Masters Degree: Library and Information Science, Specilization-Information Science MLIS Thesis: Rough Draft: Compare And Contrast: Digital Divide US To Digital Exclusion UK

Chapter I : The Digital Divide Defined

Introduction 1.1

          Access to the Internet has been touted as the last great equalizer (Macleod-Ball, Calabrese, & Stanley, 2010).   The Internet has the possibility of providing almost endless benefits to members of the society (Hoffman & Novak, 1998).   Individuals who have access to the Internet have been granted a tremendous boon by its presence and its power to alter society for the better (Hoffman & Novak, 1998).  “The Internet is widely regarded as a development of vast significance that will affect nearly every aspect of human culture and commerce in ways still only dimly discernible” (Internet, 2009).  Purportedly, the introduction of the Internet has also introduced the possibility of “leveling the playing field” for minorities living in American society (Macleod-Ball et al., 2010, p.10).

Thesis Statement 1.2    

            It has been argued by some that the digital divide is merely an extension of the racial divide; the digital divide is extending out along racial lines, “the gap for race is not decreasing” (Hoffman & Novak, 1998, p.1).  This thesis reviews the literature about the digital divide with a specific emphasis on what previous research has to say about whether the social wounds imparted by America’s racist legacy may begin to be healed through universal access to the Internet.  Racism and social inequality are huge and pressing issues in America and around the world (Hawke, 2009).  In my opinion, if the Internet has the potential to begin to heal the wounds and damage caused by the historical subjugation of individuals with a darker hue of skin, then inequality in access to the Internet is of great concern.  In order to address the problem we must first evaluate where we are insofar as solving the Internet access problem is concerned (Tady, 2010). 

          The intent of this review is to compare the research literature on the digital divide in the U.S. to that of Great Britain, our closest English-speaking ally (Harris, 2005).  The formative questions that guide this review are:  What is the state of access to the Internet in the U.S. and what is the state of internet access in Great Britain?  The political stability of the U.S. rests on its ability to compete and keep abreast of current technological trends in order to remain competitive within the global economy (Brown, 2009).  In addition, “reducing conflict and advancing democracy have been closely aligned with improvements in communications technologies; the Internet is the latest tool to augur more harmonious relations among people” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 1).  The review will conclude by making recommendations of various “best practices” that may be utilized to bridge the digital divide in the U.S., including those culled from our British allies (Foley, et al., 2003). 

        To begin on the journey to harmony among all Americans, race relations must be considered (Reed, 2010).  The advancement of American society should encompass the entire population and not simply maintain the status quo (Teasley, & Ikard, 2010).  Individuals should not be left behind simply because their skin is of a darker color; however, race relation issues persist in America (Sack, & Elder, 2000).   “Without a more robust, forward-looking national approach to weaving information and communications tools intentionally and democratically into the economic and social agenda, the nation’s future is jeopardized” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 4).  Could the implementation of information technology in the homes of every American citizen make this goal realizable, or is America meeting the demands of the disconnected through Community Access Centers such as schools and libraries?

Digital Divide Defined 1.3

        What is the digital divide?  The digital divide is defined by Norris as consisting of three divides: the global divide, the social divide, and the democratic divide, as illustrated in Table 1 (Lynch, 2002).

Global Divide	Divergence of Internet access between industrialized and developing countries;
Social Divide	Gap between information rich and information poor in each nation; and
Democratic Divide	Difference between those who do and those who do not use the new technologies to further political participation.

 

Table 1: The Digital Divide

            While the global divide is beyond the scope of the research presented, the social and democratic divides will be discussed in detail, particularly where the issue of digital citizenship is brought to the forefront:   

The sad fact is that if you are Black, you are more likely to live in an inner city, drop out of school, and earn a low income (Bolt & Crawford, 2000; Harris, 1982). So is the Digital Divide racial or is it education /income based? These items are so closely intertwined for African Americans that you cannot say either way. (Horton, 2004)

If the Internet can provide a means to overcome the vast chasm that racism has caused in America, then providing universal access to the Internet is a major twenty-first century civil rights issue (Rivas, 2010).  The concern is that Internet non-users will have, among other things, less power as consumers and fewer economic opportunities, less access to high-quality health information, fewer options for dealing with government agencies, no chance to learn about their world from the millions of organizations and learning centers that have posted their material on the web, and less opportunity to interact with others through email and instant messaging (Rainie, 2003).

         Anthony G. Wilhelm (2004); suggests forming a new type of nation--a digital nation--to bridge the digital divide.  “A Digital Nation privileges bold new experimentation to improve citizen access and effective use of new technologies while using innovative approaches to address long-standing social problems” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 4-5).  He offers an optimistic perspective on the future of technology in America, and repeatedly refers to the benefits of including the entire American population in our move towards becoming a digital nation.  He makes it clear that no one should be excluded from the benefits that new technologies provide (Wilhelm, 2004).  “Groups with serious challenges to their well-being—including single parents, the incarcerated, and immigrants—stand to benefit enormously from strategic investments in technology” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 7).

Background

        The digital divide became a prominent issue in the mid 1990’s when the Internet began to be accessed more widely by the general public (Rainie, 2003).  Interest among politicians and policymakers began to wane by 2004, when Internet penetration into American households reached over 50%.   According to Wilhelm (2004), who compares the need for Internet access to government support for universal access, many politicians and policy makers believed that the government had done enough, despite the fact that nearly 50% of American households still did not have Internet access.

        When telephones were first introduced into American households, very few could afford the --technology, therefore; the government enacted a policy of universal access (Pershing, 2010).  The American government recognized the importance of being connected, and therefore began to subsidize telephone service for poor and rural households.  When telephone penetration rate reached 96%, government subsidies did not stop, because the American government had set a goal of universal access, and accordingly, continued to subsidize telephone service.  “Part of the reason the telephone has become so ubiquitous is subsidies to make the service affordable” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 13).

           In today’s society the Internet is as important a means of staying connected as the telephone was when the universal access policy for telephone service was implemented, and that is why the FCC has begun the process of extending the concept of universal access to the Internet (Wigfield, 2010).  Accordingly, many policymakers have advocated similar government subsidies for Internet connectivity, arguing that those individuals who do not have access to the Internet are significantly disadvantaged (Rainie, 2003).

          Figure 1 includes a table that demonstrates that in 2002 the racial divide was being extended by the digital divide (Rainie, 2003).

Minorities were clearly at a disadvantage; only 8% of African-Americans and 9% of Latinos were Internet users (Rainie, 2003).  Register (2006) states that unfortunately, this trend is projected to persist well into the future.  Between 2002 and 2006, minorities continued to be excluded from Internet access at higher rates than Whites, thus perpetuating the racial divide (Register, 2006).

Information Barriers 1.5

        According to Burnett, Jaeger, and Thompson (2008) there are three types of barriers to the access of information: physical access, intellectual access, and social access.  When initially considering the digital divide, physical access was considered the biggest barrier to information retrieval (Wilhelm, 2004).  For this reason, the American government and private organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested millions of dollars in library Internet infrastructure (Gates, 2010; Clinton, 1996).  By late 1993, the American government had developed a strategy to connect “every classroom, library, health care clinic, and government agency” (Wilhelm, 2004, p.9). 

      In 1995, President Bill Clinton declared NetDay, the goal of which was to wire classrooms across the country to provide Internet access to America’s students.  On NetDay, many schools were wired and equipped with computers which provided many students with Internet access (Evans, 1996).  The NetDay program continued:

In 1996 and 1997, “NetDay” programs saw volunteers from high-technology companies and politicians, including Vice President Al Gore, wiring public school buildings for internet access.  Approximately 50,000 schools, 10,000 business sponsors, and 100,000 volunteers participated to wire an average of six classrooms per school in four NetDays. (Chandler & Cortada, 2000, p. 267)

Wilhelm (2004) reports, that this large investment in Internet infrastructure was viewed as short-sighted by some, in part because of the uneven distribution of funds.  While millions of dollars were invested in equipment, only a small fraction of the funds that were allocated to connect classrooms and libraries to the Internet, were invested in preparing teachers and librarians to incorporate the computer and Internet into their teaching and working environments.  This brings us to the second barrier mentioned by Burnett, et al. (2008): the intellectual barrier.

           Hargittai (2002) refers to the intellectual barrier as the second-level digital divide.  Individuals have access to a computer; however they are at a loss when it comes to fully comprehending and evaluating the information that they locate.  For instance, when searching for health information, they do not know how to judge which health websites provide reliable, accurate, and up-to-date information.   An individual could type “multiple sclerosis” into a search engine and retrieve thousands of search results.  Without knowing what a quality marker is, the individual could believe information, which is not based on empirical evidence (Harland & Bath, 2007).  What students have been taught in school about online research can also contribute to perpetuating intellectual barriers (Margolis, Rachel, Joanna, Holme, & Noa, 2008). 

       Recent research indicates that there are differences in how technology, and particularly Internet technology, is taught in schools.  The quality and quantity of technology education and Internet access, that students receive while in school, differ a great deal depending on the socioeconomic status (SES) of the student and or the school the student is attending.   Margolis, et al. (2008) demonstrate that there is a difference in how students are taught, the technology and Internet access skills that students learn vary to a significant degree.  Students from high SES schools are taught how to research and document data correctly, while students at low SES schools use computers primarily for test taking exercises and class presentations.  In my opinion this is unequal, and unfair, and constitutes an intellectual barrier. 

         The final type of barrier that Burnett, et al. (2008) discuss is a social barrier.  This in essence is the social divide that Norris talks about when she defines the various aspects of the digital divide (Lynch, 2002).  Burnett, et al., explain that individuals’ relationships to information and to each other are circumscribed by imperceptibly demarcated boundaries that divide groups of people into various “small worlds.” “Small worlds are social environments where individuals live and work, bound together by shared interests and expectations, information needs and behaviors, and often economic status and geographic proximity as well” (Burnett et al., 2008).  People may operate in one or in many small worlds; therefore, small worlds often intersect and may collide due to competing agendas.

          According to Burnett, et al. (2008), a small world’s agenda reflects the community of individuals that comprise the small world and their values.  In order to have an impact, one must be recognized as a genuine member of that particular small world, since the comments of outsiders are viewed skeptically,  and members who pull away from the core values of their small world are viewed as unreliable sources of information.  The way in which the members of a small world interact and keep each other in line with peer pressure is also reflected in the ways in which information is perceived and shared. “Thus, information access plays a key part in the social structure of each small world” (Burnett et al., 2008).

       According to Burnett, et al. (2008), the perceptions that each small world holds about the values and authenticity of the information of other small worlds, determines how much information is shared between various small worlds, or is lost in translation.  When small worlds have similar values information is readily shared and exchanged.  When small worlds have competing values, information exchanges are rare or impaired.  In my opinion this can be a serious problem.   When the majority culture subscribes to certain small worlds, while members of the minority community subscribe to others, the lack of communication that occurs can be detrimental.

       The Internet is a technology that is highly valued by Americans (Belcher, 2009).  Affluent White Americans have the most access, the most broadband, and many more computers and other devices to access the Internet than do the minorities in the U.S. (Belcher, 2009).   From the perspective of small worlds, the need for Internet access for everyone is obvious; from the perspective of other small worlds, the Internet is like the Mercedes, that only the rich should be able to drive.  From the perspective of other small worlds, the value of the Internet over blown and access is totally unnecessary (Wilhelm, 2004).  Depending on which beliefs you hold, your small world membership is determined (Burnett et al., 2008).  In my opinion,  when the lines of communication are down between these various small worlds the dire need in some communities for access to the Internet gets overlooked along with other community issues.

Technological Determinism 1.6

 The belief in technology as a key governing force in society dates back to at least the early stages of the Industrial Revolution.  Referred to as “technological determinism” by twentieth-century scholars, this belief affirms that changes in technology exert a greater influence on societies and their processes than any other factor. (Smith & Marx, 1996, p.2)

There is a continuing debate as to whether a change in technology follows a soft or hard course of action (Smith & Marx, 1996, p.2).  In the soft view, technology causes social change while at the same time being affected by social pressures (Smith & Marx, 1996, p. 2).  In the hard view, technology is said to be such a powerful force, that it is beyond any possible social reigns that would hinder or dictate its course (Smith & Marx, 1996, p. 2).

           Does Technology Drive History?, provides a view of the debate regarding technological determinism from a historical perspective.  Technology is discussed a number of times as a cure for all social ills—as a “panacea” (Smith & Marx, 1996, p.2). In my opinion, if we believe that universal access to the Internet could finally close the racial divide in the U.S., then we also view technology as a panacea.   “The discovery of what cultural historians would later call the ‘technological sublime’ added yet another dimension to the growing popular belief in technology’s power to shape the course of human history” (Smith & Marx, 1996, p.8).  Throughout the twentieth-century advertising became more and more imbued with social messages reaching into the depths of an individual’s psych to affect how they felt about new technologies (Smith & Marx, 1996, p.13).

           The messages conveyed to the public by advertisers placed technology in the most positive light possible (Smith & Marx, 1996, p.15).  The new iron for the home was sold as being the machine that would make a house-wife happier, more gracious, and more satisfied at the end of the day (Smith & Marx, 1996, p.15).  Cars no longer required a chauffeur because there was the introduction of the new automatic shift (Smith & Marx, 1996, p.19).  There were however detractors from the brave new automatic world that was materializing (Smith & Marx, 1996, p.26).  “The critics worried that Americans, in their headlong rush to mechanize and rationalize production, were sacrificing moral progress for material power, thus abandoning a concern that was central to thinkers of Jefferson’s generation” (Smith & Marx, 1996, p.26).

