DIGITAL EQUITY 1

Digital Equity as a Social Justice Issue

Alexander W. LaForest

School of EDD: Administration and Supervision: Educational Leadership, Liberty University

EDUC730: Issues & Trends in Learning Technologies

Dr. Brian Kuyatt

March 30, 2022

Author Note

Alexander W. LaForest

I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alexander LaForest.

Email: alaforest@liberty.edu
DIGITAL EQUITY 2

Digital Equity as a Social Justice Issue

The increase of means and access to technology has offered a multitude of opportunities

to both classroom educators as well as students. However, there are always two sides to a coin.

While the positives that have come from technology integration award students and teachers the

ability to differentiate, pursue passions, and extend the barriers of the classroom, the equity

surrounding digital initiatives is often lacking. Areas where the access to internet or availability

of resources is scarce poses an issue that is systemic to lower socio-economic and developing

regions. This notion of the technologically privileged becomes a social justice issue that plagues

students setting them up for a life of playing catch up.

Digital equity has been a rising issue coming to the forefront of many school related

conversations. Much of the dialogue focusing on what is not available, whether it is laptops or

internet access. The International Society for Technology in Education (2022) has noted that

moving forward:

An initiative must ensure sufficient bandwidth and connection speeds to allow learning

and teaching to occur anytime…equitable access means more than simply providing

devices and connectivity. It also means giving every student the opportunity to learn from

teachers who understand how to use technology. (para. 2).

This proposed ideal has two key take-aways, equitable access and understanding. Access to

technology without understanding of implementation is fruitless. Herseim (2019) identifies the

pairing components to digital equity as, “digital literacy and innovation” (p. 83). When students

can manipulate and create utilizing the technology at their disposal, then they have become

empowered.
DIGITAL EQUITY 3

Working to overcome social justice issues is nothing new to the classroom environment.

From economic standing to racial tension to language barriers, social justice issues have a long-

standing impact in the education realm. Meir (2018) writes, “the pursuit of social justice is a

reflection of the desire for a more equitable society through the development of a deeper

understanding of the meanings of injustice” (p. 331). Acknowledgement of the issue is not

enough, slapping a band-aid solution on the problem is not enough, the issue must be tackled at

the basis of the systemic cause. Meir (2018) also writes, “where once there was a landscape of

hope that created the opportunity for the belief in equity and social justice there is now

repression, commodification and managerialism…inclusion through value, utopia, equity, and

vision has become a forgotten language” (p. 344). Educators must work to put digital equity in

the spotlight of educational causes. Students cannot be left to ascertain new skills on their own

anymore. Without proper intervention and implementation this ideal for digital equity will fail

part of a generation and leave them with a technological gap to overcome becoming yet another

social justice issue afflicting students.

Current Issues

While issues regarding digital equity have been persistent for a long time, the recent

years of the COVID-19 pandemic forcing schools into remote learning brought many of these

issues to the forefront. As previously mentioned, digital equity plays into several factors. The

first being accessibility. Without access to viable technology students and staff are at a loss for

proper implementation of resources. Secondly, students and staff need to understand how to

interact with available resources efficiently and effectively. Willems (2019) notes that, “the

acknowledgement of the emergent digital divide – between the haves and the have-nots –

included access to computer hardware, software and connectivity” (p. 152). There is no secret
DIGITAL EQUITY 4

that accessibility is an issue, whether in the inner-city, low-income areas, or rural areas. Many

districts are struggling with increasing access to technology. However, there are issues that

follow accessibility to resources. Willems (2019) further contributes that, “One solution for a

staff-led approach to address such issues … is the creation of a robust professional development

program on digital technology to help stem the digital divide between staff haves and have-nots”

(p. 155). This issue pertaining to training indicates that accessibility is not enough. While many

districts are struggling to find access both in school and at home to laptops, internet access, and

various other resources; if staff members are not knowledgeable enough to instruct students, then

another hurdle is being added to the classroom environment.

Programs such as Edulastic, Google Classroom, GoGuardian exist to assist teachers with

content creation, content management, and digital behavior management, but without training

these tools are just another bookmarked site for later. Gleason and Suen (2022) write, “if we do

not consider the human service component that can help promote comfort and literacy with

digital tools and devices…we will continue to fail at achieving digital equity” (p. 76). Fostering

digital literacy is crucial skill for teachers to master and instill in students if they want to set them

up for success. Ford (2018) poses that, “Youth who grasp the basics of digital literacy, social

media, and online educational resources will have a better opportunity to control many aspects of

their lives that are influenced by technology” (p. 72). This is the cause that social justice for

digital equity needs to seek out to remedy; not just accessibility of resources but furthering the

understanding of then how to use said resources.

