Understanding Gender, Racial, Social Class and Geographic Disparities in Internet Use Among School Age Children in the United States
INTRODUCTION
As the Information Society continues
to evolve, technological change occurs frequently and quickly, and information
and knowledge in this fast-changing communications environment are needed more
than ever. However, In order to communicate effectively in a changing
information society people, and particularly young people, must have access to
the most common means of electronic communications and the education and skills
to access and master it. Without the means to communicate in society’s most
commonly acceptable ways, people will be unable to obtain the information
necessary to gain the knowledge to engage in increasingly more common
electronic interactions and to compete in business and society.
The increasingly important role that
computers and the Internet are playing in the communications and information
society in the United States have had profound changes in the way in which
goods and services are provided across the nation. Everything from banking and
shopping to finding a job or analyzing a business opportunity can be conducted
from home or the office on the Internet. The information obtainable from the
Internet allows people to do research and conduct business without the need for
participants to be physically near each other.
As the demands for more and better
information increase, the level and degree of knowledge necessary to remain
competitive in a modern, dynamic market economy increase as well. Information,
therefore, must become more accessible to an ever-widening range of users in
order to maximize potential increases in knowledge in society. It is
particularly important for young people, primarily school-aged children, to be
able to access information easily and freely, because they represent the
society of the future and need to be interested in acquiring and using
information.
This implies that new educational
opportunities to obtain the necessary skills required to become proficient in
the operational technologies of the information society must be made available
to young people very early on. Education is still crucial to mastering the new
methods of communication and information access, search and retrieval and is
important to achieving success in the information society of the future. If an
individual or organization is to remain productive and competitive in an
information society, ready access to information is required to reach performance
capacity. The knowledge obtained through this information is crucial to
economic efficiency, communication and productivity, and is central to
achieving high levels of performance in the Information age. The role of both
formal and informal education in helping determine what knowledge is most
important and needs to be acquired will become more crucial than ever. In order
to prepare society for these and other future changes, the education of our
workforce in new technologies is key.
Although the rate of growth of Internet access
continues at an unprecedented rate, not everyone shares in this access to the
same degree (Internet Software Consortium, 2000, p.2). Current data continue to
show that Internet growth has been occurring at an uneven rate throughout
society (NTIA, 2002, February, p.1-7). There is still a significant gap between
those with access to the Internet and those without access. This gap is related
to a number of key factors including: income, educational, and racial
inequality, gender, age and geographic location. Furthermore, this gap
continues to widen. This widening gap is a particularly disturbing phenomenon
when observed among school-age children who embody the future of our society.
It is becoming increasingly clear that computer and information technology
skills are key to future economic and societal growth and children must have
access to computers and the Internet in order to develop the skills necessary
to function in the Information Age.
In response to this generally
perceived need, debate has increased about the type and level of services that
should be provided by the public sector. Many believe that support services
should expand as the level of telecommunications capability grows. In order to
prevent the development of a generation of haves and have-nots in our society,
an understanding of the factors that contribute to a widening of the gap in
information access is necessary.
The characteristics of those with access to the
Internet have already been described in a number of reports. According to the
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, over one half (53%) of all
U.S. households currently have access to the Internet in some form and one
fourth of U.S. households have access at home (NTIA, 2002, February, p. 1-7).
As more people gain access to on-line Internet services, its usefulness, demand
and use will continue to grow. Signs of this trend have already appeared in the
workplace where in many jobs, computer use is central to job performance.
Computer and information technology jobs are among the fastest growing
occupations in society, according to the occupational projections of the U.S.
Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, Employment Projections
1998-2008, 2000, March 14). According to NTIA and the U.S. Department of
Education, the level of education and Internet usage are highly correlated
(NTIA, 1999, July, p.6-8). Regardless of access location, education is an
important contributor to Internet access and use. Individuals with an elementary
school education or less are far less likely to use the Internet than those
with more education.
This paper focuses on
Internet access and use among school age children across the nation. The
purpose is to examine the relationships among individual characteristics,
family and school resources and their influence on Internet use among school
age children. The chief questions that will be addressed are the following.
1.
How are individual and household characteristics such as race,
household type, and other demographic variables, related to Internet use among
school age children?
A response to this question
involves examining the influence of selected individual and household
characteristics such as race, household type and geographic location on
Internet use among children. Understanding the disparities in Internet use
among certain subpopulations of American society is a crucial component of
equal access policy and to an understanding of the digital divide.
2. How
are household/family resources such as income and education related to Internet
use among school age children?
A response to this question
involves examining the influence of selected individual and household resources
such as income and education on Internet use among children.
3. How
is family support, in the forms of
computing resources and expertise, related to Internet use among school
age children?
A response to this question
involves examining the influence of identified family computing resources such
as the presence of a computer at home, and the observation of one or more
adults in a household who use the Internet either at home or outside the home,
on Internet use among children.
4. How
are public school computing resources and expertise related to Internet use
among school age children?
A response to this question
involves examining the influence of identified public school computing
resources such as the presence of Internet access in classrooms and the
presence of teachers who have access to e-mail, on Internet use among children.
In this regard, an essential question to be addressed is whether school
computing resources, provided through the states, help to close the digital
divide for Internet use among school age children.
This paper is organized as
follows. First, a review of the relevant literature is presented. This
includes: demographic influences such as race, gender and geographic location;
universal service policy; children’s Internet access issues; and societal
influences on access. Following this is a description of the research
methodology and data sources that were employed in this investigation. The principal findings of the study are then
discussed. Finally, conclusions and implications regarding the importance of
this research for public policy are presented and discussed.
LITERATURE
REVIEW
Although narrowing in some areas of society, a “digital divide” still exists between those with Internet access and those without it. In many ways, the access issue is a complicated and stubborn one that touches on many factors including: need, fairness, cost, income, education, age, race, gender, and geographic location. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) indicates in its most recent report A Nation Online: How Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet (2002, February), that these factors do influence Internet access.
A
central question with respect to the provision of Internet access, is what
constitutes a fair and equitable access policy? According to Peters (1996)
“fairness is a value to which citizens expect government to assign maximum
importance”. He argues that government has the legal and economic capacity to
redistribute the inequities in the distribution of goods and services caused by
the normal operation of a market economy such as in the U.S. It is the role of
government to ensure that citizens are treated fairly in the socioeconomic and
political system (Peters, 1996, p.452-456).
The
debate about what constitutes fairness at the socioeconomic level continues.
From a conservative perspective, the notion of fairness involves allowing
individuals maximum opportunities to use their talents and abilities to keep
what they earn in society. The liberal view is that all members of a society are
entitled to have their material needs satisfied provided they are willing to
contribute their effort and abilities (Peters, 1996). The standard of fairness
applied in contemporary welfare states is generally a mix of conservative and
liberal standards.
