91 percent of schools receive Internet service via a school division or local wide area network. An assessment of factors such as capacity, management expertise, and ability to keep pace with new developments in these schools is expected to reveal gaps.

At the National Level

Although national initiatives have been developed to respond to the digital divide in support of state and local efforts; and to provide incentives to mobilize partnerships, the amount of funding is modest given the size of K-12 enrollment nationally. A summary of findings may be stated as follows:

• $50 million for private/public partnerships has been identified to assist low-income students and families with access to computers and the Internet.

• $150 million has been identified to help train all teachers entering the workforce to use technology effectively.

• $100 million has been provided to help create 1,000 Community Technology Centers in low-income urban and rural neighborhoods.

• Virginia expects to receive its share of a $25 million new budget initiative to accelerate deployment of broadband networks in underserved and rural communities.

Supporters of a less aggressive approach assert that the “have-nots” may not exist as a major concern in Virginia’s schools. They state that if there has been an appreciable gap, it has been narrowed by investments in technology across 13 years. They say state, local, and national investments in computers, Internet access, and infrastructure improvements have equipped the state’s schools at a level comparable to or above levels in other states and the nation. A review of these investments has led them to question the need for substantial support and funding for new digital divide initiatives in Virginia at this time.

Supporters of this perspective also point to the progress made to date and to cautions about the appropriate use of technology absent clear findings of its appropriate use and effectiveness in schools. Views are based on some of the following points:

At the State Level

• Distribution of funds to schools has been primarily based upon the composite index of ability to pay; a formula designed to be equitable and inclusive.

• More than $60 million in reimbursements for purchases were distributed to schools for library media center computers, automation and telecommunication links in FY 94-95.

• FY 97 reimbursement grants for technology purchases were $26,300 per school and $53,000 per division central office. In FY98 grants in the amount of $25,000 per school were allocated.

• FY 2000 and 2001 Financial Assistance for Public Education (Standards of Quality) includes an appropriation from the General Fund for over $25 million to provide for implementation and evaluation of comprehensive teacher training programs at the local level in the four content areas of the SOL. According to the language of the document, funding is to be used to “Incorporate technology training with an emphasis on concepts for using technology as an instructional tool to meet technology standards established in the Standards of Learning.”

• A $100+ million initiative for online testing will assist schools with computer and infrastructure purchases.

At the Local Level

• Schools in Virginia had invested approximately $79 million in technology by 1988 VA. Tech and State University, 1988). That investment has increased significantly as the economy has flourished and local schools’ commitment to technology has increased. According to a state report, at least $50 million in local funds have been spent since 1990

• Use of the composite index of ability-to-pay for program initiatives usually requires a local share of funding. The composite index is a formula based on the ability of school divisions to pay. It provides an incentive for local support for technology initiatives.

At the National Level

• Percentages for Internet-connected computers in Virginia schools already meet and may exceed national percentages. Fifty-one percent of U.S. public school classrooms have access to the Internet. In Virginia, there are 53,022 Internet-connected computers in 51,725 classrooms.

• Almost half of U.S. Department of Education funding for education programs goes to the poorest schools in the country. This funding, in part, supports computer purchases.

• The national ratio of students to Internet-connected computers was 12 to 1 in 1998. Virginia’s schools had an overall ratio of 8.09 to 1 for students to Internet-connected computers in 1998. This ratio indicates that Virginia’s ratio of students to Internet-connected computers is better than the national average.

• The national percentage of schools connected to the Internet was 89 in 1998 (NCES, 1999). Approximately 97.3 percent of all Virginia schools were connected to the Internet in 1999 (DOE, 1999).

• Overall, Internet usage in the U.S. has tripled since 1996. Users, 18 years of age or older, in millions were 27, 38, 56 and 78 in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 (FCC Mediamark Research, 2000). An increase of 22 million users between 1997 and 1998 suggests a larger increase in users each year. Ongoing Federal grants and private partnerships will help meet national goals.

• E-rate discounts have resulted in the distribution of $64 million to schools in Virginia. These discounts are expected to continue during the next year.

The rise of the Internet, wireless, and more advanced telecommunications are resulting in some pretty dramatic changes in the way schools are using technology. The basic building blocks are beginning to work. Rudimentary technology application and teacher attitudinal studies are fading as researchers probe issues related to content specific uses of technology, teacher preparation, staff development, system capacity, accountability, and other factors of the digital divide. In Virginia, these issues have a direct impact on the Standards of Learning and educational reform.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN INSTRUCTION?