         America was founded on the basis of values that demonstrated strict republican values (Smith & Marx, 1996, p. 26).  To simply throw those values to the wind for technology was viewed by some as a turn away from God towards the world of power and materialism (Smith & Marx, 1996, p. 26-27).  Many believed that the proponents of technology threw all caution to the wind and that people were sleeping their way through the technological revolution that was dictating their lives (Smith & Marx, 1996, p.31).  It is easy, from this perspective, to argue that technological determinism, had taken hold of America; “. . .technology exert[s] a greater influence on societies and their processes than any other factor” (Smith & Marx, 1996, p. 2).

           The hard view of technological determinism supports the perspective that technology had become, in America, an all controlling and dictating force beyond all human reasoning (Smith & Marx, 1996, p. 2).  However, many of the twentieth-century’s greatest thinkers never stopped thinking and would not allow themselves to be sucked into the abyss of a mechanized existence (Smith & Marx, 1996, p.26).  I believe that technology follows a soft course.  There is no way to divorce the course of technological development from social pressures.  Technology and society will continue to walk hand and in hand into the future.

      As society progresses towards the future, the familiar hope that technology will begin to ameliorate racism and other social ills, is a persistent theme song playing in the background (Wilhelm, 2004, p.5).  It is the hope of many that technology can heal social wounds, and contribute to greater “. . .social and political empowerment . . .” (Wilhelm, 2004, p.1).  In the present moment we are once again hopeful that technology will render us all as equals (Macleod-Ball et al., 2010).   While there has been quite a bit of progress toward racial equality in the last few decades, much remains to be done (Hawke, 2009).  Can the Internet, heal the remaining social wounds of racism?  Is it possible that by closing the digital divide, we can also close the racial divide?

A Brief Overview 1.7

       There are so many historical causes, which began when slaves were first brought to the United States by Dutch traders in 1619 (Becker, 1999), that confluence to contribute to the technological inequality of African Americans that exists today (Walton, 1999), that a separate chapter has been set aside to deal with those issues.  Chapter two will highlight American history and how the racial divide led to the digital divide in America (Walton, 1999), as well as modern presidential efforts to close the digital divide. 

      Chapter three will take a close look at Great Britain and how the digital divide, referred to as “social deprivation,” are connected (Longley & Singleton, 2009; Foley et al., 2003).  Examples of ways to transverse the digital divide are culled from the London study (Foley et al., 2003) [You wrote that this was the final study discussed, however, I have moved things around a bit].  It is my hope that some of the recommendations given in this thesis for ameliorating the digital divide will be seriously considered by those individuals who take the time to read this document.  I believe that working together we can make a difference and close the digital divide here in the U.S.   

Chapter II: The United States: a Historical Perspective

The History of African-Americans and Technology

       The history of African-Americans in the U.S. and their encounters with technology is a long and discouraging one (Walton, 1999).  The trafficking of Africans as slaves was initiated by the Portuguese invention of the caravel (Walton, 1999): “a light sailing ship of the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries in Europe, much-used by the Spanish and Portuguese for long voyages” (Caravel, 2010).   The caravel was invented by the Portuguese so that they could explore the coast of West Africa (Walton, 1999; Caravel, 2010).  On the African continent, slave trade of Africans by Arabs was propelled forward by the introduction of another technology as well: European guns (Walton, 1999).  “Arab and African slave traders exchanged their human chattels for textiles, metals, and firearms, all products of Western technological wizardry, and those same slavers used guns, vastly superior to African weapons of the time, in wars of conquest against those tribes whose members they wished to capture” (Walton, 1999).

         The slaves that were captured by Arabs and African traders were then sold to Europeans, who forcibly packed the African slaves, into slave ships, to endure the middle passage (Middle Passage, 2010).   The invention of rum on the island of Barbados in 1650 on followed the initiation of the mid-Atlantic slave trade triangle (Rum, 2010).  Rum, made from the sugar cane grown by African slaves, was the engine that fueled the mid-Atlantic slave trade triangle (Rum, 2010).   In 1793, the next major technological invention to affect African American slaves was Eli Whitney’s cotton gin (Walton, 1999; Cotton Gin, 2010).  The importation of slaves to America increased (Walton, 1999).   Slaves were needed to grow cotton (Walton, 1999).

       At the beginning of World War II (1940) the cotton harvester was introduced (Cotton Harvester, 2010).  This invention cost southern African Americans their jobs, therefore, at the end of W.W.II there was a mass migration of African-Americans from southern farms to the North (Walton, 2010).  Northern factory machines awaited the crowd of African Americans withdrawing from the south (Walton, 1999).  There was steep competition between immigrants to the U.S. and African Americans who chose to move north, which fueled   animosity between the two groups, and led to the development of offensive stereotypes about African Americans (Walton, 1999).  “Yet another aspect of technology's great cost to blacks should be considered: while the Gilded Age roared through the last part of the nineteenth century and Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and others made the first great American fortunes as they wired, tracked, and fueled the new industrial society, blacks were mired in Reconstruction and its successor, Jim Crow” (Walton, 1999).

            Beginning in the 1970’s, as the communications technology began to flourish, many African American workers lost their factory jobs when American companies moved overseas where labor was cheaper (Walton, 1999). The African American community in large cities across the country retracted into the recesses of the inner city where there were very few opportunities for employment or a quality education (Walton, 1999).  White flight occurred; White Americans escaped from the urban environments and departed to join majority White communities in the suburbs (Walton, 1999).  The difficult relationship with technology and a legacy of slavery partnered with racist stereotypes have constructed a glass ceiling above which many African Americans have found it difficult to rise (Walton, 1999).  “As the great American technopolis was built, with its avatars from Thomas Edison to Alfred P. Sloan to Bill Gates, blacks were locked out, politically and socially -- and they have found it difficult to work their way in” (Walton ,1999).

          The goals and aspirations of inner city African American youth, due to a dearth of educational resources and support, tend not to focus on advanced math and science, from which technology and invention are born (Walton, 1999).   Due to a lack of educational preparation many African American youth have grown accustomed to focusing their energy on less academically challenging pursuits (Walton, 1999).  Technology is sidelined by African American youth because of dreams, a product of “magical thinking” fed to them through marketing and media, for fame fortune, and financial success through sports and music which are reinforced by glamorization (Walton, 1999).  “ Young blacks believe that they have a better chance of becoming Jordan, a combination of genes, will, talent, and family that happens every hundred years, than of becoming Steve Jobs, the builder of two billion-dollar corporations, the first one started with his best friend while tinkering in his garage” (Walton, 1999). 

          In my opinion, if the educational opportunities do not improve for African American youth in this country, the hope of the average African American youth to become an engineer or computer scientist will not be a realistic possibility.  “Blacks make up 13 percent of the population in this country, yet in 1995 they earned a shockingly low 1.8 percent of the Ph.D.s conferred in computer science, 2.1 percent of those in engineering, 1.5 percent in the physical sciences, and 0.6 percent in mathematics” (Walton, 1999).  Technology at present is one of the most lucrative industries in the United States (Walton, 1999).

         In my opinion, despite the problematic experience and troubled past that African Americans have had with technology, all that that has transpired since the introduction of the mid-Atlantic slave trade 400 years ago, and being relegated to an inferior education and an inferior position in society, the African American community needs to be more proactive about gaining access to the Internet.   The digital divide clearly reflects and is a product of the racial divide (Walton, 1999).  The digital divide is a serious and pressing civil rights issue for minorities in America (Rivas, 2010).

The History of the Digital Divide in the U.S. 2.1

        The advent of the home computer coupled with access to the Internet has opened new realms of possibility for the White and Asian Americans segments of the U.S. population (Chandler & Cortada, 2000).  “In 1993 more than 30 percent of whites and 37 percent of Asians lived in a household with a computer, whereas only 13 percent of Hispanics, Blacks, and Native Americans lived in a household with a computer” (Chandler & Cortada, 2000, p.266).  Prior to 1994, the major determinant as to how America was progressing towards the goal of “universal service” in the Information Age was the penetration of telephone service (Irving, 1995).

            In 1995 Netscape went public; this was reflected by nearly 12 million Americans who gained Internet access (Chandler & Cortada, 2000).   The Current Population Study (CPS) conducted in November of 1994 by the U.S. Census Bureau included questions regarding the number of computers and modems each American household owned and operated (Irving, 1995).  Access to the Internet came to be the new “barometer” by which the Information Age was judged (Irving, 1995). 

Clinton Administration 2.2

         The term “digital divide” was coined during the Clinton years (1993-2000) (Cable News Network LP, LLLP., 2005) by Allen Hammond and  Larry Irving (Bulger, 2007).  They “used the phrase often in public speeches to describe a binary divide between the computer and internet haves and have nots” (Bulger, 2007).   “Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the ‘Have Nots’ in Rural and Urban America,” was the first in a series of national reports on the Internet issued by the Clinton administration (Lynch, 2002).  The report was based on data collected during the 1994 U.S. Census Bureau (Irving, 1995).

        The study found that minorities, particularly, African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans, were at the greatest disadvantage insofar as connectivity issues were concerned (Irving, 1995).  Individuals living in rural communities were also at a considerable disadvantage (Irving, 1995).  For the most part, those who were connected to the Web were White, wealthy, educated, and above the age of twenty-five but not elderly (Irving, 1995).    

         These trends in the distribution of computers and Internet access are important to note because they persist through the three ensuing “Falling Through the Net” reports and other  “ numerous surveys  . . . have documented persistent differences in the rates at which members of different groups use the new medium (NTIA 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000)” (Dimaggio & Hargittai, 2001, p.1).  The first “Falling Through the Net” report also stated that “community access centers” would be the primary means through which access would be provided to those individuals who were not otherwise connected to the Internet (Lynch, 2002).  Schools and public libraries were included as places designated as community access centers (Lynch, 2002).

                       ^{The Clinton administration continued to keep watch over the progress of the penetration of the Internet into the American household (McConnaughey et al., 1997);  remaining optimistic but pragmatic in their speculation as to the speed at which the penetration rate of the Internet could and would advance: "Connectively to all such households will not occur instantaneously ” (Lynch, 2002).  The goal stated in the second report, released in 1997, was to focus on “universal access” (McConnaughey et al., 1997).}              

It showed that telephone penetration remained the same (just under 94 percent) and computer penetration had grown substantially; to 36.6 percent penetration. Personal computer growth by household was up 51.9 percent; modems up 139.1 percent. The report concluded, though, that the digital divide persisted and that a widening gap continued between upper and lower income levels. (Lynch, 2002)

The 1997 findings were similar to those of 1995, African Americans and Latinos had the lowest rates of computer and Internet home penetration rates (McConnaughey & Lader, 1997).  Having a low socioeconomic status and living in a rural area also put individuals at an incredible disadvantage insofar as computer acquirement and Internet access were concerned (McConnaughey & Lader, 1997).  The report recommended that the U. S. government remain focused on connecting individuals who were disconnected from the national information grid, and stressed the importance of community access centers, such as: schools and public libraries (McConnaughey & Lader, 1997). In my opinion, it can be safely inferred from the appreciable growth in the digital divide and the concomitant concern of the American government that, the digital divide was producing a negative effect upon the communities that it impacted and contributing to: economic, social, and democratic damage to those communities. 

        The U.S. government continued to take proactive measures to increase Internet access for America’s disconnected (Pozo-Olano, 2007).  Subsidizing Internet access through community access centers, such as: schools and public libraries through, “a ground-breaking telecommunications program created in 1997 that provide[d] deep discounts on telecommunications”(Pozo-Olano, 2007).   The E-Rate program enabled all public libraries to provide free Internet access (Pozo-Olano, 2007), thus extending access to the many individuals who would otherwise remain disconnected. 

             The third “Falling Through the Net” report, issued in 1999, (Lynch, 2002), recognized the role of the Internet in the global economy (Irving, 1999).  The acknowledgement of the increasing importance of Internet access, to make the U.S. more competitive globally, is of particular pertinence to this paper and its comparative analysis of the digital divide in the U.S. and Great Britain (Irving, 1999).   In the report, the economic and racial impact of the digital divide are also mentioned: “The ‘digital divide’—the divide between those with access to new technologies and those without—is now one of America’s leading economic and civil rights issues” (Irving, 1999).  “The digital divide has turned into a ‘racial ravine’ when one looks at access among households of different races and ethnic origins” (Irving, 1999). While personal computer ownership (42.1% up from 24%) and Internet access had grown, some demographic groups did not see increased penetration and, therefore, did not see equal benefits from the growth.  “Penetration levels [continued to] differ—often substantially-- according to, income, education level, race, household type, and geography, among other demographic characteristics” (Irving, 1999). 

            The report also looked more closely at who accessed the Internet via public libraries than previous reports (Irving, 1999).  According to the figures reported 8.2% of Americans were relying on public libraries for Internet access (Irving, 1999).  “Challenges for the future,” which included “promoting competition and universal access,” and “expanding community access centers,” and a “trendline study on electronic access by households from: 1984 to 1998 emphasized the disparity between the information rich and the information poor, highlighting the growing digital divide (Irving, 1999):

The trend of seeing the “computer-rich get richer” means that the digital divide among groups is widening over time.  The twenty percentage point difference that existed between highest and lowest income levels in 1984 has now expanded to a 64 percentage point difference.  What was a fifteen percentage gap in 1984 between those with college degrees and those with an elementary education is now nearly a 61 percentage point gap. (Irving, 1999)

Based on the report, the Clinton administration vowed to initiate steps to close the digital divide in America:

 Until every home can afford access to information resources, we will need public policies and private initiatives to expand affordable access to those resources. The Clinton Administration is committed to connecting all Americans to the National Information Infrastructure ... Community Access Centers (CACs) - such as schools, libraries, and other public access points - will play an important role. (Lynch, 2002)

 U.S. schools and public libraries were selected as two important venues, to be utilized to level the playing field between those individuals who have access to the Internet and those who do not (Macleod-Ball et al., 2010). 