Since the mid-1990’s, the role of the Internet as a principal information conduit and communications medium has grown rapidly in the United States. The rate of growth of Internet access across the U.S. has increased by over 200% of all households since 1994, and has grown at a rate of 20% per year since 1998 (NTIA, 2002, February, p.10). Schement argues that full-fledged access to a democratic society in the Information Age of the 21st century requires every home to be equipped with at least a telephone, and a computer with Internet access (Schement, 2000, April, p.8). However, at the same time, the widely reported “digital divide” has widened in society. This raises questions about Internet access and the notions of fairness and equity in society with regard to the societal distribution of advanced technologies such as the Internet.
Two of the
most prominent factors that influence Internet access in society are the income
and education of people who access it. One of the principal reasons that income
and education affect the growth of the digital divide is the inability of
individuals with income and educational constraints, to access the Internet.
With
each improvement in telecommunications technology, a reduction in the cost of
telecommunications hardware, including computers, has generally been observed.
When a decline in telecommunications costs is combined with a similar pattern
of decline in the cost of computer hardware, income barriers to PC ownership
and Internet access tend to fall. This line of thinking would suggest that,
given a sufficient amount of time, the digital divide should disappear.
However, the issues surrounding Internet access and ownership are much more complex than those surrounding the telephone, even though the arguments in favor are equally compelling. To begin with, income is a major factor in Internet access and ownership. Internet access tends to increase with income. Children living in households where the household head uses a computer at work and where the household has computer and Internet access are much more likely to use it than are children in households where no computer is present.
Access and ownership with respect to the Internet
has a very different meaning than access and ownership with respect to the
telephone. Considerably higher costs, due to the total cost of ownership (TCO),
are necessary in order to access the Internet. These higher access costs
include the purchase of computer hardware, software, Internet connectivity
through such means as a phone or cable line, and the selection of an Internet
Service Provider (ISP).
In addition, the costs associated with Internet
access are considerably less than those of Internet ownership. When an
individual is unable to access the Internet from the household, he or she is
forced to access the Internet in some remote location either through a public
school, a library, or through a community access center (CAC). In each of these settings, an
individual is not faced with the purchase of computer hardware, software or
connectivity because these aspects of Internet access are assumed to be already
provided at the CAC.
A comparison between ownership and access can be made on several levels including complexity of use, cost, purpose and type of worker. Ownership of computer resources entails a variety of factors and costs including hardware, software, connectivity, and training. Access to computer resources, including the Internet, on the other hand, entails principally training costs because it is assumed that ownership of computer resources are held by parties other than the users. Access to telecommunications services is only one aspect of access to this technology. Consequently, the total cost of ownership (TCO) is significantly greater than the total cost of access. The principal differences in TCO are not in the area of service, but in the areas of hardware, software, connectivity and training costs. Because the Internet is more complex to operationalize than the telephone, TCO represents a much larger cost than access to the Internet only.
Taking all categories of costs into account, Internet hardware and software ownership costs were approximately $6,000 in 1998, while telephone hardware ownership costs were only approximately $85. As a result then, it is estimated that the Internet hardware and software is more than 70 times more expensive to own than the telephone. When connectivity and both formal and informal training costs are taken into account, the difference in cost between telephone and Internet household ownership widens more. Therefore, although a very worthwhile policy, Universal Access to the Internet at home for everyone may not be a feasible option.
The
notion of equal access with respect to the Internet means that computer
hardware and software and access to transmission lines must be provided. The
probability is high that the private sector will assume a larger role in
helping realize this for more people because with improved performance at
reduced costs, the price and therefore the availability of computers will
continue to fall. This highlights the differences between the concern for
public access to universal telecommunications service and the concern for
public access to the networked information society (Xavier, 1997, p.830).
Access to both of these will be crucial in the information society in the
future.
With
regard to education, Moschella (1998) argues strongly that unless all students
are sufficiently exposed to the Internet today, those without exposure will be
at a serious disadvantage in the job market of the future. Current use patterns
among young people bear this out: children and teenagers use the Internet more
than any other age group: three fourths (75%) of those 14-17 years of age and
65% of those 10-13 years of age use the Internet (NTIA, 2002, February, p.1). It is argued that the Internet, along with
computers, can revitalize American education by transforming the typical
classroom from a teacher-directed to a student-centered environment.
Discussions
of universal Internet access in the schools have had a difficult time finding a
consensus. One debate has centered on the federal government’s efforts to
subsidize the connection of all schools and libraries to the Internet. Another
debate focuses on the perceived need for more computers in the classroom, or
the educational value of having home-based access to both PC’s and the Internet
(Moschella, 1998).
In the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, section 254 (b)(6), Congress expanded the
Universal Service concept to include support for access for the nation’s
schools and libraries. Through the implementation of this Act, the FCC
established a non-profit corporation to provide discounts in wiring the
nation’s schools and libraries up to an annual cap of $2.25 billion. Although
there appears to be widespread agreement that schools and libraries need to be
connected to the Internet, there is also serious debate about what is really
meant by connecting all schools to the Internet. Moschella (1998) indicates
that two major approaches have been discussed: the first and easiest method is
to connect any school library or a few centralized PC’s to the Internet, a task
which can be completed in a few hours with only a few modems. The second
approach is the much more difficult task of wiring every classroom in the
nation. While option one is more modest in scope, it is far more affordable
than option two, which would require a huge public investment that may be
potentially beyond what existing resources could support. Cost estimates of
wiring every classroom with one computer approach $4.5 billion per year. This
represents three times the current federal schools and libraries access
subsidies of a $1.3 billion per year cap. Current levels of expenditures are
roughly one-third of what it would cost to wire and operate one networked
computer in every classroom (Moschella, 1998, September, p.15).
Although
connecting schools to the Internet and fully wiring America’s classrooms are
very different goals, both are often used as proxies for Universal Service.
Connecting all schools and libraries to the Internet provides potentially both
real and symbolic benefits. Real benefits include the ability to send e-mail
throughout the entire educational community, access information, conduct
research online, and communicate more easily and regularly with one’s
community. Symbolic benefits in connecting all schools to the Internet include
demonstrating the country’s commitment to supporting a systematic and uniform
transition toward the information society. Since 78% of U.S. schools already
have some level of connection to the Internet, the overall costs of achieving
this effort would be modest and targeted primarily to America’s poorest
communities. In 1998 the U.S. Department of Education estimated that 935 of
schools in the U.S. with the poorest students should have Internet access.
Conversely, efforts to connect every classroom to the Internet remain expensive
and educationally uncertain. Of those schools connected to the Internet in
1998, only 27% of the classrooms were connected (Technology Counts 98).
Moschella
(1998) reasons that unless the cost of computing and Internet access falls
dramatically or the value of Internet-based education is demonstrated, the
argument for large federal subsidies for connecting every single classroom
still needs to be made. On the other hand, a more affordable public policy may
be to support connecting the poorest schools to the Internet.
Influence of Demographics on Internet Use
Although
Internet use has continued to grow at a robust rate for all segments of the
population in the U.S., the rates of growth differ depending on the segment of
society studied. Gaps in the Internet penetration rate throughout society
exist. Although not uncommon, and largely expected from the adoption of a new
technology, understanding the nature of these gaps will help with the
development of planning strategies to target universal service funds (Schement,
2000, April, p.1). A number of factors mentioned before influence the size and
nature of the observed gaps in Internet access. Factors such as: income, age,
education, gender, race, and geographic location continue to affect Internet
use in the U.S.
