DIGITAL INEQUALITY: A CAUSE FOR CONCERN?

By

Cheryl A. Dugas

There is a disparity in the amount and quality of access to the Internet and Worldwide Web among students in the United States. In particular, lower income and minority students have less and/or lower-quality Internet and Worldwide Web access than do higher income and non-minority students. Although nearly every student has gone online, the numbers who use the Internet on a regular basis vary, and the ways in which they use it vary, and the variation is divided along income and racial lines (Kaiser, 2004; Pew, 2003).

That is, there is a digital divide. The term “digital divide” was coined in the mid-1990s. At the time it referred to the gap between those who had access to computers or the Internet, and those who didn’t. As basic access to computers and the Internet has become nearly universal, the focus of concern has changed to differences in amount and quality of Internet access. To reflect the changing focus, the term “digital divide” is more often replaced with “digital inequality”, which indicates a disparity in “digital opportunity”. This article uses the terms “digital divide” and “digital inequality” in the more recent sense.

Definition of the problem

It is important to clarify exactly what the problem statement means. First, amount of Internet access refers to the amount of time (clock-time) that a student is sitting at a computer connected to the Internet. The definition of quality of Internet access is a little less straightforward. It refers to how productive the student is; that is, the amount and quality of learning that goes on when the student is connected to the Internet. This is sometimes referred to as meaningful access. It can be affected by the connection speed: high-speed connections make downloads faster; and make access to material such as graphics, sound, or video more practical. And there is the level of technological literacy that the student possesses. That is, is he/she comfortable and competent when working with the Internet?

It is also important to define the terms “Internet” and “Worldwide Web”. Although most people use them interchangeably, they have slightly different meanings. The Internet is the network of computers that a user accesses through an Internet service provider (ISP), such as AOL. The Worldwide Web is the collection of billions of web pages and other types of electronic information that can be accessed via the Internet. When people talk about the digital divide, they usually mention only Internet access; because once a user has Internet access, he/she automatically has access to the Worldwide Web. So, this article will discuss Internet access, with the understanding that access to the Worldwide Web is also implied.

Why Might Digital Inequality Be a Problem?

To declare that digital inequality is a problem implies that those with ample high-quality Internet experience have an advantage over those without it. Why might that be the case? The Internet has become an important tool for a large part of the population. The number one use of the Internet is communication with others, mainly through email (Pew, 2004). People also use it to connect with others in on-line organizations. The Internet is used as a research tool for work, school, and for personal matters such as health or financial information. People find employment opportunities via the Internet. It is used for training and instruction. Those who create content on the Internet are often engaged in meaningful, constructivist learning. Several studies have shown that students who have Internet access both at home and at school enjoy more academic success that those who have Internet access only at school. (Kaiser, 2004) So, it is easy to imagine that the “haves” have an advantage over the “have-nots”.

Possible Reasons for the Problem

What might be the reasons for a digital divide to exist along socioeconomic and racial lines? Some that come to mind are:

· Lower income and minority students are more likely to attend schools with lower quality Internet support and access.

· Lower income and minority students have less experience in the use of computers.

· Lower income and minority students are less likely to have Internet access at home as well as at school.

· Lower income and minority students are less likely to have high-speed Internet access.

It turns out that all of the above statements are true.

Schools with a higher percentage of lower income students have a smaller proportion of Internet-connected computers than those with wealthier students. Schools with a higher minority population are less likely to have a full-time technology coordinator (Kaiser, 2004).

Sixty-nine percent of the poorest children under six years old have never used a computer, compared with thirty-nine percent of the wealthiest children. Forty-one percent of non-white four-to-six-year-olds have never used a computer, compared with twenty-four percent of white four-to-six-year-olds (Kaiser, 2004). So, non-minority and wealthier students have the opportunity to become more computer-adept than minority and poor students, and at an earlier age.

Internet access is available in the homes of eighty-four percent of children from families with income above $50,000, compared with sixty-six percent of children from families with income below $35,000. Eighty percent of white children have Internet access at home, as compared with sixty-seven percent of Hispanic children and sixty-one percent of African-American children. Higher income households are more likely to have high-speed Internet access than lower income households (Kaiser, 2004).

How Schools Are Related to the Problem

For those students without home Internet access, schools are the primary source of Internet access. (Kaiser, 2004) There are many potential problems with this arrangement that can affect the quantity and quality of access. Use of computers during the school day varies greatly from school to school. Schools that have Internet access in the classroom reap greater benefits than those with centrally located computers. There is also a disparity in the student to computer ratio in schools, with a higher ratio in schools that have a higher percentage of poor students.

Value and amount of use of these computers outside of school is dependent on several factors. These include the hours that the schools are open and the children’s schedules. Are the schools open when the children want to use the Internet? Can the children get to the schools to use the Internet? Another major factor is the quality and quantity of the computer connections that are available to the children.

How Homes are Related to the Problem

As mentioned earlier, several studies have shown that students who have Internet access at home and at school enjoy more academic success that those who have Internet access only at school. A Michigan State University study found an increase in academic success among a group of low-income students who were provided with home Internet access (Kaiser, 2004).

How Might the Problem Be Resolved?