         One final “Falling Through the Net” report was issued during the Clinton administration in October of 2000 (Lynch, 2002).  This report, by far the longest and most involved, was titled: “Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion,” and  included an entire section on the disabled and their lack of access to the Internet (Rohde & Shapiro, 2000).   Broadband service was measured for the first time (Rohde & Shapiro, 2000).  This is important to note because during the following administration (the Bush administration) the discussion of the digital divide shifted from universal access to the Internet to the expansion of broadband (Victory & Cooper, 2002).  “According to the latest survey, 43.6 million households (or 41.5% of all households) had Internet access” (Rohde & Shapiro, 2000, p.2).  Nonetheless, access seriously lagged for certain demographic groups:

Substantial disparities have continued to widen, both when comparing Blacks and Hispanics against the national average and when comparing against Whites.  The divide between Black household Internet access rates and the national average rate increased 3.0 percentage points, from 15.0 points in December 1998 to 18.0 percentage points in August 2000.  The divide between Hispanic households and the national average rate increased 4.3 percentage points, from 13.6 points in December 1998 to 17.9 percentage points in August 2000. (Rohde & Shapiro, 2000)

Broadband was being adopted by the same groups who first gained access to the information grid—affluent, White, well-educated, urban households and  Asian and Pacific Islander households.  According to Rohde & Shapiro (2000, p.?[KB1] ), Asian American and Pacific Islander households had the highest broadband rate (11.7%), followed by Whites (10.8%).  Other minority groups, Black and Hispanic, had lower broadband access rates at 9.8% and 8.9% respectively.

 Use of the Internet in 2000 was dominated by e-mail: 79.9 percent of Internet users reported using e-mail. Low-income users, not surprisingly, were the most likely to report using the Internet to look for jobs.  The August 2000 data indicated that schools, libraries, and other public access points had continued to serve those groups that did not have access at home (Lynch, 2002).      

Bush Administration 2.3

National monitoring of Internet access did not end with the Clinton administration. The Bush administration (2001-2009) kept track of the national Internet penetration rate through a report entitled, “A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding Their Use of the Internet” (Lynch, 2002).  The report mentions many positive gains, however, certain demographic groups still lacked Internet access. Racial and financial barriers were still present as determining factors affecting access. “Individuals living in low-income households or having little education, still trail[ed] the national average” (Victory & Cooper, 2002).

            It is notable that in September 2001 a significant portion of the population ( 46.1 percent of persons and 49.5 percent of households) did not use the Internet at all (Victory & Cooper, 2002).Internet access provided via public libraries, although intended for the use of everyone, was used most often by those classified as having a low socioeconomic status (family incomes below $15,000.  “Just over 20 percent of Internet users with household incomes of less than $15,000 a year use public libraries, and 6.1 percent of Internet users in this income category do not use the Internet at home, work, or school” (Victory & Cooper, 2002, p. [KB2] ).  Since public libraries were the only source of Internet access for so many, a substantial loss would be felt by America’s poor if funding were discontinued. Low levels of overall education—60.2 percent of adults (age 25 +) with only a high school degree and 87.2 percent of adults with less than a high school education was also correlated to lack of Internet access, as were ethnicity and race; 68.4% of  all Hispanic households and 85.9% of Hispanic households where Spanish was the only language spoken, and 60.2% of all Black households remained unconnected.

Two years later, the second report by the Bush Administration, “A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age,” transformed the measure of the digital divide from any form of access to the Internet to broadband access. In my opinion, it can be reasonably argued that this transformation was premature, since  many members of the minority community in the U.S. still had no access to the Internet at all. As of October 2003, 54.4 % members of the Black community and 62.8% of the Latino community were not able to connect to the Internet at any location (Gallagher & Cooper, 2004).

         The final report by the Bush Administration, “A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age,” presented statistics on Internet connectivity rates, but included no discussion of the issue of race ).  As Fairlie (2005) demonstrates, however,it  is clear from the data presented in the 2002 report by the Bush administration on Internet connectivity rates, that minorities in America were still being excluded from access to the Internet.   Fairely (2005) found that these rates hovered around 40%, for minority households as compared to 66% for White households, thus demonstrating that the digital divide remained an extension of the racial divide.  Fairlie (2005, p.) [KB3] found that:

The summary of previous research on the causes of the digital divide indicates that income and education inequalities were found to be leading causes of the digital divide. These two factors, however, only explain part of the digital divide. In fact, large disparities in computer ownership and [KB4] Internet use were found between blacks and Latinos, and white, non-Latinos in high-income families.

However, despite the large numbers of individuals in America who continued to lack access to the Internet, the Bush Administration  thought that it was appropriate to move the focus from basic connectivity to the next level—broadband connectivity (Gallagher & Cooper, 2004).

*****

              Table #, [KB5] taken from Russell and Huang (2009), demonstrates that in 2005 the percentage of the population that had access to a home computer and the Internet continued to depend on .NGi[KB6] 

	Computer in Household (%)	Household with Internet Access (%)
White	63.9	57.0
Hispanic	44.3	36.0
African American	44.6	36.0
Asian American	72.9	66.7

The disparity in access between White and minority households persisted throughout the time that the Bush administration was in office, according to the 2009 U.S. Census Bureau report. Sixty percent of African Americans, only 57.4% of Latinos, and 79.2% of White non-Latinos were connected to the Internet.  White households were twenty percent more likely than Latinos and African-Americans to have both a home computer and Internet access from home.  Asian American households maintained the highest computer ownership and connectivity rates at 84.4% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).

Obama Administration 2.4

 The 2009 U.S.Census report discussed in the previous section clearly demonstrates that it was left to the next administration to find a balance between providing Internet access to individuals who had no access and to increasing broadband access.  A large segment of society had remained disconnected during the Bush administration.  The Obama Administration was sensitive to this situation, and continues to work proactively to increase Internet connectivity rates while at the same time pushing the national broadband agenda, (Horrigan, 2009),  with the goal of closing the digital divide (Male, 2010).

         The Obama Administration hopes that the influx of new broadband subscribers will contribute to the stimulation of the U.S. economy in addition to providing a faster Internet access route for many Americans (Horrigan, 2009). They anticipate that some of the individuals who choose to connect to the Internet via broadband will also be first time Internet subscribers , thus furthering the goal of closing the digital divide (Horrigan, 2009).

             Julius Genachowski was nominated by President Obama to be the FCC chair..  According to Fitchard, 2009), although Genachowski will be listening to what policies telecommunications companies want him to pass in Washington, he also has a solid relationship with members of the Silicon Valley Business Community,  making him a relatively balanced representative of the FCC (Fitchard, 2009).

         According to Grotticelli (2009). Genachowski views the digital divide as a serious problem and plans a vast expansion of Internet services provided by the FCC.  His goal is to do for broadband in the twenty-first century what was done for electricity in the in the twentieth century (Fitchard, 2009).  The Obama Administration included the expansion of broadband in the U.S. in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, providing 7.2 billion to expand the nation’s broadband infrastructure to underserved areas, and directing the FCC to develop a national broadband plan (Grotticelli, 2009). 

The problem of the digital divide, once a matter of mere digital ignorance, is fast becoming one of digital access and representation. We have greedy, discriminating telecom interests to thank for this evolution.  People know that a digital and connected future exists; they can’t realize it because they are priced or mapped out of the market. (Garlin, 2010)

 Genachowski is asking: can we afford to provide broadband for all?  “FCC officials say universal broadband would boost [the] economy” (Male, 2010).  Another pertinent question is: can we afford not to provide universal broadband?  In the past a small percentage of the cost of monthly phone service has gone into a Universal Service Fund, which provides phone service for those who otherwise could not afford phone service (Male, 2010).  “Now the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering expanding this Universal Service Fund to give all Americans access to high-speed Internet” (Male, 2010).    In my opinion, this is a very important move for the Federal government to make.  “With full and equal access to this platform, young people of color can participate in the revolutionary acts of self-expression and self-definition without fear that their voices and images will be stamped out by forces seeking to make them invisible” (Garlin, 2010).

       The Obama Administration supports the drive to provide broadband access for all Americans (Garlin, 2010).  “President Obama recently announced his plan to contribute $2 billion in stimulus funds to the effort, but creating truly universal broadband access could cost as much as $350 billion” (Male, 2010).  Ways in which to support the universal broadband initiative are still in the early stages of development (Male, 2010).  There have been ideas about adding a tax onto Internet service bills and a general tax revenue assessment (Male, 2010).  In February of 2010, “an FCC task force will recommend ways to pay for the expansion” (Male, 2010). [KB7] 

          

Chapter III: The New Digital Citizen

Digital Citizenship Defined 3.1

          The digital divide and digital citizenship, “the ability to participate in society online,” (Mossberger et al., 2008, p.1) has been a persistent issue since the Internet was first introduced to the American public. A  number of government programs have been tried during the past several presidencies, such as: “The Community Technology centers funding from the Department of Education, the Universal Service Fund (e-rate), the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Technology Challenge grants, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's partnership with Communities in Schools (CIS) and the Cisco Networking Academy Program” (Strawn, n.d., p.).  [KB8] 

              According to a study reported in Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation by Mossberger, Tolbert, and McNeal (2008), “even with the expansion of the online population in the United States, those who are low income, less educated, older, African American, and Latino continue to be less likely to have home computers or use the Internet frequently” (p.120).  The digital divide exists as an extension of the racial divide (Walton, 1999)[KB9] .  

            In my opinion, the United States government is not doing enough to connect the disconnected; the job of bridging the digital divide has been left to the public access centers such as public schools and public libraries.   [KB10] Forty percent of African Americans and Latinos do not have Internet access and, therefore, must rely on community access centers to gain free Internet access (United States Census Bureau, 2009).  “Just over 71 percent of libraries report that they are the only source of free access to computers and the Internet in their communities” (Davis et al., 2010).

          Davis, Bertot, and McClure (2010) found that although great strides have been made towards equality through public schools and the public libraries as avenues of access, these institutions still struggle to provide adequate access , due to  recent cuts to  library and education funding. “In a time of widespread economic turmoil, 14.3 percent of public libraries report decreased operating budgets in FY200[KB11] ” and “nearly 60 percent of libraries report Internet connection speeds are insufficient to meet needs at some point in the day” (Davis, Bertot, and McClure, 2010).

The Beginning of Internet Access: Public Schools as Internet Access Points for the Underserved Community

        Internet access, which for many minority children in the U.S. begins at school, is considered a twenty-first century civil rights issue (Wilhelm, 2004) .  The Leadership Conference, established in 1950, has classified the digital divide as a civil rights issue (Davis, Bertot & McClure, 2010).  African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are being denied basic rights to participate in the democratic process because this process has now moved substantially to the Internet, and many minorities lack access (Mossberger et al., 2008). 

       Although, much progress was made towards achieving equal rights for minorities in America during the Civil Rights movement (1955-1965), a tremendous amount still remains to be done (Cozzen, 1998).  According to the Benton Foundation, to utilize technology such as the Internet, and comprehend the information it is imparting, an individual must be literate (Carvin, 2000).  The results of one of the most recent national adult literacy surveys, the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, conducted by the National Center for Educational Statistic in 2003 (Kolstad & White, n.d.),  “demonstrate that an estimated 11 million adults in the U.S. are “nonliterate in English,” while 30 million—14 percent of the total adult population in the U.S.—are below the basic level (Wedgeworth, 2006).   Literacy begins at school:

When 88 percent of fourth grade African-American students cannot read at proficiency, often leading to a downward spiral of underachievement, the question of grooming tomorrow’s leaders becomes tied to the resolution of system wide failures, and the destiny of the dominant society becomes tethered to that of the marginalized. (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 12) 

 An astonishingly large number of students are failing to succeed because they are not proficient readers (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 12).  The question then, is how does this lack of achievement affect these students in the future?  In my opinion, if nothing is done to increase the educational opportunities available to African American youth then they will not succeed.  If an individual cannot read, how can he or she participate in the digital nation as a digital citizen?  “A new provision of national education policy in the United States states that every eighth-grader must be technology-literate regardless of socioeconomic status or race” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 33).  

         The digital divide is experienced for the first time by many minority children at school with what Margolis, et al. (2008) have termed “virtual segregation” (p. 2).   They define “virtual segregation” as being a cognitive process whereby the ethos of the educational system causes people to believe that all social opportunities are equally available to everyone regardless of race. 

In reality histories have been so different, the playing fields so uneven, the chasm so wide and deep, that people are living in two different worlds, receiving two different and very unequal types of educations, opportunities, and levels of knowledge” (Margolis et al. 2008, p. [KB12] ). 

The legacy of Plessy v. Ferguson 1896, which established separate but equal educational institutions for people of color, continues even after Brown vs. The Board of Education 1954, which ended school segregation (Margolis et al., 2008 p.2; Cozzen, 1998). “Despite the fact that Brown v. Board of Education (1954) pronounced de jure segregated schools unconstitutional, and Keyes v. School District #1 (1973) extended that to intentional, de facto segregated school districts, de facto segregation remains extreme” (Fowler Morse, 2006, p. [KB13] ).  

           An attempt was made in the Seattle School District No. 1 to increase diversity through the implementation of policy which supported integration of the public school system, and which would thereby reduce de facto segregation in the educational system of the district (DeMartini, 2008).   Race was considered as a factor when assigning students to a high school when the school was oversubscribed (Oyez U.S. Supreme Court Media: Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1., n. d.).   In June 2000 a case, Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1, was brought against the school district (Browse, n.d.).  Parents Involved charged that, “the racial tiebreaker violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Washington state law” (Oyez U.S. Supreme Court Media: Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1., n. d.). 