Income
Income
remains a critical factor in whether an individual (or household) will use the
Internet. There continues to be a strong direct relationship between income and
Internet use even though Internet use has grown considerably among people who
live in lower income households. Among those living in households earning less
than $15,000 per year, Internet use has grown from 9.2% in 1997 to 25% in 2001
(NTIA, 2002, February, p.11). Internet growth is also faster among those with
lower family incomes. Those living in households where family income is less
than $15,000 per year grew by 25% from 1998-2001, while Internet use among
those living in households with family incomes of $75,000 per year grew at a
more modest 11% per year growth rate (NTIA, 2002, February, p.12).
Age
Age is
another significant factor affecting Internet use. There is a clear inverse
relationship between Internet use and age. The likelihood that a person uses
the Internet decreases with age. Although increases in Internet use have
occurred across the age spectrum, it has increased the fastest and reached the
deepest levels of penetration among young people. Among those 9-17 years of
age, over two thirds (68.6%) currently use the Internet (NTIA, 2002, February,
p.28). A slightly smaller proportion (64.5%) of those18-49 years of age, use
the Internet at this point in time. As expected, Internet use among those 50
and older continues to lag; they exhibit the lowest levels of Internet use,
slightly over one third (37.1%)(NTIA, 2002, February, p. 28).
Gender
According
to the February 2002 NTIA study gender, overall, is no longer a factor in
Internet use, (53.9% male, and 53.8% female). However, there were significant
and opposite findings among certain segments of the population: those 25-49 and
those 50 and older. Among those in the workforce, 25-49 years of age, female
Internet use was significantly higher than that of males: 66.0% female and
61.8% male. Conversely, among those aged 50 and older, male Internet use was
significantly higher than female Internet use: 39.9% and 34.6%, respectively
(NTIA, 2002, February, p.28).
Education
Education
also continues to be a major determinant in Internet use among individuals.
Internet use remains strongly correlated with the level of education. A huge
difference in rates of Internet use remains by level of educational attainment.
Those with a bachelor’s degree or higher are more likely to be Internet users
than those with less than a high school education (83.7% and 12.8%,
respectively). However, Internet use growth rates were highest among adults
with less than a high school diploma (49% per year since 1998), and lowest
among those with a bachelor’s degree (13% per year since 1998) (NTIA, 2002,
February, p.17-18, 28-29).
Race
and Ethnic Origin
The
rates of computer and Internet use have increased over the past five years
across each racial category. Each segment of the population has made
considerable progress since 1997. However, differences in computer and Internet
use continue to exist across racial categories. Whites, Asian Americans and
Pacific Islanders continue to exhibit higher rates of Internet use than African
Americans and Hispanics (NTIA, 2002, February, p.21, 26-27). Nearly two thirds
of Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders and Whites (about 60.0% each) reported
that they use the Internet, while Internet use rates for both African Americans
(39.8%) and Hispanics (31.6%) were significantly lower. However, during this
period, the growth rates of Internet use were faster for African Americans and
Hispanics than for Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders and Whites (NTIA, 2002,
February, p.21, 26-27).
Geographic
Location
As
expected, Internet use among people who live in non-central city urban
locations reported the highest rates of Internet use (57.4%) while strong
growth rates were reported among those living in rural households (24%,
annualized since 1998) and central city urban households (19%, annualized since
1998)(NTIA, 2002, February, p.20, 28-29).
School age children who have
Internet access – whether at home, at work, or through some community based
public facility – increase their potential for economic rewards in an
Information Society. Clearly, children in households with such access tend to use the
Internet more and, thus, become familiar with the technology more quickly than
do children living in households without such access.
Providing Internet access for
anyone without in-home access through the Community Access Centers (CAC’s) is
an important policy goal of American society, and it is acutely important to
provide access to children. NTIA reports that children and teenagers use
computers and the Internet more than any other age group. Three fourths (75%)
of children 14-17 years of age and 65% of those 10-13 years of age use the
Internet (NTIA, 2002, February, p.1). Furthermore, children exhibit the highest
growth rates of Internet use (NTIA, 2002, February). By providing Internet
access for children in the public school system, public policymakers are
investing in the future of the country. A policy of providing Internet access
for children unable to afford access in the home may help bridge the gap in the
digital divide among children, a challenge which is the at the heart of
workforce issues in the information society.
An investment in the children of the information
society will improve the prospects of providing improved equity and the ability
of the country to train adequate numbers of workers to assume the jobs that are
pivotal to the new economy. In addition, it will help further society’s goals
of helping all segments of society to survive and grow in the new economy
In the long run, children without Internet access
may be at a real and serious disadvantage in U.S. society. In spite of its
potential societal cost, wider public access to the Internet may be warranted
if everyone is to share in the country’s future prosperity. In addition to
“wiring” schools, libraries, and community centers, as mandated by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, the contributions of individual state
technology policies across the U.S. will help tremendously. Furthermore,
because the impact of education on the future access and use of information
technology is so significant, the role that individual state policies can have
on helping to promote equal access and narrow the digital gap becomes critical.
In addition to significant funding for educational technology on the federal level, there is general agreement among state policymakers that the pubic school system needs more educational information technology, but there is no consensus on how to ensure that it is used efficiently and wisely. The Milken Exchange defines education technology as a seven-dimension concept for gauging the progress of introducing information technology throughout the public school system. The seven dimensions were created as a guide for educators and policymakers to use when making decisions about implementing technology in schools. They are intended to provide the educational and administrative infrastructure to create a comprehensive technology plan for educators (Milken, 1998, p.1). A national survey conducted for Education Week revealed that virtually every state had a policy plan for implementing Education Technology in the public schools, along with available funding mechanisms in place. However, far fewer states have addressed the inequities between high and low technology schools, requiring students to meet information technology standards, or ensuring that teachers demonstrate that they can use technology in the classroom.
According to
the Milken Exchange, if schools are to realize the benefits from an investment
in Education Technology: teachers and students must have adequate and equitable
access to hardware and network connections. In addition, states must provide
the schools with the capacity to use information technology in a meaningful way
by designing solid technology plans and offering adequate teacher training and
technical support. Finally, teachers and students alike must use technology in
effective ways in order to learn the most about its potential (Craig & Orlofsky, 1999, September
23, p.58-69). This means that the
emphasis needs to shift away from games, e-mail and “chat rooms” to news,
information gathering and other endeavors such as career development and
placement, and job search.
The
Universal Service debate continues to persist. There are still widely differing
views about which technologies should be provided on a universal basis. Some
people believe that access to many of the telecommunications services is a
basic human right. According to this view, every person in the U.S. has a right
to these services merely by virtue of being a citizen (Sawhney, 1994, p.378).
Blackman (1993) writes that access to telecommunications services is a basic
right of all citizens (the right to communicate), which is essential for full
participation in the community and is a basic element of the right to freedom
of expression. Policymakers have wrestled with the question of whether everyone
in society has or should have access to advanced telecommunications technology
such as the Internet. “For most of the 20th century, universal service has been
the foundation of information policy” (Mueller, 1993, p.353).