Recent studies on the impact of learning technologies in schools reveal that (a) the use of technology as a learning tool can make a measurable difference in student achievement; (b) technology is particularly valuable in improving student writing; (c) technology energizes and motivates; (d) technology use in classrooms is resulting in the production of higher quality assignments that reflect increased depth and breath of knowledge (ETS, 1997), and (e) higher order uses of computers for professional development are significantly related to students’ academic achievement in mathematics (Wenglinsky,1998). Fletcher (1999) in a congressionally mandated review compared 47 cases of traditional instruction with multimedia instruction and found timesaving of 30 percent with the use of multimedia instruction.

Some of these findings and others were initially revealed in studies such as the 1992 meta-analytic “Study of the Effects of Learning Technologies on Student Performance” by Pisapia and Perlman at Virginia Commonwealth University. They reported the following:

• On average, a student performing at the 50th percentile will perform at the 62nd percentile of the standard normal curve when taught with computer-based learning technologies.

• Of the 184 studies reviewed, 49% had a substantial effect on student performance, nineteen percent had a moderate effect, and 32% had a negligible effect.

• Newer technology applications are more effective than older applications.

• The use of technology in mathematics, science, and language arts proved to be educationally significant in terms of results.

• Decisionmakers should recognize that infusing technology into schools does not ensure optimum results. To get consistent results, hardware and software must be accompanied by appropriate program support and staff development.

Factors of the digital divide identified by the Benton Foundation Digital Divide Network are access, economic development, content, lifelong learning, new research and funding. The goals of the online network are to:

1. contribute to our understanding of the digital divide and/or ways to close the gap in access to and use of information and communications technology, or that

2. represent a diversity of perspectives for underserved communities

Digital Divide Network participants believe that if the digital divide is to be solved, “steps must be taken to ensure that all individuals and communities have the ability to receive and produce the content necessary to allow them to prosper economically, socially, and academically.” Both educators and students are intrinsically involved in digital divide solutions to academic problems.

A number of corporate programs and funding sources are listed on the Digital Divide Network. Some are:

1. Powerup, a national initiative that brings computers and the Internet to children in poor communities, was organized by the America Online chief executive, Steve Chase, his wife, Jean, and Colin Powell.

2. The Benton Foundation, a funding source that investigates relationships among public, corporate and nonprofit sectors was developed to addresses critical questions relating to democracy in the digital age.

3. Digital Sojourn, a nonprofit organization working to diversify groups able to participate in and benefit from technology, was developed to provide assistance through workshops, networking, and policy development.

4. Marco Polo, a service provider, supplies teachers with innovative standards-based curricula.

The National School Board (NSB) Technology Leadership Network has identified national models of success. The models of success include:

1. Blue Valley School District, Kansas. The district has a staff development computer program that provides computers to teachers to use at school and at home. The only requirement is an introductory computer course for which teachers receive college credit.

2. Desert Sands Unified School District, California. The school district provides a icrowave network to help students and staff with basic computing, record keeping, research projects, and Internet resources.

3. Achiever.com.. This model does not appear among the NSB models. It is a college-prep program for Jackson, Mississippi students founded by Carlos Watson. It is an intensive SAT online course. Eighty-five percent of Achiever.com students go on to a college of their choice.

The Virginia Department of Education, public schools, and state universities are bridging the digital divide in diverse ways. Projects and programs include:

1. Linwood Holton Governor’s School. This regional school serves 12 school divisions. Students remain in their home schools and turn on their computers for course work. They are able to log on to LearningLink, a software program that allows them to participate in experiments at the space center in Houston, Texas.

2. The Commonwealth of Knowledge Website developed by First Lady Roxane Gilmore allows teachers to access lesson plans via a computer by entering either a keyword or the numeric reference to a particular standard.

3. VCU partnerships with churches and schools provide reconditioned computers and training.

4. Virginia Tech’s wireless consortium in Appalachia provides computer centers to low-income housing complexes.

5. Garfield Childs Fund (Richmond), Hope Institute of Technology. Inc. (Roanoke) and the Blacksburg Electronic Village (VA Tech) are community technology centers.

6. School Technology Literacy Challenge and Goals 2000 reports to the DOE provide a number of model programs.

7. Cisco Networking Academies are helping create a skilled workforce that is prepared to install and maintain its products. Charlotte County has a long-term program that has incorporated some of these skills while teaching students to build and maintain computers.