What are possible ways to address the problem of digital inequality? Some of the options are discussed below:

Increase Home Internet Access

Increase the number of lower income and minority students who have Internet access at home. This would be attractive to one who has a Social Equality philosophical outlook. The increase in home Internet access could be effected directly by providing free or low-cost Internet service for low income families. This is the option espoused by those who believe that we should have universal Internet service, much in the same way that we have universal telephone service. Less directly, Internet access for low-income families could be increased by establishing programs such as one requiring Internet access in low-income housing. Either way, this is the most radical and expensive solution to digital inequality. There are a number of potential problems with this solution, beyond the cost issue. First, there are some who feel that the U.S. is too dependent on older ways of delivering telecommunications services, and subsidizing universal service would keep us entrenched in the current infrastructure instead of looking for alternatives. Also, subsidizing one aspect of the telecommunications industry might distort the telecommunications market. There are those who feel that public support stifles innovation in the telecommunications industry. These concerns reflect the philosophy illustrated by the statement in (Berlin, 1992) that “every solution creates a new situation which breeds its own new needs and problems, new demands.”

Increase School Internet Access

Increase the amount and quality of Internet access available at school to lower income and minority students. This would include increasing the hours that computers would be available to students, possibly to evenings and weekends, and summers. Also, increase the number of computers available and the quality of the service. This solution would be attractive to one who has a Social Reconstructivist outlook (Pulliam & Van Patten, 2003). Such a person would view digital inequality as a social problem that should be addressed by the school system. It goes along with the utopian ideals of Horace Mann, for equality of opportunity (Pulliam & Van Patten, 2003).

Increase Public Internet Access

Increase the amount and quality of Internet access available in public and semipublic places, such as libraries and community centers. Increase funding so libraries could stay open more hours evenings and weekends to provide increased access.

Improve Quality of Internet Experience

Another approach to addressing the problem of digital inequality is to address the issue of quality of Internet experience, rather than just quantity. This could be addressed by programs that increase the amount of help and support for students on the Internet, so that they are more productive. One way to do this would be to increase teacher training so that classroom teachers are better qualified to help. Another option is to train Americorps volunteers and send them to the public computer sites in low-income areas.

What Should be Fixed, if Anything, and Who Should Fix It?

The previous section described possible ways to address the problem of digital inequality. But, should any of these things be attempted? If so, which one? There are a number of philosophical issues that need to be considered. A person’s choice of approach, and argument for it, depends on their philosophical outlook. A summary of possible approaches and corresponding philosophical justifications is presented below.

The Wrong Problem is Being Addressed

A person with a conservative philosophical outlook might disagree that having Internet access is good or desirable, or that it is a necessity. They might argue that the current excess of enthusiasm for the Internet and information technology is the problem, not the so-called digital divide. However, one with a liberal philosophy would be more likely to support the value of Internet access as desirable, because not to do so could be a violation of that philosophy (Bloom, 1987).

The Problem is Resolving Itself

A person may feel that the amount of access is increasing at an acceptable pace, that the amount of digital inequality is decreasing. The philosophy here is: if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.

Legal vs. Philosophical Issues

The landmark case of Brown v. the Board of Education (1954) requires that if the state undertakes to provide an opportunity to students, it is a right that must be made available to all on equal terms (Beers, 2004). Is digital inequality a violation of that legal decision? Digital inequality appears to be affected by both the disparity in quality of Internet experience between poor and rich schools, and the disparity in quality of Internet experience at home. One could argue that Brown v. the Board of Education only applies to the first situation. That implies that the school system is obligated to ensure that poor schools offer the same quality of Internet experience as rich schools. But, it doesn’t appear to obligate the school districts to close the digital divide.

But, assuming that digital inequality is a bad thing, what is the philosophical perspective? The digital divide is an aspect of the problem of social inequality: that is, the haves vs. the have-nots (Hongladarom, 2004). It seems that there are several responses that one might have when confronted with a case of social inequality. The responses correspond to the degree to which that person accepts or rejects the philosophy of social equality.

Strong Proponent of Social Equality

If one accepts the philosophy of social equality to a significant degree, then one must conclude that the digital divide, and thus digital inequality, should be eliminated. But how? Which of the options described in the previous section is the appropriate action?

As was mentioned earlier, increasing the number of lower income and minority students who have Internet access at home is a direct response to the problem, but also is very expensive. One who is totally committed to the philosophy of social inequality could only choose this option.

A More Practical Philosophical Outlook

One who is not completely committed to the philosophy of social equality might balk at this solution. However, if the person had a more conservative, practical philosophy, they might consider one of the other, less radical approaches.

Rejecting the Philosophy of Social Equality

A person who does not buy into the philosophy of social equality at all would feel that social inequality, if it exists, is a fact of life. Such a person would not feel that there is a need to remedy the situation at all.

Conclusion

There are a number of reasons why digital inequality exists for today’s students, and why that might be a problem. There are a number of possible approaches to reduce the inequality. Whether or not an individual feels that digital inequality should be reduced, and by what means, depends largely on the philosophical outlook of that individual.

REFERENCES

Beers, K. (2004). Equality and the digital divide. Voices from the Middle, 11:3. 4-5.

Berlin, I. (1992). The Crooked Member of Humanity. New York: Vintage.

Bloom, A. (1987). The Closing of the American Mind, New York: Siman & Schuster, Inc.

Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

Hongladarom, S. (2004). Exploring the philosophical terrain of the digital divide. In Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, 37. J. Weckert and Y. Al-Saggaf, Eds.

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2004, September). Children, the digital divide, and federal policy. Retrieved October 3, 2004, from http://www.kff.org

Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2004, August 11). The Internet and daily life. Retrieved October 3, 2004, from http://www.pewInternet.org

Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2003, April 16). The ever-shifting Internet population: A new look at Internet access and the digital divide. Retrieved October 3, 2004, from http://www.pewInternet.org

Pulliam, J. D. & Van Patten, J. J. (2003). Shaping the schools: Philosophical and Psychological Foundations. History of Education in America, 8^th Ed. Columbus, Ohio: Prentice Hall.