There
is no clear consensus on the definition and scope of universal service. The
debate runs so deep that it entails basic distinctions between the provision of
universal service for information or for communication. For example, Xavier
(1997) contends that the concept is based on the idea that telecommunications
are so basic to commerce and society that everyone should have access to a
basic level of telecommunications services if they are to participate in a
meaningful way in modern society.
Schement
(1996) argues that in its simplest terms, the concept of universal service is
based on the belief that everyone should have the opportunity to interconnect
with whomever they wish at a reasonable cost. He goes on to write that
universal service is not a single policy written by a government agency, but
rather a guiding principle of the information society. Here, questions regarding
which rights to information, and protection from information belong to all
people regardless of wealth, position or status, in a democratic society.
Sawhney argues that the development of universal service is a function of
politics, economics, and social values and that the specific characteristics of
a telecommunication technology or service are less important (Sawhney, 1994,
p.375).
One of
the most frequently cited reasons for promoting universal service is the
pursuit of social fairness and equality of opportunity. Those who believe
society can be improved with increased access to information and improved
communication believe it is right and just to provide access to information
services to everyone in society (Rawls, 1996, p.7). Schement et al. (1996) sees
a need for advanced telecommunications services such as the Internet, to assist
the achievement of fairness and justice in society. He believes that the new
information infrastructure, which includes the Internet, may empower the
disenfranchised and improve their lives (p. 4). Smith (1995), on the other
hand, argues that people need a certain level of information to participate and
succeed in a modern market economy and society, and the public benefit is great
enough that it should be provided for free.
Another
socioeconomic reason to pursue a universal service policy is that information
is vital to social and economic development (Drucker, 1994). Hudson (1996)
states that access to information and the ability to share information (and
communication) are critical to the development process. Access to information
allows people to obtain needed help, to communicate with family and friends, to
upgrade the quality of local education and social services, and to run
businesses and government activities.
One of
the most common arguments for expanding universal access to the Internet is
that of enhancing education. The central role of educational institutions in
the debate over universal access to the Internet has been widely understood for
some time. Many prominent educators have voiced strong support for the FCC
mandate under the 1996 Act that universal access be extended to the Internet,
particularly for educational institutions.
Hudson
(1996) also notes that access to new telecommunications policies enhances the
chances of developing structures for improving access to and expanding distance
education. In light of the Telecommunication Act of 1996, there appears to be
wide political consensus on the general goal of universal access, but few
specific details on an acceptable plan of action.
The reasons that expanded access to advanced computer and information services are important to education have been explored from various perspectives. One approach, discussed by Companie and Weintraub (1997), is the development of a new literacy, which reflects the strong interaction and skills of both communications and computers. They define the new literacy as the ability to use and work with the new computer and information systems, which is becoming easier to master as technology moves toward computer operations, which follow more closely human thought and abilities. Trauth defines this as “information literacy” (Trauth 1983, Trauth et.al. 1991). Over time, those skilled in newer methods will be able to explore fresh approaches to problems using information provided by the Internet.
There
appears to be empirical support linking success in education and online access
to the Internet. One of the first studies to compare the performance of
students with online access to those without such access found a significant
difference in developed skills in information management, communication, and
presentation of ideas (Follansbee,
1996). They argue that online communications have the strongest potential for
breaking down the inequities faced by students of different socioeconomic,
racial, and other backgrounds (Follansbee, 1996, p.4).
A
decision to fund advanced telecommunications services, such as the Internet,
through the Universal Service program is dependent in large part on societal
needs and demands. Societal demands on access to and delivery of services that
are being placed on the current telecommunications system continue to increase
as we evolve from a manufacturing-based society to an information-based
society. The increasing demand for information and the technological
capabilities to meet that increasing demand continue to grow. This, in turn,
places greater demands on the capabilities of the current telecommunications system.
Through the use of advanced technologies, such as fiber optics and digital
switching, the telecommunications industry has been able to respond to these
demands, providing ever-greater capacity and improved service.
A
study by the Benton Foundation highlights three points that need to be kept in
mind by policymakers and public interest advocates. The first involves the
notion of contributory and distributive fairness, whereby recipients of
internal transfer payments must be “deserved” and that the fee required to
maintain these transfers be fairly distributed. Public interest advocates
suggest that a policy initiative will lose political viability if it is
believed that, through the method of funding, some are unfairly profiting at
the expense of others or that some are unfairly able to avoid their financial
obligation contributions. The second point is that any new proposed mechanism
of funding must be politically sustainable, thereby representing a politically
stable coalition of interests. While not sufficient, contributory and
distributive fairness are both necessary to political sustainability. The third
point involves the promotion of economic efficiency. In order to promote a
stable efficiency, the proposed method of funding must not create purely financial
incentives for service providers to engage in activities that exist solely so
that they can avoid participating in intra-system transfers. Furthermore, in
order to meet a goal of dynamic efficiency, which can evolve over time, it is
critical that the chosen funding method does not discourage the development of
new technologies and services (Benton Foundation, 1996).
A
number of authors, including Hudson (1996), have indicated that current
societal influences on services provided by universal telecommunications
service can be grouped in the following way. The first involves the demand that
providing justice, fairness, and equity to all segments of society (Rawls,
1996), be linked to political demands for redistribution of resources in
society. The second involves issues around safety and security (including
emergency access). The third is linked to access to appropriate healthcare and
the fourth to access to education, knowledge, and economic well being. Other
influences include the societal goal of providing basic services to people.
Providing universal telephone service was viewed by many as an important way in
which an equitable distribution of resources could be achieved throughout
society.
Hudson
(1996) further argues that with improvements in global, telecommunications
technology, there are no longer any excuses to deny service to any remote or
difficult to reach location. This is due to improvements in both hardware,
through more powerful computers and faster and more powerful digital telephone
capacity, and in software, through the development of sophisticated local area
networks (LAN’s) and the Internet. As telecommunications services such as
Internet access are provided to educational institutions and libraries, access
to knowledge and education will be greatly improved. Hudson believes that it is
in this realm that the Internet offers the greatest promise.
Political/Governmental Influences on Universal
Service
The
role of institutional dynamics in the political arena and on the industrial/organizational
level has enormous influence in determining universal service policy. On all
levels of government, the ability of lawmakers to shape policy will continue to
have far-reaching affects on the telecommunications industry and universal
service. However, since government tends to resist change, the development of
innovative policy alternatives is often made more difficult by the nature of
the political process. Unless forced to recognize change in society,
legislative government at all levels generally favors the status quo. Many
believe there needs to be a preponderance of evidence to force a legislative
body to make significant changes in laws that determine a policy (Policy Change
and Deregulation, p. 1-3).
At the
sub-governmental level, legislative subcommittees can either offer more
incentives for policy change or be more resistant. In either case, decisions
made at this level often play an important role in shaping an appropriate
change in policy. It is at this level that intra and inter committee
discussions take place and policy formation and recommendations are made
(Rochefort, 1994). On the national level for instance, congressional committees
and subcommittees, debate issues related to policy initiatives such as
universal service, with agencies in the executive branch. It is here that
efforts are made to resolve issues and reach a consensus in order to affect the
outcome of a proposed policy initiative.