            The case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court where it was heard in June of 2006 (Seattle Public School District No.1 Case Background, n.d.).  The Supreme Court issued their decision on June 28, 2007, "Racial balancing is not transformed from 'patently unconstitutional' to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it 'racial diversity’” (Oyez U.S. Supreme Court Media: Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1., n. d.).  A reaction to the Supreme Courts plurality decision in the case was written in the Howard Law Review:

This latest decision on the constitutionality of the state's use of race-based classifications sets a poor precedent for efforts to distribute benefits to people disadvantaged by societal discrimination, particularly African Americans. The view that all classifications are dangerous, as noble as it may seem as an effort to effectuate the permanent transcendence of race in American society, defies practical application and goes against the prime objectives of CERD, which explicitly compel parties to the convention to take up efforts such as those challenged in the case. (Scott, 2009)

In addition, the Supreme Court decision  “perpetuates the very racial disparities that further racism and provide it sustenance, eviscerating potential remedies for structural racism, its most virulent manifestation” (Scott, 2009, p. ).  [KB14] 

          I agree that the decision by the Supreme Court reinforced the existence of a segregated school system, which confines African America children to neighborhood schools.   Minority neighborhoods came into existence because African Americans were not allowed to live in White neighborhoods (Seitles, 1996).  Minority students tend to attend schools that are located in the neighborhoods where they live.  “Moreover, minority possibilities for advancement consequently decline from the lower quality of education afforded to them in ghetto schools, precluding them from competing for high-income employment” (Seitles, 1996). 

         Students in Black schools often do not fare well on measures of assessment, such as the FCAT[KB15] , when compared to students at integrated or White schools. Black schools are often perceived  as challenging environments in which to teach (Borman, Eitle, Micheal, Eitle, Lee, Johnson, Cobb-Roberts, Dorn, & Shircliffe,  2004).  Although minority schools tend to receive a greater amount of funding [KB16] than integrated and White schools, the cost difference to educate minority students can often be explained by the higher salaries that are required to hire teachers to teach in minority schools (Baker & Green, 2009).  “Challenged schools” have a difficult time attracting “nurturing” teachers (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 64).  “By any standard, many schools in some of our largest urban centers are irreparably broken and need radical surgery, not Band-Aids, to ensure that students can achieve” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 61).

         It was believed that the introduction of the Internet to minority children would better prepare them for the workplace and in this way eventually equalize socioeconomic differences between the races in America (Macleod-Ball, et al., 2010).   Wilhelm (2004) states that through national funding initiatives, computers have been delivered to almost all public schools nationwide from inner cities to rural areas. Many computers remain unpacked or software uninstalled because so many teachers do not know how to incorporate computers and the Internet into traditional classroom settings.  More emphasis has been placed on hardware and software than on teacher training. “Every child, regardless of his or her income or race, requires greater educational opportunities to be equipped for equal citizenship and economic self-reliance in the twenty-first century” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 62).

         Magolis, et al. (2008) discuss three public high schools in California where there were computers and software  available and yet minority students were  still being excluded from an adequate education in technology.  The title of their book, Stuck in the Shallow End, was conceived of when, caught off guard by an article encouraging minority members of the New York community to get into the pool, the authors learned that swimming has had a long and sad history of segregation.  They draw an analogy between the exclusion of children of color from access to technology courses and their past exclusion from the swimming pool . 

       Since the beginning, I.Q. tests have been “culturally biased” and unfairly geared toward the White upper and middle class populations (Williams Jr., 2009).  In my opinion, the assumption that minorities are intellectually inferior to Whites is not unlike the racist assumption that African Americans are unable to swim; it is a false belief.  Intelligence tests rely on knowledge about information, which may be unfamiliar to individuals from various cultural backgrounds. According to Ashley Montagu, a Boasian anthropologist, the I.Q test is “ethnocentrically structured” (Willams Jr., 2009).  “Professor Rosemary Henze (2007) has recently summed up the orientation of cultural anthropologists and IQ tests when she wrote, ‘to argue that there is an inherited, biological thing called intelligence that is devoid of cultural influence and that correlates with ‘racial’ traits flies in the face of all scientific research in the latter part of the 20th century’ (p.204)” (Willams Jr., 2009).  [KB17] 

      Margolis, et al. (2008) point out that opportunities are not provided to African American students because of false beliefs and stereotypes about their ability to effectively comprehend academic information. Just as African Americans were stuck in the shallow end of a swimming pool in the past they are currently stuck in a very shallow and demeaning educational system that fails to recognize their brilliance and potential by neglecting to teach them what they need to know to lead successful productive lives.  In my opinion, the digital divide is perpetuated by the public school system.  The digital divide used to be between those who had access to a computer and the Internet and those who did not (Bulger, 2007).  Then the digital divide was about who could navigate the web efficiently and effectively and who could not (Hargittai, 2002).  [KB18] 

          Now, more than ever, the digital divide that is being traversed in high schools today, is about the study of computer science and “’engaging in sustained reasoning, managing complexity, [and] testing a solution”(Margolis et al., 2008, p.9).  Margolis, et al. (2008) focus on the problem solving and basic logic that are taught through computer programming and may have a positive impact on student performance in almost any field of study.  However, students of color are not choosing to take computer programming classes .  In my opinion, if high school students do not learn the basics of digital navigation and comprehension in high school, they will fall behind their peers.  People of color will become “‘the designated serfs of the information age’” (Margolis et al., 2008, p.5).

        There were several reasons why students of color were not enrolling the computing classes at two of the high schools investigated by Margolis et al. (2008).  There was a dearth of computer science class offerings in the two schools.  Both had been outfitted with the equipment necessary for the computer science classes, but neither school had the resources available to hire a qualified teacher, and claimed that there was a lack of interest. At the third school investigated, there were computers, qualified staff, and a classroom in which to teach the computer science courses, but nonetheless very few students of color enrolled.

        Margolis et al. (2008) learned that students relied on their counselors to place them in appropriate classes. Counselors had staggering case loads and rarely got to speak to the students they placed. Teachers’ expectations for students of color were lower than their expectations for White students, so students of color were shuttled into basic electives instead of more advanced electives, honors, and AP classes, including computer science. In addition, the California Board of Education did not consider computer science necessary for college preparation. Finally, the students of color who did get the chance to take computer science courses often felt left out and isolated due to the fact that their numbers were so small (Margolis et al., 2008, p.90-91). Everything from the very basic classes to the more advanced AP classes were dominated by White male “techies.”

        While it is important that African-American and Latino/a students have access to computers and the Internet, it is also important that they partake in the activity of learning the art of computer science.  The inclusion of computer science in high school education is important  so that students of color can reap the benefits associated with advanced  knowledge about computers. Occupations requiring a strong knowledge of computer science are often well-paid, as evidenced by the 2008 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics wage estimates:

Computer and Mathematical Science Occupations top
			Wage Estimates
Occupation Code	Occupation Title (click on the occupation title to view an occupational profile)	Employment (1)	Median Hourly	Mean Hourly	Mean Annual (2)	Mean RSE (3)
15-0000	Computer and Mathematical Science Occupations	3,308,260	$34.26	$35.82	$74,500	0.3 %
15-1011	Computer and Information Scientists, Research	26,610	$47.10	$48.51	$100,900	1.1 %
15-1021	Computer Programmers	394,230	$33.47	$35.32	$73,470	0.6 %
15-1031	Computer Software Engineers, Applications	494,160	$41.07	$42.26	$87,900	0.4 %
15-1032	Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software	381,830	$44.44	$45.44	$94,520	0.5 %
15-1041	Computer Support Specialists	545,520	$20.89	$22.29	$46,370	0.3 %
15-1051	Computer Systems Analysts	489,890	$36.30	$37.90	$78,830	0.4 %
15-1061	Database Administrators	115,770	$33.53	$35.05	$72,900	0.8 %
15-1071	Network and Computer Systems Administrators	327,850	$31.88	$33.45	$69,570	0.3 %
15-1081	Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts	230,410	$34.18	$35.50	$73,830	0.4 %
15-1099	Computer Specialists, All Other	191,780	$36.13	$36.54	$76,000	0.5 %

“Since most [computer-related] jobs require some postsecondary experience and the intense use of information technology products and services, new approaches are clearly needed to ratchet up skills substantially to meet workforce demands” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 19).  It is also important that minorities become proficient in technology to act as role models and mentors for younger generations (Margolis et al., 2008).  I believe that America must improve science, technology, engineering, and math skills for all students in order to continue to compete on a global scale. “Unfortunately, Stuck in the Shallow End, reveals how undemocratic our educational system still is in the technology age” (Margolis et al., 2008, p.9).

         The U.S. is no longer the world leader in science and technology (Koizumi, 2010).  The U.S. is competing with the growing markets of China, India, and Asia (Woodruff & Summers, 2009).  When asked about the  ability of the U.S. to continue to compete in the global market, Lawrence H. Summers, head of the NEC and Obama’s economic advisor stated:

 I am not unmindful, especially after the events of the last year, of the challenges that our country faces, but I also think that if you look at the way people work in this country, you look at the quality of our universities, you look at the role of some of our great companies around the world, and I’ve got a lot of confidence in our future.  And I think our future will keep being greater than our past as long as we stay nervous about our future and on edge. (Woodruff & Summers, 2009, p.)[KB19] 

 Summers also listed areas in which the U.S. needs to improve in order to continue to compete on a global scale. Increased support for science, technology, engineering and math research and innovation were at the top of the list (Woodruff & Summers, 2009).  Evidence of the fall of the U.S. from global leadership in the fields of engineering and science have led the Obama administration to establish a private/public backed program, “Educate to Innovate,” to build the science, technology, engineering, and math skills (STEM) of American students (Koizumi, 2010; White House: Educate to Innovate, n.d.). 

Librarians’ Role in Bridging the Digital Divide

        Public libraries, which are recognized as community access centers, take up where schools leave off in providing free Internet access to meet community needs (Lynch, 2002).   According to Aqili and Moghaddam (2008), librarians are a vital component in bridging the digital divide through providing the community with support and information regarding Internet access (Aqili, & Moghaddam, 2008).  

The Current State of Public Libraries as  Community Access Centers

            In 2009, there were more than 16, 600 locations within library systems in the U.S. organized to provide free Internet access to all American citizens as a means by which to bridge the digital divide ((ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing, 2010; Russell & Huang, 2009).  Seventy one percent of the time a public library was the only provider of free Internet access in a community. The figure jumped to 78% in rural areas (Davis, Bertot, & McClure, 2010).   For low-income members of communities across the U.S., the library is the primary means of accessing the Internet (Russell & Huang, 2009).  “In January 2009, over 25 million Americans reported using their Public library more than 20 times in the last year, up from 20.3 million Americans in 2006” (ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing, 2010).  Figure # llustrates the percentage of change of use of public internet workstations across the country.

Figure A1: Use of Public Internet Workstations, by Metropolitan Status
Metropolitan Status
Use of Workstations	Urban	Suburban	Rural	Overall
Use of workstations increased since last fiscal year	79.0% (n=2,114)	77.6% (n=4,203)	73.2% (n=5,527)	75.7% (n=11,844)
Use of workstations decreased since last fiscal year	2.8% (n=75)	3.5% (n=191)	2.9% (n=216)	3.1% (n=482)
Use of workstations have stayed the same since last fiscal year	16.8% (n=450)	18.1% (n=980)	23.1% (n=1,744)	20.3% (n=3,174)
Weighted missing values, n=336

Rural areas, in particular, benefit from the vast amounts of information available on the Web. These communities tend to have higher illiteracy rates, and fewer information resources (Russell & Huang, 2009).  Native American communities also benefit from the Internet access provided by libraries in their communities, for many tribes the library has developed into the hub of activity (Russell &Huang, 2009).

          In addition to providing Internet access at computer workstations, 82% of libraries provided wireless access to the Internet in 2009 (ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing, 2010).  Seventy percent offered higher speeds of Internet access, 1.5Mbps (T1), than were available elsewhere in the community (Davis, Bertot, & McClure, 2010). 

Ninety percent of libraries offer licensed databases, which provide access to articles from thousands of newspapers and periodicals; practice tests for the GED, SAT, civil service exams and more; genealogy resources; and business and medical information. Online homework resources and audio content also are offered by more than 70 percent of public libraries (Davis, Bertot, & McClure, 2010, p.[KB20] ). 

In 2009, 45.6% of public libraries stated that more patrons were utilizing the Internet to access web-based resources (ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing, 2010).

                 Based on information provided by the American Library Association (ALA) and the Center for Library and Information Innovation (CLII) at the University of Maryland, a “perfect storm” is developing as more community members desperately need access to library resources, at the same time that library funding issues have caused the library to reduce hours, thereby limiting the availability of library services .   In 2009, “urban libraries reported the greatest surge in patron demand for technology services: 77 percent reported increased wireless use; 61 percent reported increased use of electronic resources; and 40 percent reported increased use of patron technology classes” (ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing, 2010, p.[KB21] ). 

         In 2009, libraries across the country provided access to employment and government resources via the Internet; 67% of libraries assisted patrons applying for jobs; 88% of libraries also provided patrons with access to “job databases” in addition to other “online resources”; and 27% of libraries worked with other community agencies in assisting patrons to apply for jobs online.  Close to 79% of libraries helped patrons locate e-government information, and  many individuals who found themselves unemployed  also utilized the Internet at the public library to apply for unemployment benefits (ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing, 2010).

Library Funding Issues

         Libraries were filling critical needs, yet many had been forced to face cuts to their funding. “Among the more complex challenges are state library’s reallocation of financial support of public libraries from state sources to already stretched federal sources, or the disappearance of support altogether” (ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing, 2010).  According to the Public Library Funding & Technology Access Study, the ALA surveyed the 51 Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (50 states and the District of Columbia) in November 2009. Twenty-four states reported that they had experienced budget cuts from FY2009 to FY2010.  In addition, 14.5% of urban libraries reported reduced hours of operation as a result of funding shortages (ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing, 2010).

