Trends in Elementary and Secondary Education - Tracking The Digital Divide

In June 1996, U.S. Education Secretary Richard Riley released Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century: Meeting the Technology Literacy Challenge. In it he stated: "Computers are the 'new basic' of American education, and the Internet is the blackboard of the future." He expressed a national goal of connecting every classroom in America to the "information superhighway with computers and good software and well-trained teachers." At the time, the wiring of America's classrooms was well underway.

The chart above illustrates that computer learning opportunities in schools have not been equal. There is a digital divide in computer usage by race-ethnicity. According to www.whatis.com, "the digital divide describes the fact that the world can be divided into people who do and people who don't have access to — and the capability to use — modern information technology, such as the telephone, television, or the Internet."

White students are more likely than African-American or Hispanic students to use the Internet at school and at home, although the school-use gap between black and white is narrowing at a faster rate than is the gap between those two groups and Hispanics. Home use of the Internet allows some students to be more prepared than others to understand and make use of technology-based education.

The digital divide is also evident when income is taken into account, as the following table illustrates. Low income in 1997 was below $13,000; high income was $60,801 and over.

Percentage of Students in Grades 7-12 Who Used a Computer at School and/or Home, by Family Income: 1984, 1989, 1993, and 1997

	1984		1989		1993		1997
	Used a computer at		Used a computer at		Used a computer at		Used a computer at
Family income	School	Home	School	Home	School	Home	School	Home
Low income	20.0	3.3	36.7	5.7	49.0	5.6	67.6	14.9
Middle income	28.4	10.1	42.6	17.0	57.3	22.2	74.1	44.2
High income	34.1	24.8	47.2	38.3	60.7	51.2	75.4	78.6

Students from high-income families were more likely to use a computer at home and school than were students from low-and middle-income families. Computers and Internet access cost money. But why do fewer low-income students use the Internet at school? The table below clarifies that point.

Percentage of Public Schools and Instructional Rooms with Internet Access, by School Characteristics: Fall 1998

School characteristic	Schools with access	Classrooms with access
Total	89	51
71%+ of students eligible for reduced-price lunch	80	39
50% or more minority enrollment	82	37

In 1998, 89% of public schools had Internet access in 51% of their classrooms. The poorest schools had Internet access in 39% of classrooms. The schools with the highest minority enrollment had access in only 37% of classrooms. While a high percentage of schools may have Internet access, poor and minority schools have fewer Internet access points. Poor schools are also more likely to have outdated equipment and provide slow, frustrating experiences. An article in Popular Science states that about 40,000 of the 70,000 computers in New York City public schools are obsolete. The cost to modernize the system: $2.1 billion.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted that by 2000, 60% of all jobs would require high-tech computer skills. In response to labor-market predictions like this, the federal government has sought ways to speed the rate at which computers are delivered to the classroom. Laws enacted in the 1990s and in 2001 guarantee a continued emphasis on technology in schools and funding for it.

Corporate America is deeply involved in the effort to wire every classroom. This has set off a national debate about the role of business in education. Critics complain that donated computers and software usually come with strings attached. For example, they often feature advertising. Such advertising suggests a school's endorsement of products and raises serious ethical questions among child advocates.

In discussing the pros and cons of businesses donating computers to schools, the media repeatedly cited the example of an Internet company called ZapMe! Corp. In the late 1990s, ZapMe! began loaning to schools a package of 15 computers, along with a satellite dish and an Internet server, in exchange for a promise to use the machines at least four hours a day. Each donated monitor featured an on-screen box that continuously alternated public service materials with advertising. In what critics called an invasion of privacy, ZapMe! required students to receive an electronic ID in order to use the computers (a way of conducting market research).

By mid-1999, ZapMe! was operating in 200 schools in about a dozen states (some of them poor and minority schools) and hoped to be in 2,000 schools by year-end. In the face of criticism by consumer groups like Commercial Alert, who called the company a "corporate predator," in late 2000 ZapMe! told 2,300 schools that they had to either give back the equipment or start paying for it.

In the 2000 report "Fools Gold: A Critical Look at Computers in Childhood, " a national group of educators, doctors, and children's advocates claimed that the billions spent on wiring classrooms is fueled more by parental fears of their children being left behind and corporate sales pitches than any real evidence of computers helping children learn. The report stated: "Wiring and computerizing America's schools is an urgent priority — not for children, but for high-tech companies that need to constantly expand their markets." The report recommended that older students be taught the ethical and social implications of technology.

Speaking for business, in 2000 Sun Microsystems Vice President Kim Jones told a San Jose reporter that industry needs to make classroom computers simpler to use. She opined: "I agree 100 percent that technology has not been very effective in the classroom." Jones denied that profit is the only reason for corporate involvement in schools.

Despite the criticism and thanks to businesses and government, the wiring of America's classrooms is proceeding pell-mell. Whereas in 1984, 29.7% of K-12 children used a computer at school, by 1997, 76.4% of them did. The wiring won't stop anytime soon.

Does the use of technology equal better academic performance and does it promise better qualified future employees? Opinions are divided, but the billions of dollars being infused into the schools for technology and teacher training indicate that a lot of people think so. Perhaps those dollars will eventually eliminate the digital divide.

Source: Chart and Table: U.S. Department of Education. The Condition of Education 2001. Indicator 45. Online. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/. May 27, 2002: U.S. Bureau of the Census. October Current Population Surveys; Fisher, Arthur. "High Tech, High Grades?" Popular Science. (January 1999), p. 64. Trotter, Andrew. "Cyber Learning at Online High." Education Week. 24 January 2001, p.28. Corcoran., Katherine. "Report: Computers in Schools Harmful." San Jose Mercury News. 13 September 2000. Hardy, Lawrence. "The Lure of School Marketing." American School Board Journal (October 1999), p. 22. Commercial Alert. Online. Available: http://www.commercialalert.org/zapme/. March 4, 2002. "ZapMe zaps its school PC program. The Houston Chronicle, 6 December 2000 p2.