It is
at this stage that policy change, such as changes in the provision of universal
service, can occur. Currently, the courts, along with regulatory agencies, have
pledged to uphold the policy of increasing competition within the
telecommunications industry. (Policy Change & Deregulation, p.1) This
reflects a policy of increasing the provision of universal service in both the
industry and in society. Because Congress and other legislative bodies can be
slow, unresponsive and indecisive in resolving issues in need of action,
realizing change within a formal legislative action often takes a great deal of
time. This can indirectly serve to slow progress in changing the universal
service program.
Economic Influences on Universal Service
In
order to reach more people and organizations in a competitive marketplace and
in order to expand existing or open new markets, economic influences are
affecting the provision and the pace of introduction of new telecommunications
products and services. Therefore, there are continual demands on universal
service to expand access and improve services.
Many argue
that with the increasing use of the Internet, those without access would be at
a serious communications and knowledge disadvantage. Their ability to acquire
needed goods and services, for industry or individuals quickly and more cost
effectively could be severely limited.
For
individuals, increased universal service penetration among groups without
Internet service or at the margin, such as minorities and the elderly, improved
services will be realized. These services can range from package delivery to
medical, improved safety and emergency services. For businesses and other
organizations, increased telephone and Internet penetration rates could only
serve to help expand their markets as more people, now in the marketplace, can
be contacted through either a telephone or the Internet. Current trends in the
telecommunications industry indicate that the Internet is being used
increasingly by firms and organizations for commercial promotion and
advertisement.
Technological Influences on Universal Service
Continued
improvements in telecommunications and communications hardware, software, and
organizational technology have helped to greatly improve the flow of
information throughout society and make it easier and cheaper to access
information. A consequence of greater ease in the flow of information is that
government policymakers, along with both public and private organizations, have
been forced to review current universal service policy to meet changing demands
and access for information.
For
example, the improved access to emergency services through enhanced caller 911
service, has put pressure on policymakers to include 911 service as part of the
basic universal service package. Advances in cellular phone technology have
improved the coordination of transportation services for needy groups such as
the elderly and those physically or mentally impaired. In addition, others
write that the profound growth and continued development of the Internet is
forcing telecommunications manufacturers to re-examine the definition and scope
of universal service policy and to counsel policymakers (Canavan, 1997).
From both a societal and an economic perspective, expanding the provision of universal service is increasingly being viewed as a necessity. Without access to advanced telecommunications services, many individuals and socioeconomic groups are at a distinct disadvantage in terms of access to shopping, banking, real estate, and increasingly, other financial markets such as the stock market.
Previous research, most notably that conducted in
the NTIA study, found that individual demographic, social and economic
characteristics were related to Internet use. Our research extends this work by
focusing on school age children.[1]
Using data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) we explored two themes
about the digital divide among school age children. First, we examined the
degree to which the variation in Internet use among school age children by
individual and family, social and economic characteristics can be explained by
the availability of family computing resources and expertise. Second, we
examined the degree to which school computing resources and expertise were
compensated for, and explained, the variation in Internet use by individual and
family, social and economic characteristics, and which were explained by the
availability of family computing resources and expertise.
Methodology
The methodology used to address the questions raised about differences in Internet use among school-age children was a quantitative empirical analysis of a continuing national survey -- Current Population Survey (CPS) -- of about 57,000 households. As part of this survey, the CPS, in conjunction with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) specifically designed a set of supplemental questions regarding access and use of the Internet and attached them onto the December 1998 CPS monthly survey.
The methodology used here was developed in the following way. To begin with, overall Internet use was described using the CPS sample for the U.S. as a whole for both adults and for school age children. The NTIA digital divide study was examined according to socioeconomic, demographic and geographic characteristics. Then a subset of the population, school age children 6-17 years of age, was extracted from the overall population and analyzed. Results of this analysis were obtained through a series of frequency, cross tabulation, and logistical regression analyses performed on a subset of independent and dependent variables on data selected from the CPS and consistent with NTIA findings.
Next, the principal factors that explain the digital divide were examined. This analysis focused on the access to and use of the Internet among school age children at the following three levels of aggregation. First, Internet use was examined at the individual level according to age, gender, race and household type. Second, it was examined at the household level which includes home based resources such as household income and education, where a computer was available at home, where Internet access was available outside the home, and where household members use a computer at work. The examination concluded at the community/state level of community-based resources where computers are accessible outside the home, where geographic location was important and where public school level resources for education technology exist.
Following this, we explored school level resource
variables at the public school level, which reflect state level resources that
may affect Internet use among children. From this, we examined the factors that
most influence Internet use among children, and whether the digital divide
among children could be diminished through state intervention by allocating
state funding resources to education.
Finally, the extent to which home and public school
resources, such as income and education, explain differences in Internet use
among school-age children and adults was examined through the use of
cross-tabulations and logistical regression analysis on the selected
independent and dependent variables used in this study.
The analytical model used in this study, considers Internet use among children on an individual level, a household level, and on a public school/community level. Using this model, we examined Internet usage according to demographic, geographic, and access independent variables.
The methodology used to analyze questions raised about Internet use among school age children was developed in two stages. First, a set of frequencies was developed and run through The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for each independent and dependent variable selected for study in order to examine and describe the principal characteristics of the variables in the study. Then, the relationships between the set of principal independent variables and the key dependent variables were examined through the development and analysis of a set of SPSS cross-tabulations and logistical regression. These cross-tabulations and regressions were developed for each of the independent variables on the three levels of analysis described above, against the dependent variable, Internet use for any reason. For each independent variable, Internet use was examined while controlling for a number of independent variables, both natural and constructed, such as: age, income, education, socioeconomic status (SES) resources, and Internet use both inside and outside the home.
In addition, we examined the question of differences in use of the Internet inside the home, outside the home, anywhere, and at school. First, the aim was to develop, expand and extend the analytical model used for the analysis of the characteristics of those who currently use the Internet, which was conducted by NTIA in its February 2002 report.
Then, an in depth revisit of Internet access within different contexts of use was made. In particular, the role of state education technology policy in promoting equal Internet access was examined. An analysis of the data at the individual and household levels was conducted similar to that previously conducted by NTIA, but included access and use of the Internet for adults, within the context of Universal Service. This data was then combined with community/state level data from the U.S. Department of Education and Education Week, through surveys conducted by the Milken Exchange. These surveys indicated the extent to which state policy affects access and use of the Internet among school age children, and ultimately, the provision of Internet access in schools, libraries and community centers.
This investigation focused on Internet access among school age children 6 – 17 years of age, as represented in the CPS survey, and the variables used to model differences in access, represent a subset of the descriptive variables used by NTIA in their overall study. The chosen variables represented those characteristics, which were central to an accurate description and measurement, for direct comparison between these two groups.