Patron Internet Access Issues

          Decreased hours of operation negatively impact many low-income members of the community whose only access to the Internet is through public libraries (Davis, Bertot, & McClure, 2010).  Many low-income and minority community members who access the Internet from the library initially are limited by computer competency issues (Hargittai, 2002).  Therefore, librarians must consider these issues when attempting to bridge the digital divide (Russell & Huang, 2009):

For example, Norman Public Library in Oklahoma offers computer classes to help its users learn how to use various software programs and conduct online information searches. The lessons cover topics from basic to advanced, such as building mouse skills, E-mail fundamentals, Windows file management, and photo editing with Paint.net. The library also provides one-on-one assistance. (Russell & Huang, 2009)

“In 2008, 90 percent of libraries provided formal technology training classes or one-on-one assistance to library patrons using public Internet computers” (ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing, 2010, p. [KB22] ).  In addition, 36% of library staff believed that there were not enough computer workstations available to meet patrons’ needs (ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing, 2010).  In my opinion, if Internet access is provided, but individuals do not know how to utilize a computer to access the Web, or do not know how to navigate the Web, then having the Internet and computers available is of no real benefit. 

          A shortage in library staff resulting from budget cust, led to the closures of public libraries in thirteen states in 2009.  Staff shortages also led 60% of libraries surveyed to state that they were having difficulty supplying enough assistance to patrons who were searching for employment (ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing, 2010).   Volunteers have been suggested as an option to fill the void left at understaffed libraries (Russell & Huang, 2009).

            Public libraries are building bridges across the great expanse of the digital divide (Russell & Huang, 2009).  Yet they remain underfunded; stretched to their limits financially (ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing, 2010).  Are public access centers doing enough, or is it time for the government to take brave new steps to erase the disparity that exists between those who have access to the Internet and those who do not? 

The Benefits of Internet Access 3.6

              Internet access is not just about downloading music and videos from YouTube.  Internet access is about being able to reach out to those we care for, it is there to support and form lasting relationships, and it is about being part of a larger community of people--the global community (Gates, 2000).   Barry Wellman is a prominent sociologist from the University of Toronto, who has studied the relationship between the Internet and community-building for many years.  According to Wellman, Haase, Witte, & Hampton, (2001), people hold conversations on the Internet and talk about politics, education, housing, jobs, and much more. Being excluded from this on-going conversation excludes an individual from full participation in the community. Lack of Internet access is a serious issue because minorities in the U.S. are being left out of a vital portion of the democratic process, and so are denied equal opportunity (Mossberger Tolbert, & McNeal, 2008).   

 Financial Benefits of Internet and Computer Competency 3.7

  

        Individuals who do not have access to the Internet are excluded from the financial benefits associated with the Internet, and with the acquisition of basic computer skills. Mossberger Tolbert, & McNeal (2008) conducted a study to determine what, if any, benefits were gained by individuals who had developed the computer skills necessary to navigate the web.  They found that African-Americans and Latinos benefited the most from having computer skills.  Table 2 depicts the percentage difference in pay by workers who know how to utilize the Internet.

African American Men African American Women Latinos Latinas White Men White Women

Wage Premium/ Internet Use at Work 18.36% 17.31% 16.99% 16.11% 14.77% 13.56%

Table 2[KB23] 

The American job market demands workers who are technically skilled (Wilhelm, 2004), and  the minority community already suffers from poverty.  In my opinion, lack of access to the Internet compounds the problems associated with racial inequality.  “Civil rights groups fret that the skills gap will expand, relegating millions of workers to the netherworld of underemployment and poverty” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 18). 

        In addition, it is a fact that when individuals lack technological skills they are unlikely to find employment and employers are left with a dearth of employees:

Having jobs go unfilled costs industry billions of dollars annually, and raising the skills and education levels of the millions of young adults who are out of school and uncredentialed would generate billion [sic] of dollars in earnings over the course of their productive lifetimes.  One economic justification is that the telecommunications and media sector is one-sixth of the nation’s economy and will drive future growth. (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 11)

The  Democratic Divide 3.2

          Norris defined the digital divide defined the digital divide as consisting of three subsets: the global divide, the social divide, and the democratic divide (Lynch, 2002).  The democratic divide is perpetuated by a lack of digital citizenship.  Wilhelm (2004, p. 34) cited research that indicated that “substantial pockets of the U.S. population [remained] unplugged from the Digital Nation” into the twenty first century

 Civic Engagement as a Result of Internet Access 3.8

       Mossberger Tolbert, & McNeal (2008) attribute the perpetuation of the digital divide to a lack of civic engagement via the Internet. Several characteristics of the Internet, such as lack of personal face-to-face contact and linguistic cues such as body language and emotional expression have led scholars and pundits to assume that the Internet does not encourage civic engagement; however, the Internet figured prominently in the past several elections, which makes a lack of access to the Internet an extension of the democratic divide. Mossberger Tolbert, & McNeal (2008) monitored email and chat room activity to determine whether political participation was affected by Internet access and found that “all online activities are linked to increased voting, but during election years only” (p.81).  “The data also suggested that e-mail contact increases the probability of voting between 21 and 39 percent in the 2000 presidential elections, while online political chat room discussion was associated with an increased probability in voting between 21 and 39 percent[KB24] , holding other factors constant” (p. 93).

              Missing out on these Internet conversations meant missing out on a portion of the democratic process. Equal rights and therefore equal access to the democratic process, are the cornerstones of the American belief system (Jefferson, 1776).  In my opinion, members of the minority community in the U.S. already struggle to an excessive degree with finances, education, housing, and jobs, etc., therefore, excluding them from the political process, and leaving the minority community with less say in the political process, increases the racial divide. 

        How does the lack of Internet access affect minorities who do not have access to the Internet at home because it is not affordable?  If Internet access were not provided by public schools and public libraries, where would these individuals go for Internet access? 

E-Government Defined 3.92

         In my opinion, the fact that the American government has moved the majority of services it provides online only makes the problem of the digital divide worse and the situation more serious. The public library is bridging the digital divide by providing members of the minority community access to what is commonly referred to as e-government (ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing, 2010).  What if African American and Latino citizens were unable to access government resources and services?

          E-government is, “the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions” to a limited degree through the Internet (Government, 2009[KB25] ).   “Digital divides remain as obstacles to universal adoption of e-government as large populations continue to lack the basic tools and capabilities to be full participants in the online world” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 24).  E-government is a means by which governments are harnessing the power of the 21^st century’s technological developments in order to manage the government electronically (STCT Study, 2006)[KB26] .   “E-Government has been employed by developed as well as developing countries to be an enabler toward accelerating processes, delivering a higher level of service to citizens and businesses, increasing transparency and accountability while lowering costs” (STCT Study, 2006).  It is hoped that the implementation of e-government services will lead to a greater degree of democracy within countries through an increased responsiveness of the government to its citizens (STCT study, 2006).    According to an STCT study (2006) there are several objectives that governments are attempting to meet through the implementation of e-government:

·         Providing greater access to government information;

·         Promoting civic engagement by enabling the public to interact with government officials;

·         Making government more accountable by making its operations more transparent and thus reducing the opportunities for corruption; and

·         Providing development opportunities, especially benefiting rural and traditionally underserved communities.

[KB27]  E-Health and Internet Access 3.94

      In a reaction to higher health care costs, there is now a large and thriving healthcare industry referred to as e-health, which is an additional impetus for increasing Internet access in the U.S.  “The term e-health is used as a catchall for a variety of health sector applications—everything from telemedicine, the use of telecommunications to provide medical information and services, to medical informatics, the collection and distribution of data such as computer-based medical records” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 49).  A large and growing number of Americans utilize the Internet to search websites like WebMD to locate healthcare information.             The United States government is aware of the potential benefits associated with providing medical services, information, and records online (The HITECH Act, 2010):

 On February 17, 2009 a $787 Billion, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 aka “the Stimulus Bill,” was signed into law by the federal government.  Included in this law is $19.2 Billion which is intended to be used to increase the use of Electronic Health Records (EHR) by physicians and hospitals; this portion of the bill is called, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH Act (The HITECH Act, 2010).

 According to a study performed by Hillestad, Bigelow, Bower, Girosi, Meili, Scoville, & Taylor (2005), there is evidence that increased government investment in e-health will :

·         improve patient care

·         increase patient safety

·         simplify compliance in the US healthcare system

·         cut costs in the long term

·         minimize errors

·         And increase productivity and administrative efficiency

“Garth Graham, the Department of Health and Human Services' Deputy Assistant Secretary of Minority Health, says the nation can use heath information technology to reduce care disparities in the poor and minority populations” (Hardy & Beaudoin, 2009).  The aging population in the U.S., which tends to depend on medicare for health insurance, can gain improvements in health through the utilization e-health services which will provide services for the “prevention and management” of chronic illnesses (Hillestad, et al., 2005).  Poorer communities in America, which are often located in rural areas with a shortage of medical specialists, stand to benefit a great deal from the implementation of e-health (Wilhelm, 2004).

         According to Graham (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), the poor and minorities in the U.S. have a lower life expectancy due to inequalities in healthcare.  “‘The fact is that minorities are more likely to look for health information on the Web,’” (Hardy & Beaudoin, 2009, p. [KB28] ).   The provision of medical information and services via e-health is one avenue that the U.S. government can take to begin to diminish disparities in health care for the poor and minorities living in this country; e-health can be utilized to improve the health statistics of all citizens.

Library Success Stories 3.95

Libraries, especially public libraries can play a vital role in bridging the digital divide by providing access to computer and the internet to those who do not have such facilities.  The perception that libraries are for the elite in universities should be eradicated.  Libraries are for everyone, educated and uneducated, rich and poor.  They are equalizers and democratic force in access to computers, the internet, information, learning and training. (Aqili & Moghaddam, 2008)

 According to Russell and Huang (2009), libraries all over the United States are helping to bridge the digital divide.  Public libraries in the U.S. provide free Internet access, computer classes and access to software and databases to patrons who do not have access elsewhere.  Low income families and the unemployed, who do not have access to the Internet at home, benefit to a greater extent than the general public. Patrons living in small towns and rural towns benefit to a greater extent as well. “In some Native American reservation areas, tribal libraries are increasingly becoming the principal information center for tribes, making them the logical site for providing public access to computers and the internet” (Russell & Huang, 2009).

        Where are libraries succeeding in providing Internet access and what are some of the most successful programs implemented by public libraries?  How are individuals benefiting from access to the Internet through their public libraries?  The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is helping to level the playing field for those individuals who do not have access to the Internet at home by supporting the implementation of both hardware and software for Internet access in public libraries all over the United States (Gates, 2004). 

             Gates (2004) reflects on the past state of Internet access through libraries:  “In 1996, only 28 percent of public library systems offered public Internet access;”  “today, more than 95 percent of library buildings offer public access computing, and 14 million Americans regularly use these computers (Gates, 2004, p. [KB29] ).

        Gates (2004) notes that African-Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are less likely to have access to the Internet from home and more likely to have a yearly income of less than $15,000. “‘Today, if you can reach a public library, you can reach the Internet,’ said Bill Gates, Sr., co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and a featured speaker at the Public Library Association conference” (Gates, 2004, p.).[KB30] 

          The public libraries in Colorado are successfully bridging the digital divide by offering computer and Internet services to members of their state.  Moe (2002) surveyed 2,000 users of the Colorado State Library system to investigate how their needs were being met.  The user group was diverse and included individuals from all walks of life; however only adults and older teens were surveyed (Moe, 2002).  Of these, 84% visited the library  to utilize Internet services. Thirty-four percent had no other access to the Internet, and the  poorest patrons (19%) relied on the library to learn how to navigate the Web (Moe, 2002).

        The following demographic characteristics were noted in the report as factors contributing to library use:

·         Age: over half of the respondents over 30 used public library computers more than once a week

·         Education:  more than two out of five respondents using the public Internet computers more than once a week had a bachelor’s degree or higher.

·         Income: nearly one-quarter of the respondents who used library Internet access more than once a week were below poverty level.

·         Race/Ethnicity:  White and Hispanic respondents were more likely than African-American respondents to utilize library Internet access.

·         Gender: Male respondents were somewhat more likely than female respondents (54 percent versus 43 percent) to use library Internet computers more than once a week.    

Overall, the study found the library to be an integral part of the Colorado community due to its provision of Internet access.  Access to computers and the Internet were provided for individuals who did not have access elsewhere.  Instructional classes were provided to familiarize members of the Colorado community with computer and Internet use (Moe, 2002).  And a surprising number of individuals with bachelor’s degrees were accessing the Internet via the Colorado State library system.   Although the poor gained some much needed attention and access to computers and the Internet, the entire community benefited from these services.   Through their provision of Internet access, the library system was taking  proactive steps to bridge the digital divide.

         “Colorado public libraries provide 2,297 computers for public use, of which 1,492 provide Internet access, costing $2,576,885 annually” (Moe, 2002, p. )[KB31] .  Moe (2002) found that a considerable amount of time, energy, and finances were being invested into providing Internet access to those individuals who would otherwise not have it, thus providing patrons with vitally need access to a global network of information .  In my opinion, other libraries across the country can learn how to bridge the digital divide, through providing Internet access to disconnected members of the community, by following the example set by the Colorado State Libraries. 

