Introduction

Technology has taken the world by storm, beginning as early as the Second Industrial Revolution, soon after being implemented into schools’ curricula, beginning with the radio in the 1920s to AI today (AGiRepair). Within the educational sector, the digital divide has become increasingly prevalent, affecting students, parents, teachers, schools, and even communities as a whole. The digital divide is measured through three metrics: the digital access divide, the digital use divide, and the digital design divide. This article will be focusing on the context, problems, stakeholders, tried policies, and proposes multifaceted solutions to the first metric–the digital access divide, focusing on the availability of technology, whereas the digital use divide measures how technology is used by students and the digital design divide measures well educators and teachers are equipped to integrate technology into their teaching efficiently (DeMio). 

Context

Initially, the government paid for technology use in schools; however, this funding didn’t last for long as the technology continued to advance and grow in use, causing schools to have to fundraise for technology on their own. This disproportionately affected schools in low-income areas, which didn’t have as much money to spend as those in high-income communities. Additionally, as technology has advanced over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for low-income communities and schools to adapt to an increasingly digital world. From an increased interest in STEM to computers becoming the norm in most American classrooms and households, school budgets are unable to keep up, increasing the digital divide in education and creating resource gaps among students (“Understanding the Digital Divide in Education | AU”). 

The digital access divide refers to the unequal access to technology, such as broadband internet, digital services, routers, and more, that students require in order to both participate and succeed in their classes. According to a study done by the Education Trust, 17 percent of students are unable to complete their homework due to their limited access to the internet. Additionally, 50 percent of low-income families and 42 percent of families of color don’t have the technology required for online education (“Understanding the Digital Divide in Education | AU”). The inability to complete homework at home due to the lack of technology or a stable internet connection is known as the homework gap, one of the prime effects of the digital access divide (McLaughlin). As can be seen by the studies done by the Education Trust, low-income families are affected disproportionately due to their socio-economic status, ultimately widening the gap in the long term (“Understanding the Digital Divide in Education | AU”). There also exists a gap in digital access between states, with Washington, Utah, New Hampshire, California, and Colorado being the states with the highest broadband and technology access, and Mississippi, New Mexico, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Arkansas being the states with the least broadband and technology access (Regali). 

Tried Policy

Before moving on, it is crucial to both understand previously & currently tried policies and note their shortcomings. In 1996, the E-Rate program was created, “only 14 percent of the nation's K-12 classrooms had access to the Internet” (“E-Rate: Universal Service Program for Schools and Libraries”).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of policies were passed pertaining to the role of technology in education. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, established The Elementary and Secondary Emergency Relief Fund, which increased the funding for technology in schools during the pandemic, passed in March 2020 (U.S. Department of Education). 

Similarly, according to the U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General, Biden and Harris signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which included more than $7.1 billion for the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) E-Rate program, funding school broadband connectivity and hot spots, routers and other devices needed to facilitate remote or hybrid learning (Paykamian). Ultimately, the Federal Communications Commission’s E-Rate program gave much more money than the CARES Act, as the CARES Act allocated $2 billion, causing the Federal Communications Commission’s E-Rate program to be much more successful. However, the FCC E-Rate program did not solve several issues; from being unable to solve the homework gap due to eligibility being restricted to schools and libraries to still not everyone being able to receive equal technological access. Although the FCC did attempt to rectify the problem at hand in the short term, it isn’t a permanent solution, nor is it an effective one due to its restricted eligibility, calling us to question what will be done next, if anything at all.  

California’s policies are something to look up to. Over the course of 2019-2022, they received three rounds of federal stimulus checks, delivering over $15 billion in cash to California schools. This money was utilized to provide over 2 million devices and nearly 1 million connections to students across the state of California. Adding on to this, California had local policies in addition to their federal policies, with districts like the Lindsay Unified School District in California launching free community and wifi programs in an attempt to reduce the digital divide on a local scale–which was quite effective. 

Stakeholders

The key stakeholders affected by the digital divide in the educational sector are students, parents & families, teachers, and the government. Those affected by the digital divide in the educational sector include a number of individuals and organizations. Beginning with the simplest and most direct one, students are affected the most and unfortunately, the worst by digital divide, having the potential to ruin their whole lives. The short-term effects of the digital access divide include facing learning challenges, limited access to materials, struggling to complete homework (or even the homework gap), falling behind, receiving lower grades, and sometimes even failing to graduate as a whole. The long-term effects, on the other hand, include a lack of skills that students on the wrong side of the digital divide may never learn, causing them to be unemployed and not receive job return offers, and ultimately limiting their career offers throughout their life; not to mention, less education or lower quality of education generally leads to fewer job opportunities and less financial stability (Kloza).