In order to learn about the characteristics of this group, several CPS independent variables were recoded for the purpose of focusing on children. The independent variables used in this analysis included: gender, race, age, income, education, household type, adult use both within and outside the home, and geographic location. The dependent variable examined was Internet usage for any reason.
In order to delineate between individual household and community levels, the CPS data were aggregated into 48 million individual records, which represents an estimate of the number of school age children in the U.S. The CPS data were aggregated at the family level, including adult use of the Internet outside and inside the home, in order to look at available resources for children. The analysis included individual impacts of the following variables: gender, race, age, income, education, household type, geographic location, socioeconomic status, presence of Internet connectivity, a computer or a laptop, adult use both inside and outside the home, classes with Internet access, e-mail access of teachers, and school computing resources and expertise on Internet use among school age children. These selected variables represented a subset of the demographic characteristics of groups in the U.S., which identify key differences in access and use of the Internet among school age children.
Two secondary sources of information were utilized in this paper. The first came from NTIA, whose July 1999 report was based on data collected from the Current Population Survey (CPS) administered through the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. The second came from data obtained from a 1998 nationwide school survey conducted by Education Week in collaboration with the Milken Exchange on education policy and the U.S. Department of Education.
The data used in this study consists of the monthly CPS Survey data for December of 1998. In this December 1998 national monthly survey, the census bureau interviewed approximately 48,000 randomly selected sample households. The CPS and Computer and Internet Use Supplement samples were selected from the 1990 decennial census files, which cover all fifty states and the District of Columbia. The sample was continually updated to account for new residential construction (NTIA, 1999, July, p. xv-xvi).[2]
The findings from this study indicate that those
most likely to have Internet access tend to be young, of either gender, white,
educated and with high household incomes, come from two parent households, and
tend to access the Internet from either home or from work. Those groups without
access were found to be the elderly and the very young, African American and
Hispanic, have lower income levels, are less educated, and come from single parent
homes. They also are more likely to access the Internet from a community action
center such as a school, library, or community center.
Among school age children, certain selected
individual and family characteristics are highly associated with Internet use.
Characteristics such as race, household type, and geographic location were
found to be important factors in explaining observed differences in Internet
use among school age children.
Certain family resources were highly correlated with
Internet use among school age children. Family resources such as income,
education, and socioeconomic status were highly correlated with Internet use
among school age children. The higher the levels of these resources available
in households, the higher the rates of Internet use among children. Children
living in households with high levels of these resources are more likely able
to use the computer systems purchased by adults in the households.
Family computing resources and expertise were highly
associated with both selected individual and family characteristics and
resources. As the level of certain family resources increases, the more likely
that high levels of family computing resources and expertise exist in a
household. Among some of the more important family resources examined were:
presence of a personal computer or laptop in the home; adult use of the
Internet outside the home; adult use of the Internet within the home; and
overall family computing resources and expertise.
Controlling for family computing resources and
expertise accounts for the impact that family computing resources and expertise
has on Internet use among school age children. As the available level of family
computing resources and expertise increases from no resources to intensive
resources, differences in Internet use by school age children by gender, race,
household type, geographic location, income and education, tend to disappear.
The effects of family computing resources and expertise have been observed to
have a greater individual impact on Internet use than either family income or
family education alone.
The effects of school computing resources and
expertise on Internet use among school age children are significantly less than
the affects of family computing resources and expertise on Internet use among
school age children. However, as the levels of school computing resources and
expertise increase, there is still a strong positive effect on Internet use
among school age children. The effect is just not as strong as that of family
computing resources and expertise. The effects of school computing resources
and expertise have the greatest impact on children living in households with no
family computing resources and expertise or with modest levels of resources
only. In these cases, the effects are larger because schools often represent
the only exposure some children have to the Internet.
This study shows that overall Internet access costs
consist of much more than just the cost of connectivity. In addition to
connectivity fees, the availability of Internet hardware, software, and support
resources are critical in determining, ultimately, whether significant Internet
connectivity is achievable throughout society. A large number of people have at
least some access to the Internet at home, at work, at school or at a community
access center. More important than basic connectivity is access to modern
technology that allows reasonable access to the Internet and, importantly, access
to the expertise in computers and the Internet in the home that allows a child
to learn in an informal and peer support manner. Many firms in the private
sector pay significant fees for computer expertise and training, on both a
formal and an informal basis. Contrary to the belief of many, operation of the
Internet requires certain skills such as computer familiarity and literacy.
When we looked at Internet access with regard to
overall costs, a single, dominating factor appeared: home resources and expertise.
The effect of family resources and expertise on Internet access among school
age children is without doubt, the single most important factor in determining
whether school age children access the Internet. The higher the level of
computing resources available in a household, the higher the likelihood that
children within a household will access the Internet. As a result of this
finding, one clear goal would be to promote in-house Internet access.
However, there is some evidence that schools are a factor
when school age children do not have the resources to access the Internet at
home. We found evidence that school computing resources do make a difference in
Internet access when school age children have little or no home based computing
resources or expertise. School based resources can mitigate this mismatch in
access according to available family resources. But tragically, perhaps, the
data shows that the distribution of family computing resources continues to be
unevenly distributed in society, particularly among school age children.
Consequently, these findings have had a multiple
effect on Internet use among children. These conclusions must be kept in mind
within the context of other independent factors such as changing technology,
improving efficiency and speed, and continually declining costs.
The recommendations that flow from the conclusions
fall into two main categories: private and public responses. Private sector
initiatives would allow market forces to reduce the principal cost barriers to
Internet access faced by many people. As the findings show, there appears to be
a demonstrated need to foster family computing resources and expertise. As the
costs of computer technology continue to decline, there are indications that cheap,
computing resources in the household for family members, primarily children, to
access the Internet will become more and more available. This could essentially
define a private sector policy and demonstrate the commercial reasons for
insuring that a greater number of people have access to the Internet.
Private sector initiatives could be supplemented with public sector policy initiatives. There are a number of alternatives that the public sector could adopt to help close the digital divide, particularly among school age children. First, the cost issue of Internet access could be addressed by an expanded Universal Service program that provided funding for hardware, software and support for households. Based on their research, The Gartner Group indicated that Internet access should be targeted to students, not just schools. They state, “While programs that provide Internet access in the classroom are good stop gap measures, access in the homes should be the long-term goal” (Smolinski, 2000, October, p.5).
Second, the public sector could seek to strengthen the community access centers (CAC’s) that currently serve as a bridge between those who can and those who currently cannot access the Internet for primarily economic reasons. CAC’s are currently the most cost effective way to increase Internet access for those unable to purchase access on their own. However, this solution would primarily address access problems for adults more than school age children.
Finally, perhaps the most
reasonable alternative would be to continue to strengthen school computing
resources and expertise by increasing the level of computing resources in the
schools. By providing Internet access in every classroom through the Universal
Service program and through individual state education technology programs,
this alternative would obviously benefit school age children the most.
As household penetration rates of the Internet
continue to climb, and as more people become accustomed to using it, the market
potential for more households to enter the world of e-commerce will grow.