        “There are several cooperative programs being developed to allow libraries and communities to come together to address the digital divide problem with specific populations by providing them with accessibility and training directly focusing on their unique requirements” (Russell & Huang, 2009, p.).  [KB32] The majority of individuals who lack Internet access are usually low-income or unemployed.  African Americans, Latino/as, and Native Americans, in particular, rely on the public library for access to the Internet (Russell & Huang, 2009). In many cases, the library works with the community to design programs, which are specifically tailored to the community’s needs, thereby bridging the digital divide. “For example, Norman Public Library in Oklahoma offers computer classes to help its users learn how to use various software programs and conduct online information searches” (Russell & Huang, 2009, p.).  [KB33] The more relevant the computer training sessions are to the community members, the more beneficial the computer and Internet services are perceived to be by patrons. Where libraries are unable to serve all the Internet needs of disconnected community members, some have  partnere with Community Technology Centers (CTC). “Community Technology Centers (CTCs), which are usually supported by libraries and various other nonprofit groups, are emerging from grassroots support to bring technological opportunities to low-income urban communities” (Russell & Huang, 2009, p. ).[KB34] 

Chapter IV: Great Britain

Great Britain

       The challenges which have created the digital divide in America have been discussed,  however, to make a comparison the second half of the thesis will deal with America’s greatest ally—Great Britain (Harris, 2005).  What is the state of the digital divide in Great Britain?  What is the history of Internet legislation in Great Britain?  How is the British government currently meeting the needs of their citizens insofar as Internet connection is concerned?  How is access provided by the British government benefiting citizens?  What are some of the “best practices” utilized by the British?  Could the same “best practices” utilized by the British be implemented in America?  If so, which ones and how?

John Major 1990

       John Major was Prime Minister of the UK from 1990 to 1997 (John Major, 2010).  There is a dearth of information available on John Major and the digital divide.  I searched on both Google and through FSU libraries Factsearch.  I have concluded that archived information regarding John Major and the digital divide is not available via the web. 

        I, however, thought that it was important to include the years that John Major was Prime Minister of the UK because they encompass the years that Bill Clinton was president of the United States, from 1993-2001(Bill Clinton, 2010).  I was attempting to compare the policies which were active in the UK between the years of 1993 and 2001 to those policies which were active in the United States during those same years.  It was during the Clinton years when the digital divide was first recognized as an issue of national concern.

1988-1998

      There is a particular study which bears mentioning when reviewing the past history of the digital divide in both the U.S. and in Great Britain  entitled, “Give PC’s a Chance: Personal Computer Ownership and the Digital Divide in the United States and Great Britain” (Schmitt & Wadsworth, 2002).  It was conducted by John Schmitt and Jonathan Wadsworth (2002).  Although the study covers the years of 1988-1998, it was not published until 2002 (Schmitt & Wadsworth, 2002).  The study compares PC acquisition and ownership in the U.S. to that in Great Britain (Schmitt & Wadsworth, 2002).

         For the years of 1988-1994 individuals in Great Britain had greater PC ownership than their U.S. counter parts (Schmitt & Wadsworth, 2002).  However, incomes in Great Britain were comparatively lower than incomes in America (Schmitt & Wadsworth, 2002).  In 1994 Americans increased the rate at which they were purchasing computer equipment (Schmitt & Wadsworth, 2002).  By the year 1995 Americans owned a greater number of PCs than their English counter parts (Schmitt & Wadsworth, 2002).  In 1998, three years later, it was estimated that the English were 1.7 years behind the Americans in their PC ownership (Schmitt & Wadsworth, 2002).  There were more differences within the two countries than between the two countries (Schmitt & Wadsworth, 2002).

           There were some interesting findings in this study: “PC ownership varies across households in patterns that closely reflect the distribution of income in the ‘old economy’: PC ownership is heavily concentrated in households with the highest incomes and best formal educations, especially those with married, ‘prime aged,’ household heads” (Schmitt & Wadsworth, 2002).  In America this division of PC ownership fell along the same lines as the racial divide which meant it was more likely for White Americans to own a PC (Schmitt & Wadsworth, 2002).  “In Great Britain, which has a much smaller non-white population, however, PC ownership rates were higher for non-whites” (Schmitt & Wadsworth, 2002).

Prime Minister Tony Blair 1997

       Tony Blair served as the British Labour Party leader and prime minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 until 2007 (Tony Blair, 2010). “He was the youngest prime minister since 1812 and the longest-serving Labour prime minister, and his 10-year tenure as prime minister was the second longest continuous period (after Margaret Thatcher’s) in more than 150 years” (Tony Blair, 2010).  In April of 2005 Tony Blair launched a three year plan to bridge the digital divide in the UK (McCue, 2005).  The plan called for the provision of universal broadband access (McCue, 2005).  “One of the pledges is for a “digital challenge” prize of up to $18.8 million (10 million pounds) for the first local authority and its partners able to demonstrate universal online access to local public services” (McCue, 2005).  Tony Blair also announced a plan to provide a “low-cost national laptop- and PC-leasing scheme” (McCue, 2005).   In my opinion, these were initiatives in the right direction.

      In November of 2003 a study, Connecting people: tackling exclusion?: An examination of the impact on and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups in London, was conducted by the Greater London Authority to determine if  Internet access could reduce social exclusion (Foley et al., 2003).  Research was conducted in focus groups of approximately six people in size (Foley et al., 2003).  Total, 130 people participated in the study (Foley et al. 2003).  There were 20 focus groups (Foley et al., 2003). 

        The focus groups all included members of the London community who were considered to be socially excluded (Foley et al., 2003). “Social exclusion is a shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown”(Foley et al., 2003).  The focus groups were also composed of individuals who were “managing public access and ICT training initiatives” (Foley et al., 2003).

        The reason the Authority study (2003) was conducted was to take a closer look at the digital divide in London, England:

·         Investigates the factors that influence the adoption and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups.

·         Identifies tangible economic and social benefits arising from having access and making use of the Internet.

·         Recommends policies and future action concerning the targeting of resources and design and likely success of current interventions.

·         Identifies avenues for further research.

The digital divide, for the purposes of this study, was considered to be the distance between those who had access to the Internet and those who did not (Foley et al., 2003). 

        Throughout the study the data was compared to the national (UK) ONS study data (Foley et al., 2003).  For the purposes of this paper the UK data will be disregarded (Foley et al., 2003).  In many instances the data which was collected throughout the UK did not reflect the data which was collected in London (Foley et al., 2003).  The study’s initial finding for the lack of Internet access among socially excluded groups was that there were a large number of individuals who were not interested in becoming connected (Foley et al., 2003).  A close second to not being interested was the perception that computer equipment and the cost of connecting to the Internet were not affordable (Foley et al., 2003).

     In order to scale the first barrier to Internet access it was proposed that some interest in being connected to the Internet had to be generated (Foley et al., 2003).  For most people involved in the study their interest in the Internet developed because of their desire to use email (Foley et al., 2003).  The study participants came from a diverse background and many had ties overseas (Foley et al., 2003).  Access to the Internet and email helped many study participants with ties overseas to combat the exorbitant cost of international phone calls (Foley et al., 2003).  

          The reduced cost of email via the Internet drew many interested members of the socially excluded groups into libraries and community access centers (Foley et al., 2003).  The community access centers were preferred though because they provided more assistance and time did not need to be scheduled like in the library (Foley et al., 2003).  Email was also a benefit for those members of the socially excluded groups who were suffering from isolation (Foley et al., 2003).  The elderly and disabled, in particular, benefited tremendously from email and the use of the Internet through the sense of community that was developed while online (Foley et al., 2003).

      The second cause of not being connected to the internet, due to a lack of equipment and service, was reinforced by the perception that equipment and Internet service were more expensive than they actually were (Foley et al., 2003).  During the focus groups this myth was dispelled (Foley et al., 2003).  In fact it was calculated that the cost of being connected to the Internet paid for itself when the time searching for information and the cost of money saved by purchases made online were subtracted from the equation (Foley et al., 2003).

           Access to the Internet was perceived by study group participants as being beneficial because of the vast amounts of information which were made available to them (Foley et al., 2003).  However, most participants in the study agreed that there was not enough access to local information available on the web (Foley et al., 2003).  Most participants in the study believed there should be more local news and neighborhood information available on the Internet (Foley et al., 2003).  Socially excluded groups were heavy consumers of online education, job, and health related information (Foley et al., 2003).  In addition, websites that provided benefits information and government websites were perceived to be less beneficial because they were difficult to access and navigate (Foley et al., 2003).  This was unfortunate because many members of the socially excluded community would have stood to benefit from easier access to benefit information and government websites (Foley et al., 2003).

      A sample of only 130 individuals can in no way represent the entire socially excluded community of London.  However, if through access to the Internet social exclusion in Great Britain can be diminished then it is tremendously important that socially excluded individuals are able to access the Internet (Foley et al., 2003).  The study concluded that while it was unclear as to whether or not access to the Internet could alleviate the problem of social exclusion, it was clear that there were definite disadvantages associated with lack of access to the Internet (Foley et al., 2003).  In addition, there were both social and economic benefits that could be directly attributed to Internet access (Foley et al., 2003).

Digital Divide 2006 

    “Research firm Point Topic has warned that the take-up of high-speed Internet access is still skewed in favour of prosperous urban areas, and the problem may be getting worse” (Wearden, 2006).  Areas in and around London were the most likely places for people to be connected by broadband even though it was estimated that 99% of the population could have broadband access (Wearden, 2006).  The analyst group, Point Topic, conducted interviews to determine who was still not connected to the information infrastructure they found that poor families, for the most part, still lacked digital connectivity (Wearden, 2006).  Point Topic also reported that there needed to be a pressing desire to be connected to the Internet, a relevance, to encourage new families to get connected (Wearden, 2006).

 Prime Minister Gordon Brown 2007

        Prime Minister Gordon Brown was born in Scotland (Gordon Brown, 2010).   He was a “British Labour Party politician who served as chancellor of the Exchequer (1997–2007)” (Gordon Brown, 2010).  Gordon Brown was voted into the office of prime minister of the United Kingdom in 2007 (Gordon Brown, 2010).  Prime Minister Gordon Brown is still serving out his term (Gordon Brown, 2010). “At the time of his elevation to prime minister, he [Gordon Brown] had been the longest continuously serving chancellor of the Exchequer since the 1820s” (Gordon Brown, 2010).  Prime Minister Gordon Brown chose to continue the work begun by Tony Blair to close the digital divide in the UK (Parliamentary reporter, 2008).

       Prime Minister Gordon Brown initiated a plan to distribute subsidized laptops to children in low-income families (Parlimentary reporter, 2008).  The plan is to invest 300 million pounds into hardware, software, broadband, and technical support for low-income families (Parlimentary reporter, 2008).  A subsidy of 700 pounds per low-income family is being offered to school children so that their parents can purchase laptops (Parlimentary reporter, 2008).  “Political advisors said that Brown believes it is clearly unfair for children to be disadvantaged by lack of a home computer, and was influenced by the fact that 90 percent of jobcenter advertisements now require some computer experience” (Parlimentary reporter, 2008).

Digital Divide Continued 2008

      “While broadband continues its march into ever more homes in the UK, new figures from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) also reveal that more than a third of households are still going without a web connection” (Lomas, 2008).  Internet connection figures for the UK improved. “. . . 65% of homes –some 16.46 million households. . .” were connected via the Internet (Lomas, 2008).    The numbers of individuals connected to the Internet had shown a steady increase (Lomas, 2008).  There had been an increase of “1.23 million households since 2007” (Lomas, 2008).  The new figures posted by ONS showed that “56%” of homes that were connected to the Internet in the UK were connected via broadband (Lomas, 2008).

          It was noted in the ONS statistics that while Britons overall were becoming more savvy about Internet technology there was a growing apathetic segment in society that did not see the need to be connected to the Internet (Lomas, 2008).  The link between those who were connected and those who were not connected could be drawn back to educational level and age (Lomas, 2008).  Individuals with a qualification or a university degree and who were under the age of 70 were most likely to be online (Lomas, 2008).  The ONS report showed that the majority of people who accessed the Internet did so from home and there was a growing digital divide between the North and the South (Lomas, 2008).  The Southeast was the most connected area while the northeast showed a much smaller connectivity rate (Lomas, 2008).

The Digital Divide at Present 2010  

     The digital divide is still an issue in the U.K., there are approximately “10 million” adults in the U.K. who have never been online before and “4 million” these individuals are amongst the poorest and most disadvantaged members of the U.K. community (Anderson, 2010).  Martha Lane Fox is in charge of RaceOnline2012, a national program which is charged with the job of getting the 4 million members of the UK community, who are disconnected, online by the next Olympics which will be held in London (Anderson, 2010).   “Supplementary goals include giving all unemployed adults an email account and Internet access, and ensuring that 60 per cent of over-65’s get online” (Anderson, 2010).

      There are plans in the UK to close down the central check clearing central system by 2018 (Anderson, 2010).  At present it costs approximately one pound to write a check (Anderson, 2010).  Banking online is infinitely cheaper it is a quarter of the cost of writing checks (Anderson, 2010).  With no more central check clearing system all banking will have to move online (Anderson, 2010).  Those individuals who are disconnected will not only have trouble finding jobs and keeping in touch with the rest of the world, they will have money management problems (Anderson, 2010).

      The goal in the U.K. is universal access to broadband by 2017 (90% of the population) (Anderson, 2010).  “A 50p per month tax will be applied, if the Government has its way, to every copper telephone landline in the UK to pay for next-generation broadband across the country” (Anderson, 2010).  The government is following through with the 270,000 laptop program that will provide hardware to children in low-income families (Anderson, 2010). 

          Paul A. Longley and Alexander D. Singleton in their study, “Linking Social Deprivation and Digital Exclusion in England,” take a close look at the state of the digital divide in England (2009).  In the article they report the results of their study investigating whether there is a link between social deprivation and digital exclusion in England (Longley & Singleton, 2009).  The study by Longley and Singleton (2009) highlights the changing face of the digital divide in England.  The digital divide, according to Longley and Singleton, is no longer simply about the “’haves’” and the “’have-nots’” (Longley & Singleton, 2009).  The concern now is how material deprivation contributes to digital exclusion (Longley & Singleton, 2009)? 