As Virginia continues its efforts to bridge the digital divide in schools and to identify gaps, several related major issues are apparent:

• State target population assessment of access to technology should be conducted to determine pockets of “have-nots” among low-income, minority, and specialized populations such as special education and the gifted. Schools in rural and central cities must be a top priority. Educators serving these populations often do not have resources, time, and/or expertise to develop comprehensive studies.

• Linkage of national projects such as the NTIA project, e-Rate project, and Powerup to the Virginia Digital Opportunity Task Force, e-Communication Task Force, and K-12 initiatives will help ensure that resources reach target populations.

• Review of current SOQstate funding formulas may be due. While the state has been faithful in its intent, the needs of the smallest and poorest schools are changing as they try to meet SOL and other instructional needs and to provide essential tools and support.

• Utilizing technology to meet the needs of all learners will require the development of universally accessible, low-cost, reliable technology. Technology utilization will also require the establishment of a program for replacement of equipment that becomes dated at a rapid pace.

• Change in recruitment techniques and training is essential to attract and hold network managers, librarians, instructional technologists and other technology personnel serving schools. Schools across the state and the nation are already scrambling to attract qualified technology staff and the prediction is that the need will grow. SOQ funding shifts may be part of the solution.

• State and school division corporate partnerships and program sponsorships must be encouraged if schools are to continue to purchase and use technologies to their fullest potential.

• Special state-to-school division-to-classroom assessments must be made to ensure that Governor Gilmore’s commitment to Internet access to every student by 2003, local area network capability to every high school by 2003, and purchase of the latest software applications from private vendors for instructional and remedial SOL training by 2001 becomes a reality.

The recent appointment of a 51 member Digital Opportunity Task Force (Executive Order 65, 2000) by Governor Gilmore is acknowledgement that there continues to be a need to bridge the digital divide in the Commonwealth. The following statement appeared in a press release:

“Virginia has proven itself a leader in the technology world.” Governor Gilmore said, “To continue our leadership, it is vital that government and business representatives work closely with each community in the Commonwealth to ensure all Virginians share the wealth of information the Internet provides and take part in education and technology expansion.”

Initial objectives identified by the Task Force and released by the Governor’s Press Office on July 18, 2000 are to:

• ensure access to the computer and Internet for all citizens of Virginia,

• coordinate digital opportunity resources across the Commonwealth,

• identify best practices of digital opportunities,

• develop and plan for the implementation of programs, and

• encourage community-based initiatives.

The partnership, composed of representatives from industry, non-profit organizations, and state and local government agencies, will establish a community-based infrastructure.

In his January 12, 2000 State of the Commonwealth Address, Governor Gilmore spoke to commitment to the use of the potential of the Internet for increasing educational opportunities.

“…The Digital Divide, which is being drawn between the rich and poor, black and white and urban and rural. Separates our society between the technology “haves” and “have nots.” My goal is for Virginia to do what no other state in the nation has done to reach out and close the Digital Divide… We must ensure that our schools are using these new technologies in the most effective manner to educate our children. Connecting a school to the Internet is meaningless if computers are visited and explored only on the occasional field trip from the classroom. It is not enough to wire our school buildings. We must also modernize our curriculum by helping our teachers integrate technology into the educational process. That is why I am directing my Secretary of Education to work with high-tech businesses to develop a program that will find and recognize those teachers who have developed the best methods for using technology to enhance education…”

Another evidence of a digital divide specifically related to schools may be in the area of teacher access. The assumption that all teachers have access to a computer for instructional needs such as lesson planning, student records of performance, and research may be without support documentation. The assumption is based upon an expectation that teachers have acquired a computer for their own personal use or have access to computers provided in schools. The response of teachers to questions related to computer access in schools is that labs and libraries with Internet-connected computers are in great demand by students before, during, and after school hours. Teachers with demanding schedules are unable to perform lesson preparation tasks or practice research skills while at school. A 1999 survey of teachers in Chesterfield County Schools revealed that approximately one third of the teachers did not have a computer accessible for their use at school or home.

A third evidence of a widening gap and need for further study is in school network management. School division networks and school networks have become sophisticated systems requiring administrators who not only know about the function of various pieces of technology, but understand and know how to connect the technologies to create a well organized, reliable, affordable system with advance telecommunication and upgrade capability to meet specific administrative and instructional needs. Many of the state’s current network managers in schools are self-trained staff who were chosen because of their interest in technology and demonstrated ability to “make equipment work.” Training has been limited in amount and scope; and according to a 1998 study by the Miliken Exchange, “network failures are often chronic.” Equally important is the gap between the qualifications and availability of network managers, librarians, and instructional technology specialists in schools.