The ability to buy and
sell goods and services within the home 24 hours a day is the dream of both
consumers and businesses. As the prices of both hardware and software continue
to decline along with technological changes, a wider range of people will be
able to afford a computer system and Internet access. However, as technology
evolves, the purchase of computer systems to run the Internet may no longer be
required. Eventually, people will be able to access the Internet very
inexpensively through such remote devices as cellular telephones, personal
digital assistants and television sets.
The cost factor is one of the most significant in
determining household ownership of computers or access to the Internet. The
expanded policy is further complicated by the increasing role that individual
states are now playing in this process, primarily with regard to providing Internet
access in the schools. Not only do states function on different organizational
levels, but also, a policy can be implemented by a different agency with a
different, sub-national perspective. However, good intentioned a policy may be,
implementation can be complicated and difficult. The basic reasoning behind
this policy, which says that Universal Service must be extended from the
provision of telephone service to computer service, may be flawed. In addition,
implementation of such a policy is inherently difficult. Pressman found that
implementation was more difficult than previously thought primarily because it
is on a different level of cost (Pressman, 1973, p.xii).
Since technological change occurs on an ever-shrinking
cycle -- currently, about three years -- a policy that can deal with these
changes on a methodical basis needs to be found. Hardware costs continue to
decline and therefore Internet access costs decline as a result.
Changing technology allows the Internet to become
more user friendly, audio sensitive and responsive. Changing technology also
allows for possibly cheaper and more user friendly designed systems, and for
cheaper free individual Internet and e-mail account access. This, in turn,
forces Web and Internet designers to become more user friendly in order to
increase Internet penetration rates and to expand e-commerce among both
households and businesses.
In order to improve and intensify efforts to address
this issue, and given the limited societal resources available, we need to
examine whether a further infusion of public funds would be the most beneficial
alternative for improving Internet access for children, and where they would be
most beneficial for society. Thus, it is important to consider the public
policy implications of our research findings. Where should efforts in closing
the Digital Divide among school age children be concentrated? Alternative
policies on the principle goal of improving equity in Internet access can be
grouped into three types: Community Access Centers (CAC’s), the Universal
Service program, and through individual state Education Technology policies.
As part of a policy of providing access to all segments of society, policymakers could increase spending on Community Access Centers (CAC‘s). NTIA supported that conclusion and stated in the Digital Divide study that part of the short-term solution to improving Internet access among school age children is to continue to provide Internet access at CAC’s. Providing Internet access to such external sources is crucial to those with low incomes (NTIA, 1999, July, p.78). In addition, NTIA indicated that the data supports the argument for continued funding of CAC’s by both industry and government through programs such as the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP). TIIAP has already funded a number of pioneering CAC efforts (NTIA, 1999, July, p.78).
Some states have expanded the notion of community Internet access still further. In Boston, Massachusetts and Fairfax County, Virginia, for instance, kiosks have been set up to allow people without Internet access at home or at work, to access the Internet more easily (Smolinski, 2000, October, p.1). Upgraded CAC’s could be supplied with an expanded number of state-of-the-art desktop computers with Internet connections. Additional software for purposes ranging from self exploratory career development and job search to new learning techniques, could be installed in these machines in order to improve the tools available to individuals -- both adult and school age children -- for information gathering, research, and exploration. These centers could then provide continuous, ongoing free training to people with income and educational constraints. These CAC’s could be staffed with trained professionals, perhaps secured part-time or on a community service basis.
The passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ushered
in a new array of services for the Universal Service program. New, expanded
services have now added advanced telecommunications services throughout
society. With the emergence of new facilities however, a number of questions
have arisen that seek to explore a national policy aimed at providing Internet
access to everyone. The logic behind this policy is that if it worked for the
telephone, then it should work on the more complex level of the computer and
the Internet.
The principal intent of expanding Universal Service policy is to begin to provide Internet access equitably throughout society, and thereby realize economic opportunities in the future. NTIA points out that at the present time, cost factors are still important in explaining why some people do not have Internet access. They suggest that we need to encourage expansion of broadband networks to rural and other underserved areas in the U.S. (NTIA, 1999, July, p.78). Hudson (1996, December 10) supports this notion and proposes the authorization of development agencies to advocate telecommunications policies that serve the goals of economic development by reviewing such factors as service access, quality, and pricing in regional and local markets.
Given the impact of family computing resources and expertise on Internet use among school age children, one obvious solution might be to target funds to households that currently are without computers or Internet access. Smolinski states in the Gartner report that, “access in the homes should be the long-term goal” (Smolinski, 2000, October, p.5). Public assistance and support to equip households with the necessary computer equipment could potentially be provided through the Universal Service program. With adequate funding, more households with lower levels of available family computing resources and expertise could be supported, allowing household members to access the Internet and provide access and support to children in the household. This addresses in a direct way the issue of in-home training of the Internet for children, something that has been demonstrated to be the most effective way for school age children to eventually access the Internet.
Implementation of the expanded Universal Service
policy is complicated by a number of factors including need, cost, definition,
conflicting intentions and varying impacts. To begin with, not everyone has the
same set of information and communication needs and desires. This complicates
the design of an appropriate policy for everyone. Some still suggest that it would
be most efficient and cost effective to provide one type of service for
everyone. Schement, on the other hand, suggests “bundling” essential
telecommunications services that offer consumers a menu of possible
technologies governed by universal service policies (Schement, 2000, April,
p.8).
In addition, there is a world of difference between
Internet access and ownership of Internet access devices. Household ownership
of Internet access devices includes the purchase of computer hardware and
software, a means of achieving connectivity, and payment of various fees.
Access in various locations including work and CAC’s avoid such personal costs.
However, the confusion in terms of the definition of what it means to access
the Internet can affect the public’s perception of Internet usage throughout
the country. Because the Internet has become so widespread in society, the
opportunities for a wide variety of forces to influence its development and
deployment, such as the individual states that want to exert some control, are
enormous.
The role of the individual states is important in
helping the Universal Service program expand and close the gaps in Internet
access and use among school aged children. This can be accomplished by
increasing individual state funding targeted to education technology, which
will be earmarked for schools. Additional state funding will help supplement
the e-rate federal subsidy.
State supplemental funding commitments are important
to the success of the nation’s policy of wiring America’s schools. State
funding commitments are vital because richer states have an advantage over
poorer ones in providing children with the future tools they will need to
compete in the information age of the future.
The importance of state commitments to education
technology cannot be understated. As Trauth (2000) points out:
“One of the most important dimensions of the human resource issue is having an educational infrastructure that is consistent with the skill needs of the information economy. Such an educational infrastructure encompasses not only what is studied, but also the plan for how it is to be studied and how the subject matter is to be kept compatible with the ever-changing IT sector” (Trauth, 2000, p.356).
However, not all states are addressing inequities
between low and high technology schools by requiring students to meet
technology standards or by demanding that prospective and current teachers
demonstrate they can use technology in the classroom. Far fewer states target
technology funds to reduce inequity, according to the survey conducted by the
Milken Exchange for Education Week. Only 23 states reported that they
target education technology funds to reduce computer and Internet access
inequity throughout their individual states. A significant number of states
that reported that they allocated state funds for education technology in FY 98
did not target poorer school districts or students according to principal
measures of poverty such as participation in a school lunch program. Instead,
the funds were distributed on an equal, per pupil basis or on an equal
enrollment basis.