         In order to link digital exclusion and social deprivation Longley and Singleton choose to utilize the 2004 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) (Longley & Singleton, 2009).  “This widely used summary measure is an aggregation of seven constituent domains—income, employment, health deprivation and disability, education skills and training, barriers to housing and services, crime, and the living environment” (Longley & Singleton, 2009).  This was done so that the research team could locate individuals and neighborhoods which qualify as materially deprived (Longley & Singleton, 2009).

         This study was conducted “. . . under the UK Economic and Social Research Councils (ESRC) ‘E-society’ program. . .” (Longley & Singleton, 2009).  Longley and Singleton applied a geodemographic technique to the study by classifying individuals who live throughout England into twenty-one different categories based on their postal codes (Longley & Singleton, 2009).  An individual’s data was then collected and reviewed in light of where that individual lived to be considered for the development of “policy action” (Longley & Singleton, 2009).   The authors of this study did not want to utilize the term “’digital exclusion’” because they felt that the term was far too pejorative, the authors, Longley and Singleton (2009), prefer the term “’digital unengagement’”.  “Using the 2001 population counts disseminated by the Office for National Statistics . . ., the implication is that in 2001 approximately 5.61 million people in England were living within areas which were characterized as both materially deprived and unengaged with respect to ICT usage” (Longley & Singleton, 2009).  In this way the study tied location to social deprivation and established the fact that a lack of Internet access is both the cause of material deprivation and the result of material deprivation (Longley & Singleton, 2009).

           The study also found that while materially deprivation and digital unengagement coincide in many cases, there were instances where the digitally unengaged were not materially deprived but rather lacked Internet access due to an absence of inclination (Longley & Singleton, 2009).  The article provides a map of the areas which are materially deprived and digitally unengaged (Longley & Singleton, 2009).  The majority of the individual’s who are materially deprived and e-unengaged, live in conurbations, rural areas, and coastal retirement communities (Longley & Singleton, 2009).  The map also shows a division between North and South England (Longley & Singleton, 2009).  More individuals who are materially deprived and digitally unengaged live in North England (Longley & Singleton, 2009).  “There is increasing awareness that the failure of individuals, households and communities to engage with new information and communications technologies has negative consequences in both the private (for example, purchasing behaviour) and public (for example, accessing services) domains” (Longley & Singleton, 2009). 

Conclusion

      In the conclusion of this paper I will reiterate the recommendations made for the London community by the London Authority study (2003) in regards to bridging the digital divide.  England is America’s closest ally and as such we should be abreast of the latest developments in London in order to compete in the global economy (Harris, 2005).   In my opinion, the recommendations made by the authors of this study would provide benefits to almost any community in which they were applied. 

        The first recommendation by the authors of this study is to “promote curiosity” (Foley et al., 2003).  The internet offers a wealth of information and resources (Foley et al., 2003).  After having completed participation in the focus groups participants knew well how much the Internet had to offer (Foley et al., 2003).   According to the authors of this study promoting curiosity encompasses more than merely enticing one or two individuals into trying the Internet (Foley et al., 2003).  The study recommends a publicity campaign of “try it” in order to encourage as many individuals as possible to access the Internet through community access points (Foley et al., 2003).  Once skills and confidence have been developed by individuals they tend to further their exploration of the Internet (Foley et al., 2003).

         The second recommendation from the study is, “an extended role for online center” (Foley et al., 2003).  The authors of the study believed that community access centers could utilize their position as Internet provider in the community to debunk the myth that computer equipment and Internet access were unaffordable (Foley et al., 2003).  Studies have shown that individuals who access the Internet from home utilize the net differently and more often than individuals who access the Internet through community access centers, therefore purchasing a computer and connecting at home should be recommended (Foley et al., 2003). 

       The third recommendation of the study is to “widen access at work” (Foley et al., 2003).  Many members of the socially excluded group did not receive training at work to utilize a computer or were excluded from an Internet connection at work altogether (Foley et al., 2003).  The fourth recommendation of this study is create “a public access resource center” (Foley et al., 2003).  This public access resource center would be utilized to support community access centers (Foley et al., 2003).  The public access resource center could also provide support for staff at the various community access centers and the public access resource center could provide the coordination and facilitation of meetings between various community members, their staff, and the community at large, to reinforce computing and Internet access goals (Foley et al., 2003).

         The fifth recommendation of this study is to begin a “network for good practice” (Foley et al., 2003).  An annual meeting should be convened in the community to discuss ways in which to traverse the digital divide and to increase the participation of the socially excluded (Foley et al., 2003).  Results from studies regarding the digital divide should be shared at this meeting and ways in which to ameliorate the digital divide should be brought to the table (Foley et al., 2003).  This event could become a regular annual event with networking and problem solving community focused meetings being held more frequently (Foley et al., 2003).

         The sixth recommendation of this study is, “ICT help and training information” (Foley et al., 2003).   ICT help and training center would provide assistance through a telephone center located in close proximity to the community access points as well as computer and Internet assistance via the phone and via the web (Foley et al., 2003).  The ICT help center would also provide schedules for community access and public library computer and Internet classes (Foley et al., 2003).  The seventh recommendation from this study is, “neighborhood ICT support” (Foley et al., 2003).  Neighborhoods should be encouraged to organize computer and Internet support groups where individuals can meet informally to discuss computer and Internet issues (Foley et al., 2003).

     The eighth recommendation from this study is to “enhance stimulus for learning” (Foley et al., 2003).  It is easy for someone to admit that they are not proficient in compterese however it is more difficult for an individual to come to grips with illiteracy or other basic educational deficiencies (Foley et al., 2003).  Internet access can inspire further exploration of continuing educational opportunities (Foley et al., 2003).

       In addition to the previous recommendations mentioned above, I believe that home computers should be made available to school children here in America.  My recommendation is based on the UK laptop program for financially challenged school children.  It is my belief that children need to have flexibility, when doing their homework, which only comes from having Internet access at home.  In my own experience, homework often times requires long periods of Internet access at odd hours.  Sometimes work may need to be done early in the morning or very late in the evening when community access centers are not available.  “Solving the digital divide, according to the Digital Divide Organization (2006) is considered as a precondition for reducing poverty, resolving terrorism and achieving sustainable world markets” (Aqili, & Moghaddam, 2008).

Works Cited

Access Florida. (2006). Florida Department of Children and Families. Retrieved from http://www.myflorida.com/accessflorida/

ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing: Budget Cuts Threaten Library Services at Time of Increased Demand. (2010, March 4).  A Perfect Storm Brewing: Budget Cuts Threaten Library Services at Time of Increased Demand. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/research/initiatives/plftas/issuesbriefs/issuebrief_perfectstorm.pdf

Anderson, B. (2010, February 3). Decoding Britain’s Digital Divide. The Independent. Retrieved from

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/decoding-britains-digital-divide-1887395.html

Aqili, S. V., & Moghaddam, A. I. (2008). Bridging the Digital Divide: The Role of Librarians and Information Professionals in the Third Millennium. The Electronic Library 26, no.2. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/2630260207.html

Baker, B. D., & Green, P. C. III. (2009). Equal Educational Opportunity and the Distribution of State Aid to Schools: Can or Should School Racial Composition Be a Factor? Journal of Education Finance, 34.  Retrieved from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/hww/results/results_single_fulltext.jhtml;hwwilsonid=PIA0WTEVJ4FYBQA3DIMSFF4ADUNGIIV0

Becker, E. (1999). Chronology on the History of Slavery: 1619-1789.  Retrieved from http://innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html

Belcher, C. (2009, December 10). Less than Half of African Americans and Hispanics Regularly Use Internet- Yet Overwhelmingly Majority Agrees that Internet Access is Critical to Success in Education, Business, Community and Family Life. Business Wire. Retrieved from http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20091210005194&newsLang=en

Bill Clinton. (2010, March 8) In Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/121813/Bill-Clinton

Borman, K. M., Eitle, T. M., Micheal, D., Eitle, D. J., Lee, R., Johnson, L., Cobb-Roberts, D., Dorn, S., & Shircliffe, B. (2004, Fall). Accountability in a Postdesegregation Era: The Continuing Significance of Racial Segregation in Florida. American Educational Research Journal, 41. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/stable/3699440?seq=23&Search=yes&term=funding&term=Continuing&term=Significance&term=Segregation&term=Era&term=Racial&term=Accountability&term=Florida&term=Postdesegregation&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3DAccountability%2Bin%2Ba%2BPostdesegregation%2BEra%253A%2BThe%2BContinuing%2BSignificance%2Bof%2BRacial%2BSegregation%2Bin%2BFlorida%26f0%3Dall%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3Dfunding%26f1%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3D%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSearch%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&item=1&ttl=4&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doAdvancedResultsFromArticle

Bulger, K. (2007, April 12). A Brief History of the Digital Divide. Retrieved from http://digitalartscorps.org/node/717

Brown, G. (2009, June). Digital Britain Report: Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/digitalbritain-finalreport-jun09.pdf

Browse, K. (n.d.). Parents Involved in Community Schools (PICS). Retrieved from http://www.piics.org

Burnett, G., Jaeger, P.T., & Thompson, K. M. (2008, February 13). Normative Behavior and Information: The Social Aspects of Information Access. Library and Information Science Research, 30. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5R-4RTTKSD-1&_user=2139768&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000054272&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2139768&md5=4b965a3017073f7944bc0bd641f06c91

Cable News Network LP, LLLP.. (2005). Special Report: The Clinton Years. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/clinton/

Caravel. (2010) In Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/94617/caravel

Carvin, A. (2000, January/February). Mind the Gap: The Digital Divide as the Civil Rights Issue of the New Millennium.  Retrieved from http://infotoday.com/mmschools/jan00/carvin.htm

Chandler, A. D. Jr., & Cortada, J. W. (2000).  A Nation Transformed by Information: How Information has Shape The United States From Colonial Times To The Present. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Clinton, W. J. (1996, April 17). Executive Order #12999. Retrieved from http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=10722

Cotton Gin. (2010)  In Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/139916/cotton-gin

Cotton Harvester. (2010)  In Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/139926/cotton-harvester

Cozzen, L. (1998). The Civil Rights Movement 1955-1965: Introduction. Retrieved from http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/contents.html

Davis, A. (2010, April 19). National Broadband Plan Vital to Closing Digital Divide, FCC Tells Senate Committee. Retrieved from http://www.civilrights.org/

Davis, D. M., Bertot, J. C., & McClure, C. R. (2010, April 14). Public Library Funding & Technology Access Study. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/research/initiatives/plftas/2008_2009/librariesconnectcommunities3.pdf

DeMartini, K. (2008, March 3). Supreme Court Case Brief Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District.  Retrieved from http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~keithd/documents/knowledge%20school%20integration%20court%20case%20brief.pdf

Dimaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘Digital Divide’ to `Digital Inequality’: Studying Internet Use As Penetration Increases*.  Retrieved from http://www.webuse.umd.edu/webshop/resources/Dimaggio_Digital_Divide.pdf

Evans, J. (1996).  How-to Guide Overview of NetDay 1996.  Retrieved from http://www.netday.org/howto_overview.htm

Fairlie, R. W. (2005, September 20). Report for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund. Retrieved from http://www.freepress.net/files/lccrdigitaldivide.pdf

Fitchard, K. (2009, January 26). Broadband Obama. Connected Planet Online. Retrieved from http://connectedplanetonline.com/residential_services/commentary/telecom_broadband_priority_090201/index.html

Foley, P. D., Alfonso, X., Brown, K., & Fisher, J. (2003, November 1). Connecting People: Tackling exclusion? An examination of the impact on and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups in London. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2086/1638

Fowler Morse, J. (2006). Education as a Civil Right: The Ongoing Struggle in New York. Educational Studies: Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, 40. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=9&sid=818211f2-de43-415d-b54e-f072ddff8c78%40sessionmgr12

Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). (2010, March 28). Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Retrieved from http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/

Gallagher, M. D., & Cooper, K. B. (2004, September).  A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/anol/NationOnlineBroadband04.htm

Garlin, G. II. (2010, March 18). Protecting Internet Freedom will Close the Digital Divide. Period. End of Story. [Save the Internet]. Retrieved from http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/03/18/protecting-internet-freedom-will-close-digital-divide-period-end-story

Gates, B. (2000, December). Shaping the Internet Age. Retrieved from http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/billg/writing/shapingtheinternet.mspx

Gates,  B. S. (2004).  New Report on Libraries and the Digital Divide . Retrieved From http://www.pewinternet.org/Press-Releases/2004/New-Report-on-Libraries-and-the-Digital-Divide.aspx

Gates, B. (2010).  Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: All Lives Have Equal Value. Retrieved from http://www.ask.com/bar?q=How+did+the+government+fund+library+computers%3F&page=1&qsrc=121&dm=all&ab=6&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gatesfoundation.org%2Flibraries%2FPages%2Funited-states-libraries.aspx&sg=qLRhrr%2FEzbjE0natSz%2B9BGteQ02ccy%2BGcBCaBVkJDPI%3D&tsp=1272797634934

Goldman, J. (n.d.). Keys vs School District No. 1. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_507

Gordon Brown. (2010, February 8)  In  Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/81521/Gordon-Brown

Grotticelli, M.  (2009, September 14). FCC gears up for massive broadband initiative. Broadcast Engineering. Retrieved from http://broadcastengineering.com/news/fcc-gears-up-massive-broadband-initiative-091409/

Government. (2009, October 3) Merriam Webster. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government

Hardy, K., & Beaudoin, J. (2009, September 23). Health technology said to reduce care disparity in poor and minorities. Retrieved from http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/health-technology-said-reduce-care-disparity-poor-and-minorities

Harland, J. & Bath, P. (2007, September).  Assessing the quality of websites providing information on multiple sclerosis: evaluating tools and comparing sites. Health Informatics Journal, 15. Retrieved from http://find.galegroup.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/gtx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2CUS%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28sn%2CNone%2C9%291460-4582%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28ti%2CNone%2C24%29Assessing+the+quality+of%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28vo%2CNone%2C2%2913%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28sp%2CNone%2C3%29207%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28iu%2CNone%2C1%293%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=AONE&searchId=R3&currentPosition=1&userGroupName=tall85761&docId=A168316553&docType=IAC

Hargittai, E. (2002, April). Second -Level Digital Divide: Differences in People's Online Skills. First Monday. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/

Harris Interactive. (2005, September 14). Americans Consider Great Britain Americas Closest Ally, Polls Show. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112662319724339292.html

Hawke, M. (2009, March 16). Combating Racism in America. Berklee News. Retrieved from http://www.berklee.edu/news/558/combating-racism-in-america

 Helbig, N., J. R.-G. (2009, January). OmniFile Full Text Mega. Retrieved September 18, 2009, from Wilson Web: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/hww/advancedsearch/advanced_search.jhtml;hwwilsonid=KNH0JT2GQ550PQA3DIMCFGGADUNGIIV0?prod=OMNIFT

Henderson, W. (n.d.). About The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights & The Leadership Conference Education Fund. Retrieved from http://www.civilrights.org/about/

Hillestad, R., Bigelow, J., Bower, A., Girosi, F., Meili, R., Scoville, R.  & Taylor, R. (2005).  Can Electronic Medical Record Systems Transform Health Care? Potential Health Benefits, Savings, And Costs.