Moving on to the next stakeholder: parents & families. These individuals, especially those from low-income households and communities, often struggle to provide the necessary resources to their children in education. This not only affects their child poorly, but also them, as countless parents work hard just for their children, causing both of their well-being to deteriorate. Not to mention, parents often struggle to assist their child in this increasingly digital world as their classrooms were not primarily technological and having computers in every room was not the norm at the time (Team). 

Teachers are another key stakeholder. Without equitable access to technology, teachers face a digital design divide, where they struggle with integrating technology into their curriculum even if provided with technology due to the lack of digital literacy. Teachers in low-income or rural communities primarily face this issue as they are not as better off as those from wealthier schools/districts, causing them to be disproportionately impacted, just as parents, families, and students were and continue to be to this day (Who Is Affected by the Digital Divide? | ncbroadband.gov).

The last stakeholder, the government, although not affected by the digital divide, does play a critical role in addressing it and is ultimately the root cause of it (Conti). Local, state, and federal governments are responsible for helping to bridge the gap by offering resources to those from underserved communities. “In 2022, 82% of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were located in broadband deserts” (“The Digital Divide in Education: Navigating Learning Inequities”). To solve this issue, Robert F. Smith, CEO & Founder of Vista Equity Partners partnered with Cisco through the Student Freedom Initiative to advance digital infrastructure and cybersecurity systems at HBCUs, donating $150 million+ to the Student Freedom Initiative, helping students who attend HBCUs and other Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) improve their broadband connectivity (“The Digital Divide in Education: Navigating Learning Inequities”). 

Potential Solutions

A potential solution for reducing the digital access divide in the educational sector allowing cities to provide their own broadband locally, however, 19 states restrict local broadband solutions. Another solution is achieved by increasing the pay for the ConnectED initiative, which aims to connect 99% of the students across the country to broadband since 2014 from Barack Obama (“ConnectED - Office of Educational Technology”). A number of companies support this initiative, such as Apple, taking part in the ConnectED initiative in 2014, “pledging $100 million of teaching and learning solutions to 114 underserved schools across the country” (Apple). 

Ultimately, to solve this issue, it is essential to both expand on previous policies and programs, ensuring the new, multifaceted solution is focused on the long-term, involving local, state, and federal governments and private companies.

The first portion of the multifaceted student will cover the E-Rate program and expand upon it. The proposed expansion for the E-Rate program would advocate for households, especially those from low income and rural communities, to be eligible alongside schools and libraries. This would ultimately solve the homework gap, the scenario where a student is unable to complete their work at home due a lack of either technological devices or stable internet connection. Additionally, it would allow students to study for their classes at home, thereby increasing their academic performance and in the long-term their job opportunities, proving to be very worth the investment. 

The second portion of the multifaceted solution would include the partnership between technology companies and the government to be able to provide devices at a cheaper rate to students, especially those from underserved areas. Public and private collaborations have already been implemented, such as in California with municipalities providing local solutions to their limited access to their digital divide, or Apple’s partnership with the ConnectED initiative since 2014. This would be vital in ensuring that long-term needs are addressed in the fight against digital divide, as previous policies passed during and soon after the COVID-19 Pandemic merely addressed the short term needs and were not as effective as they could be. 

The third part would be to reform the state laws, enabling municipalities to create and provide their own broadband (Seamans). According to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 19 states currently restrict local governments from offering broadband solutions, essentially blocking potential solutions from becoming a reality (“19 States Restrict Local Broadband Solutions - Institute for Local Self-Reliance”). States like California have already shown the benefits of doing this on the local level by repurposing budgets, “giving them more bang for their buck,” according to the Digital Promise, the website of the Lindsay Unified School District (“Lindsay Unified School District Innovation Portfolio”). 

Lastly, in order to ensure that all gaps of the digital access divide are addressed, the solution must also address the digital design divide as that indirectly contributes to furthering the effects of the digital access divide. In order to solve this, there must be funding towards both technology in schools for teachers to use and training for teachers to utilize to ensure that they are using technology to the fullest and that their students are understanding the uses of it as well. This is essential because even if students are provided with equal technology and stable network access, solving the digital access divide in educational settings would have been fruitless if their school curriculum did not integrate it into their curricula. This ensures that the digital divide is truly closed rather than just mitigated as done so with policies previously.

Conclusion

Ultimately the effects of the digital divide, specifically the digital access divide are far reaching in the educational sector, affecting students, parents and families, teachers, the government, and communities as a whole. Although previous policies have attempted to solve the digital access divide such as the E-Rate Program and technological funding through pandemic-related acts such as the CARES Act, they have proven to be ineffective in addressing the long-term fixes, and instead focused on the short-term solutions. This problem continues to affect low-income students disproportionately, widening the socioeconomic gap and reducing opportunities for those in a lower socioeconomic class even further in the long term. 