According to the Milken Exchange’s report on
education technology, the following 23 states targeted state funds for
education technology with a policy intended to reduce inequity among students’
access and use of the Internet in their respective school systems. They are:
Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont,
Washington and Wisconsin.
Most of the states indicated that they targeted
state funds to poor and urban school districts, high poverty schools, and
schools with technology needs and are unable to afford to meet them. Decisions
to fund targeted schools and school districts are based on accepted measures of
poverty, high percentage of disadvantaged students, low property values, low
technology, and lower school performance in student achievement (Milken
Exchange, The State Financial Commitment, p.1-22).
Do state education technology policies have a
significant impact in furthering efforts to reduce the digital divide, and are
there significant differences by state? The data seem to indicate that state
efforts have had minimal effects thus far. Interestingly, current national
targets on wiring of schools appear to be on track, according to the U.S.
Department of Education.
While there appears to be strong public support for
more technology use in the schools, there is no consensus among education
experts about whether increased amounts of technology in the schools is
measurably improving education. There is a difference of opinion with regard to
the purpose and perceived goals of education technology and whether
policymakers and educators can measure the success of a policy of implementing
education technology. Many view the main purpose of education technology as
preparing students and young people for the workplace and will measure its
success in terms of workplace success. However, there are others who believe
that education technology should be used mainly to raise test scores (Trotter,
1998, p.3).
What are the principal goals of education
technology? First, parents and many business leaders view it as a means to
prepare students for the workplace (Trotter, 1998, p.2). Others view education
technology as a way to improve student achievement on standardized test scores.
Still others view it as a way to improve the school “climate” by involving
parents, motivating students, and making schools run better. Finally, many view
it as a way to foster education reforms, such as making classrooms
learner-centered, changing how teachers teach and for improving assessments
(Trotter, 1998, p.3).
Trotter points out that the effectiveness of
education technology is dependent upon which major goals educators choose to
pursue. One who views the main purpose of education technology as preparing
students for the workplace, is likely to have a very different idea of how to
measure its success than one who believes it should be used mainly to raise
test scores. Education professor Larry Cuban of Stanford University believes
that educators need to agree on and clarify their goals in using education
technology before suitable answers can likely appear. “The obligation is for
educators, practitioners, educational policymakers to think about what it is
they are after”. He adds, “Only with clear goals can educators be intelligent
about how much they want to spend for what purpose, and under what conditions”
(Trotter, 1998, p.3).
Emerging from the findings of this study is a number of issues. These issues have implications for both private and public sector policy. These issues also call for more detailed future research. There is a need for further investigation of these issues with better measures for variables such as school computing resources and expertise. In this way, narrowing the Digital Divide can be viewed as a joint effort achieved through a combination of further research and policy initiatives at both the state and the national levels.
REFERENCES
The
Benton Foundation (1996). “What Services Should be Universal?”, p.1, (http://www.benton.org/Library/Stake/uniserv/services.html),
(1999).
Blackman, Colin R. (1993). “Universal Service: Obligation or Opportunity,” Telecommunications Policy, vol.19, n.3, p.172-74.
Canavan, John, E. (1997, November). “Universal Service Policy in the United States: Where Do We Go From Here?” Telecommunications, vol.31, n.11, p.45-48.
Cleary, Paul. (2001). An Analysis of Internet Use among Children in the Age of Information. Unpublished Dissertation, Northeastern University, Boston.
Companie, Benjamin M. & Weintraub, Mitchell, J. (1997). “Universal Access to Online Services: An Examination of the Issue”, Telecommunications Policy, vol.21, n.1, p.15-33.
Craig, Jerald D. & Orlofsky, Greg F. (1999, September 23). “Raising the Bar on School Technology”, Technology Counts ’99, Education Week, vol.19, n.4, p.58-69.
Drucker, Peter, F. (1994, November). “The Age of Social Transformation”, The Atlantic Monthly, p. 53-80.
Follansbee, Sari & Gilsdorf, Niki (1996, October 16). “The Role of Online Communications in School: A National Study”, Center for Applied Special Technology, Peabody, MA.
Hudson, Heather, A., (1996, December 10). “Universal Service: the Rural Challenge, Changing Requirements and Policy Options”, Benton Foundation, Communications Policy Working Paper Number 2, Washington, D.C. http://www.benton.org/Library/Rural/working 2.html, (24 November 1998).
Internet Software Consortium, 2000.
The Milken Exchange (1998). “Technology Counts”: State of the States Report. Education Week, p.1-94.
Moschella,
David & Atkinson, Robert, (1998, September). “The Internet and Society”. Progressive
Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.
Mueller, Milton (1993). “Universal Service in Telephone History: A Reconstruction”, Telecommunications Policy, vol.12, no. 7, p.352-369.
Peters,
Guy (1996). American Public Policy, Promise and Performance, 4th
Edition, Chatham House Publications, Inc., Chatham, NJ.
“Policy
Change and Deregulation: “Explaining Differences in Legislative Outcomes”, http://www.fsu.edu/’spap/orgs/aspa/vol.3,no.1/knott.html.
Pool,
I.S. (1983). Technologies of Freedom, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Pressman,
Jeffrey & Woldavsky, Aaron (1973). Implementation, University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.
Rawls, John (1996). Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press. New York.
Rochforte, David & Cobb, Roger (1994). The Politics of Problem Definition, University Press of Kansas.
Sawhney, Harmeet (1994, Fall). “Universal Service: Prosaic Motives and Great Ideals”, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, vol.38 (4), p.375-395.
Schement Jorge, R. (1996, December 10). “Beyond Universal Service: Characteristics of Americans Without Telephones 1980-1993.” Telecommunications Policy, vol.19, (6), p.477-485.
Schement, Jorge R. & Forbes, Scott C. (2000, April). “Identifying Temporary and Permanent Gaps in Universal Service”, Information Society, vol.16, n.2, p.117-127.
Schement, Jorge, R., Pressman, R.R., & Povish, L. (1996, December 9). “Transcending Access Toward a New Universal Service”. The Benton Foundation, p.1-8. http:benton.org/Policy/Uniserv/Conference/transcend.html, (1998, November 24).
Smith, James C. (1995, December 6). “Universal Service: The Stakeholder Response”, New York Law School, The Benton Foundation. http://www.benton.org/Policy/Uniserv/Conference/smith.html (1999, December 23).
Smolinski,
Mark, (2000, October). “The Digital Divide and American Society”, The Gartner
Group, pp.1-34.
“Technology
Counts 98, The State of the States,” Education Week, p.1-23, (www.
Edweek.org/sreports/tc98/st/st-n.htm).
Telecommunications
Act of 1996. PL
104-104.
Trauth,
Eileen, M., (2000). The Culture of An Information Economy, Influences and
Impacts in the Republic of Ireland, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
The Netherlands.
Trauth, E.M. (1983). “Information Literacy Course: A Recommended