As new state digital divide initiatives such as the Governor’s Digital Divide Opportunity Task Force and the e-Communities Task Force launch their projects and programs, schools and education agencies must become involved to ensure that:

• schools are partners in services received through newly developed community centers,

• schools are aware of models of success,

• digital opportunity resources for which schools are eligible are made available to all K-12 schools, and that

• Access to a computer and the Internet are made available to all students and teachers in rural schools and central city schools in addition to schools in other areas.

In the Tables I and II below NTIA and UCLA study percentages for US households with Internet access (by race) and users of the Internet age 18 and older (by education level) reveal increases in use by all Americans. More revealing, however, are the differences within race and education levels. In the year 2000,for example, there was a difference of 22 percentage points between African American households with Internet access and white households and a percentage difference of 33 points between African American households and Asian American and Pacific Islanders households. The study results of Internet use by those 18 years and older reveal a difference of 55 points between those with less than a high school education and those with an advanced degree.

Source: National Telecommunications and Information Administration; Economics and Statistics Administration

Source: The UCLA Internet Report: “Surveying Digital the Future,” UCLA Center for Communication Policy

HOW HAS VIRGINIA ADDRESSED THE DIGITAL DIVIDE?

Virginia’s solution to the digital divide in schools spans more than 10 years. Policymakers, school leaders, community leaders, and the Governor’s Office clearly recognize the contributing factors and the importance of putting in place long-term initiatives to address education’s learning goals. They also recognize that a commitment to narrow the gap is a commitment to provide major and ongoing resources.

The focus of Virginia’s first initiatives was planning and access. Issues such as content-based training, links to educational reform, Internet connectivity, infrastructure, technical assistance, and effective use of technology were addressed to a lesser extent initially (State Report, 1994), but the intent was and still is to increase the support annually. While great progress has been made, all directly involved are quick to admit that “pockets of disparity” exist and that the race to keep pace with new developments is increasingly complex and problematic. Some major Virginia initiatives and actions in the areas of planning, Legislative activity, and funding are listed below:

• Planning – Two six-year educational technology plans (1996 and 1998) were developed to provide statewide technology leadership and support to schools, to empower students to use technologies for continued learning, and to develop a state-operated network. A third plan is already under development. Additionally, technology standards for students were developed for grades 5 and 8 prior to 1998 and for the end of grade 12 in 1999. Technology Standards for Instructional Personnel were developed prior to 1998 and are a requirement for teacher certification by 2002.

• Legislation – Policy documents include: (a) a technology component consistent with the six-year technology plan requirement in the Standards of Quality (1992); (b) recognition of technology as one of four core elements of education by the Commission on Equity in Education (1994); (c) designation of a select committee of Senate Finance, House Appropriations, and the Committee on Equity in Public Education members to study educational technology funding; and (d) Standards of Learning that employ the use of technology in mathematics and science and, to a lesser degree, in English and social studies.

• Funding – State financial support includes: (a) reimbursements for purchases of more than 10,000 computers and printers for all middle schools; (b) computers and software for a statewide telecomputing network; (c) decision by the Governor to use $38 million (all Goals 2000 funds) for computers and peripheral technology; (d) $25 million for SOL teacher training incorporating the use of technology; and (e) the designation of $100+ million for online testing to include technology purchases.

As new state digital divide initiatives such as the Governor’s Digital Opportunity Task Force and the e-Communities Task Force launch their projects and programs, schools and education agencies must become involved to help ensure that:

• access to a computer and the Internet are made available to all students and teachers in rural schools and central city schools in addition to schools in other areas,

• schools are partners in services received through newly developed community centers,

• schools are aware of models of success, and that the

• digital opportunity resources for which schools are eligible are made available to all K-12 schools.

Click here for summary of recent Virginia Legislative history of “Digital Divide.”

1. Advanced Tel. in U.S. K-12 Public Schools (USDOE, 1995)

2. Benton Foundation

3. http://www.state.va.us/governor/news

4. http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org

5. http://www.nsba.org/itte

6. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide comments or additional information. Please indicate in an e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new inclusions.

Back to Top

Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if CEPI is credited.