In order to solve these issues, a multifaceted solution is necessary, addressing both the long-term and short-term implications, as well as addressing the indirect amplification of effects of the digital access divide due to the digital access divide. The first part of this solution would include expanding programs like the E-Rate program so that it includes eligibility for households to solve the homework gap and removing the restrictions held by states that hold back municipalities from bridging the digital divide at a local level. The second would be to promote the partnership between public and private sectors in an attempt to reduce the cost of devices and ultimately bridge the digital access divide. The last part of this multifaceted solution ensures teachers are trained effectively by providing them adequate resources and funding to both have the proper training and technology, ultimately improving the digital literacy rates of schools as well. This solution is crucial to bridging the digital divide as a whole, as without it, the gap will continue to widen, affecting more and more students; not to mention, these students would be affected more and more disproportionately, amplifying all of the aforementioned effects. Ultimately, addressing the unequal access to technology in the educational sector is not just to create equal education, it is about creating equal opportunities. With proper collaboration across all forms of government (local, state, and federal) and the private sector, the United States can improve its digital literacy rates and take the first step in bridging the digital access divide by providing students with the tools necessary to not only survive, but thrive in an increasingly digital world

‍

Works Cited

“19 States Restrict Local Broadband Solutions - Institute for Local Self-Reliance.” Institute for Local Self-Reliance, May 2024, ilsr.org/articles/preemption-detente-municipal-broadband-networks-face-barriers-in-19-states/. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

AGiRepair. “The Evolution of Technology in the Classroom | Agirepair.com.” Agirepair.com, 2021, agirepair.com/evolution-of-technology-in-the-classroom/. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

“ConnectED.” Apple, 2014, www.apple.com/connectED/index.html. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

“ConnectED - Office of Educational Technology.” Office of Educational Technology, 13 May 2013, tech.ed.gov/connected/. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

‌Conti, Chris. “The Digital Divide in Education: Bridging the Gap for Equal Learning Opportunities.” Outreach International, 6 Sept. 2024, outreach-international.org/blog/digital-divide-in-education/. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

DeMio, Paige Shoemaker. “How States and Districts Can Close the Digital Divide to Increase College and Career Readiness.” Center for American Progress, Center for American Progress, 30 July 2024, www.americanprogress.org/article/how-states-and-districts-can-close-the-digital-divide-to-increase-college-and-career-readiness/. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

“E-Rate: Universal Service Program for Schools and Libraries.” Fcc.gov, 27 Feb. 2024, www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/universal-service-program-schools-and-libraries-e-rate. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

Kloza, Brad. “Consequences of the Digital Divide in Education - Connecting the Unconnected.” Connecting the Unconnected, 30 Jan. 2023, ctu.ieee.org/consequences-of-the-digital-divide-in-education/. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

“Lindsay Unified School District Innovation Portfolio.” Digitalpromise.org, 2015, portfolios.digitalpromise.org/ip/Portfolio_intro?id=a2z1G000000X5bYQAS. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

Local Educational Agencies’ Uses of Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Funds for Technology June 7, 2023 ED-OIG/F20US0030 ED OIG Oversight of Coronavirus Response Funds. www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/ED/FY23F20US0030012924SECUREDv100.pdf. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

McLaughlin, Clare. “The Homework Gap: The ‘Cruelest Part of the Digital Divide’ | NEA.” Nea.org, 2016, www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/homework-gap-cruelest-part-digital-divide. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

‌Paykamian, Brandon. “Ed Tech Advocates Praise Expansion of E-Rate Funding.” GovTech, GovTech, 12 Mar. 2021, www.govtech.com/education/k-12/ed-tech-advocates-praise-expansion-of-e-rate-funding.html. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

‌“The Digital Divide in Education: Navigating Learning Inequities.” Robert F. Smith, Author, 29 Aug. 2023, robertsmith.com/blog/digital-divide-in-education/. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

Team, Lcom. “Closing the Digital Divide with Digital Citizenship for Parents.” Learning, 15 Aug. 2023, www.learning.com/blog/closing-the-digital-divide-with-digital-citizenship-for-parents/. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

“The Digital Divide: What It Is and How It Impacts Us.” EducationConnection, 13 July 2020, www.educationconnection.com/resources/digital-divide/. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

Seamans, Robert. “Three Policies to Address the Digital Divide.” Forbes, 7 May 2020, www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2020/05/07/three-policies-to-address-the-digital-divide/. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

‍

“Understanding the Digital Divide in Education | AU.” School of Education Online, 15 Dec. 2020, soeonline.american.edu/blog/digital-divide-in-education/. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

“Who Is Affected by the Digital Divide? | Ncbroadband.gov.” Ncbroadband.gov, 2024, www.ncbroadband.gov/digital-divide/who-affected-digital-divide. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.