Health Affairs, 24. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1103

Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1998, April 17). Bridging the Racial Divide on the Internet. SCIENCE, 280. Retrieved from http://www.cybercultura.it/pdf/1998_Bridging_Digita_Divide.pdf

Horton, J. (2004). Is The Serpent Eating its Tail? The Digital Divide and African Americans. The Journal of Technology Studies, 30. Retrieved from http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/WebZ/FSPage?pagetype=return_frameset:linktype=servicelink:sessionid=fsapp7-47969-g8oy498p-d4nc89:entitypagenum=33:0?entityframedscrolling=yes:entityframedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lib.fsu.edu:entityframedtitle=:entityframedtimeout=30

Horrigan, J. B. (2009, January 21). If Obama builds it will they log on? Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1085/stimulating-broadband

House, T. W. (n.d.). About the White House Presidents. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/GeorgeWBush/

Internet. (2009, September 23) In Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/291494/Internet

Irving, L. (1995).  Falling Through The Net: A Survey of the "Have Nots" in Rural and Urban America. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html

Irving, L. (1999). Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html

Jefferson, T. (1776, July 4). The Declaration of Independence. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

John Major. (2010, March 8). In Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/358992/John-Major

Kolstad, A. J., & White, S. E. (n.d.). National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/naal/index.asp

Koizumi, K. (2010, January 18). Science and Engineering Indicators 2010: A Report Card for U.S. Science, Engineering, and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/18/science-and-engineering-indicators-2010-a-report-card-us-science-engineering-and-tec

Lomas, N. (2008, August 28). Third of UK homes still lack internet access. Retrieved from http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/networking/2008/08/28/third-of-uk-homes-still-lack-internet-access-39466365/

Longley, P. A., & Singleton, A. D. (2009, June). Linking Social Deprivation and Digital Exclusion in England. Urban Studies, 46. doi:10.1177/0042098009104566

Lynch, B. P. (2002, October, 7). The Digital Divide or the Digital Connection: A U.S. Perspective.  First Monday. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/

Macleod-Ball, M., Calabrese, C., & Stanley, J. (2010, January 14). COMMENTS

OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (“ACLU”) AND

THE TECHNOLOGY AND LIBERY PROJECT OF THE ACLU.

Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/ACLU_Comments_on_FCC_Net_Neutrality.pdf

Male, J. S. (2010, January 17). Can We Afford Web Access for All? Parade . Gainesville, Florida, USA: Parade.com.

Margolis, J., Rachel, E., Joanna, G., Holme, J. J., & Noa, K. (2008). Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

McConnaughey, J. W., & Lader, W. (1997).  Falling Through the Net: New Data on the Digital Divide.

Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/falling.html

McCue, A. (2005, April 1). Tony Blair launches digital divide 'challenge'. Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/Tony-Blair-launches-digital-divide-challenge/2100-1034_3-5650519.html

Middle Passage. (2010)  In Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/381398/Middle-Passage

Moe, T. (2002, July/August). Bridging the "Digital Divide" in Colorado Libraries: Survey Results from the Colorado Public Libraries and the "Digital Divide" 2002 Study. Public Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.lrs.org/documents/DD_2002/moefeature.pdf

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation. London: The MIT Press

Oyez U.S. Supreme Court Media: Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1 (n. d.).  Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_908/

Parlimentary reporter, Computing  (2008, September 23).  Brown announces 300m plan to bridge the digital divide. Retrieved from http://www.computing.co.uk/articles/print/2226703

Pershing, G. (2010, March 26). Universal Service. Retrieved from http://www.ask.com/bar?q=history+Telephone+subsidies&page=3&qsrc=121&dm=all&ab=5&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cybertelecom.org%2Fusf%2F&sg=nxjN28Mc9JVLnZ03iq5dyS6UIQgr6aPkvruWdVwYycg%3D&tsp=1272762964772

Pozo-Olano, J. (2007).  New Report Shows How E-Rate is Connecting Communities and Schools to 21st Century Academic and Employment Oppotunities. Retrieved from http://www.edlinc.org/pdf/10-yearAnniversaryReportReleaseandStatements.pdf

Rainie, L., Madden, M., Boyce, A.,  Lenhart, A., Horrigan, J., Allen, K., & O'Grady, E. (2003, April 16). The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A new look at Internet access and the digital divide. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2003/The-EverShifting-Internet-Population-A-new-look-at-Internet-access-and-the-digital-divide.aspx

RESEARCH REPORT ISSUED ON PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDING. (2008, October). RESEARCH REPORT ISSUED ON PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDING. Public Management. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=8&sid=7d469e7a-6abf-41ef-9844-aca96aef551b%40sessionmgr13

Reed, P. D. (2010, January). Barack Obama’s Improbable Election and the Question of Race and Racism in Contemporary America. Journal of Black Studies, 40. Retrieved from http://jbs.sagepub.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/reprint/40/3/373

Register, E. (2006, September 6). Data Reveal Internet Racial Gap. Gaurd. Retrieved from http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=20060906&id=voIVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dfADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6695,1294398

Rohde, G. L., & Shapiro, R. (2000, October).  Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion. Retrieved from http://search.ntia.doc.gov/pdf/fttn00.pdf

Rivas, J. (2010, February 15). The New Civil Rights Fight: Internet Access. [Racewire the colorlines blog]. Retrieved from http://www.racewire.org/archives/2010/02/the_new_civil_rights_fight_internet_access_petition.html

Rum. (2010)  In Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/512641/rum

Russell, S. E., &  Huang, J. (2009). Libraries’ Role in Equalizing Access to Information. Library Management, 30. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0150300106.html

Sack, K. & Elder, J. (2000, July 11). Poll Finds Optimistic Outlook but Enduring Racial Division. The New York Times. http://find.galegroup.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/gtx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2CUS%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ti%2CNone%2C17%29Race+in+America.+%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28sn%2CNone%2C9%290362-4331%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&tabID=T004&prodId=AONE&searchId=R2&currentPosition=7&userGroupName=tall85761&docId=A63288123&docType=IAC

Seattle Public School District No.1 Case Background  (n. d.). Background on the PICS v. Seattle School District Case and Overview of the Evolution of Student Assignment in Seattle Public Schools. Retrieved from http://www.seattleschools.org/area/media/SupremeCourt/backgroundonpics.pdf

Scott, D. G. (2009). 53 How. L.J. 177. Howard Law Journal. Retrieved from http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/WebZ/FSPage?pagetype=return_frameset:linktype=servicelink:sessionid=fsapp8-34050-g8u3vph6-f4169h:entitypagenum=2:0?entityframedscrolling=yes:entityframedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lib.fsu.edu:entityframedtitle=:entityframedtimeout=30

Seitles, M. (1996). THE PERPETUATION OF RESIDENTIAL RACIAL SEGREGATION IN AMERICA: HISTORICAL DISCRIMINATION, MODERN FORMS OF EXCLUSION, AND INCLUSIONARY REMEDIES. Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law. Retrieved from http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/Vol141/seit.htm

Schmitt, J., & Wadsworth, J. (2002, April). Give PC's a Chance: Personal Computer Ownership and the Digital Divide in the United States and Great Britain. Retrieved from http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/DP0526.pdf

Smith, M. R., & Marx, L. (1996). Does Technology Drive History?: The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Social Security Online. (2010, May 7). Social Security Online: The Official Website of the U.S Social Security Administration. Retrieved from http://www.ssa.gov/

STCT Study. (2006, August 20). Basic Concept of e-government. The New Nation: Bangladesh’s Independent News Source. Retrieved from http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_30116.shtml

Strawn, G. O., Ph.D. (n.d.). Resolving the Digital Divide: Information, Access, and Opportunity.  Retrieved from http://www.nitrd.gov/Pubs/pitac/digital_divide/pres-2feb00-ddlrecs.html

Tady, M. (2010, May 1). Wired Less: Disconnected in Urban America. Retrieved from http://www.internetforeveryone.org/americaoffline/urban/intro

Teasley, M., & Ikard, D. (2010, January). Barack Obama and the Politics of Race. Journal of Black Studies, 40. Retrieved from http://jbs.sagepub.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/reprint/40/3/411

The HITECH Act. (2010).  The HITECH Act. Retrieved from http://www.impac.com/hitech-act.html#BMwhatis

Tony Blair. (2010, February 8) In Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/68756/Tony-Blair

United States Census Bureau.  Reported Internet Usage for Individuals 3 Years and Older, by Selected Characteristics: 2009 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/computer/2009.html

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.  May 2008 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_nat.htm#b15-0000

Victory, N. J., & Cooper, K. B. (2002, February).  A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding their use of the Internet. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/anationonline2.pdf

Walton, A. (1999). Technology Versus African-Americans. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99jan/aftech.htm

Wearden, G. (2006, January 19). Broadband divide getting wider. Retrieved from http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/networking/2006/01/19/broadband-divide-getting-wider-39247982/

Wedgeworth, R. (2006). The State of Adult Literacy 2006. Retrieved from http://www.proliteracy.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=14

Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001, November). Does the Internet Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital?: Social Networks, Participation, and Community Commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45. doi: 10.1177/00027640121957286

White House: Educate to Innovate (n.d.). Educate to Innovate. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/educate-innovate

Who Runs Gov: Lawrence H. Summers. (2009). Lawrence  H. Summers. Retrieved from http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Lawrence_H._Summers

Wigfield, M. (2010, April 21). FCC Kicks Off Universal Service Reform. Retrieved from http://www.fcc.gov/

Wilhelm,  A. G. (2004). Digital Nation: Toward an Inclusive Information Society.  Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Williams Jr., V. J. (2009, March 1).  Fatalism: Anthropology, Psychology, Sociology and the IQ Controversy.  Journal of African American Studies, 13. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=15&sid=a4b1f3b5-e2dd-4a3d-8a9c-490e140c9444%40sessionmgr10

Woodruff,  J. (Interviewer), & Summers, L. H. (Interviewee). (2009). The Innovation of Economy [Interview transcript]. The White House: National Economic Council: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nec/speeches/innovation-economy

---

 [KB1]Add page number for this quote here.

 [KB2]Add page number for this quote here.

 [KB3]Insert page number for this quote

 [KB4]Although this was published in 2009, the data used were 2005.  Is there anything to cover the period from 2005-2008?

 [KB5]

 [KB6]Number this table, then create a caption for it that includes a citation to the source & page number.

 [KB7]Ideally you would update this, since this task force should have met and made its recommendations by now.  If you cannot find the information, remove this sentence.

 [KB8]Insert page number if this is a quote

 [KB9]This isn’t an appropriate citation, since you are trying to make the point that this condition has persisted to the present day.

 [KB10]But they are getting government support to do this, correct?  Are you saying this is not enough, or that public schools and public libraries are not appropriate venues for universal access?

 [KB11]This date is incomplete

 [KB12]Add page number for this quote

 [KB13]Add page number for this quote

 [KB14]Insert page number for this quote

 [KB15]This is a Florida-specific reference.  You might want to choose something national, such as the SATs.

 [KB16]Do you mean more funds per capita? Or a greater percentage of funding overall?

 [KB17]Check Purdue Owl for how to cite something as quoted in something else.

 [KB18]This is the first time you’ve mentioned this as a digital divide characteristic. How does it fit with the change you’ve mentioned earlier to broadband access? What do either of these have to do with the failure of public schools to provide equitable educational opportunities to African Americans.

 [KB19]Add page number for this quotation

 [KB20]Add page number for quote here.

 [KB21]Add page number for this quote

 [KB22]Add page number for this quote

 [KB23]I think that you need to change this table #.  Add the source for the table to the caption.

 [KB24]Check this quotation.  I notice that both sets of percentages are identical. Is this correct?

 [KB25]Check this citation

 [KB26]This is a report of a study in

 [KB27]This section appears to be taken from a very short news story from Bangaldesh. Most of the content appears to have been lifted from http://www.mty.itesm.mx/egap/centros/caep/imagenes/REDIP/2_E_government_around_the_world.pdf  I would suggest that you read this article and incorporate it into your thesis, removing the references attributed to STCT Study.

 [KB28]Add page number for this quote.

 [KB29]Add page number(s) for these quotes.

 [KB30]Add page number for this quote

 [KB31]Add page number

 [KB32]Add page number

 [KB33]Add page number

 [KB34]Add page number