Identified Gaps

The digital divide has become an ever-widening issue between generations and

geographical regions. In 2021 more than 50% of students in the country were reported unable to
DIGITAL EQUITY 5

have access to internet sources consistently to participate in online learning (Lieberman, 2021).

Over the last five years rural areas boosted their access to broadband internet by 9% to a

newfound 72%, while both suburban and urban regions saw no or minimal growth (Vogels,

2021). Walker (2017) writes, “rural schools are ahead of their suburban and urban counterparts

in several measurements of tech proficiency” (para. 1). The argument of rural schools having less

access to devices is only one aspect of the conversation for digital equity. To propose digital

equity, the entire scope must be examined. What percent of students and teachers have access to

devices? What percent of students and teachers have reliable access to internet at school and

home? What percent of teachers and students are integrating and interacting with technology

with fidelity? With rural students performing better than their urban counterparts when it comes

to digital literacy while working with less resources, the notion of class size is brought into

question. Urban and suburban classes have typically larger class sizes compared to rural

classroom, allowing more time for teacher and student one-on-one interaction. This allows

teachers more time to share tech skills and go step-by-step to help students build routine and

proficiencies to become digitally literate. The following are two takeaways regarding the digital

divide. First, rural schools while making progress concerning accessibility to technology still

have a way to go to stay on pace with burgeoning urban and suburban districts. Second, urban

and suburban schools need to work on prioritizing digital literacy skills to capitalize on the

opportunities that are available to students as they grow older.

Synthesis

Current literature depicts digital equity to reflect two key ideas, accessibility and literacy.

A reoccurring theme from all regions is how students and teachers are still needing more access

to technology. In this digital age technology is rapidly evolving and many school districts cannot
DIGITAL EQUITY 6

seem to provide sufficient resources to all students. On the contrary, districts with adequate

resources, few and far between, are struggling to provide instructional tools that bolster skills for

digital literacy. Aguilar (2020) writes:

The digital equity gap in K-12 education has largely moved beyond a binary paradigm

characterized by students who have access to technology, and students who do not…

instead, the current digital equity gap is characterized by what sort of technology students

have access to, where they access it, and what kind of infrastructure is in place to enable

its use. (p. 286).

This notion of the have and the have nots is further characterized by Statti and Torres (2020)

who note this new subculture as, “new poverty that is created from digital inequality” (p. 179).

Statti and Torres’ proposed new poverty has found ground between social classes, education

levels, and prisoner rehabilitation, demanding the need for digital inequity to be handled.

While the call for digital equity has never been greater, many districts are making steps in

the right direction. However, with districts moving at different paces, and building to building

with teachers being reluctant to change, digital equity cannot be remedied until there is whole

staff buy-in. Hye and Hwang (2020) write, “technology integration is an authentic instructional

strategy to enhance students’ ability to connect what they learn to their everyday lives. Through

technology, teachers can not only improve their teaching efficiency, but extend and transform

learning” (p. 9). Proper technology implementation can go a long way when it comes to assisting

instruction and providing opportunities for students. Mucetti (2017) notes that by implementing

feasible digital initiatives, “the district’s culture has improved. The full execution of the changes

in the technology goal and all the associated key initiatives—e.g., infrastructure, hardware,

software, and professional development—has laid a phenomenal foundation for deeper

DIGITAL EQUITY 7

transformation” (p. 33). Just as the digital divide was not spawned in one day, nor will it be

alleviated. Government programs calling for large sweeps of ordering and distribution of laptops

and laying of fiberoptic cables for high-speed Wi-Fi take time. With the rapid growth cycle that

permeates the digital age, time is something that needs to be held of importance. By tackling

smaller projects and initiatives, school districts can chip away at digital inequity and in turn work

towards lessening the educational and digital gap.

Equity as a Form of Justice

There needs to be an improvement for better access and utilization of technology and

resources to create an equitable learning environment for all students. The growing digital divide

perpetuates an already existing inequity between districts that are struggling financially and those

that are well off. Students from low socio-economic areas yet again suffer because of their lack

of resources that either they cannot afford or that the district cannot provide due to funding. The

haves versus the have-nots between rural and urban areas compared to affluent suburbs forces

students to learn digital skills later or at a disadvantaged level. Arguments for seeking out

alternative areas for free Wi-Fi access, for example, Public Libraries, McDonalds, etc.,

stigmatizes a hurdle that adolescents should not have to jump. As the digital age becomes

normalized, the necessity for access to broadband internet and resources increases just for

students to stay on top of their studies. However, this proposes a major issue with free public

education. If students or parents need to pay for these resources to ensure participation in school,

then the schooling is no longer free. With districts struggling to provide ample laptops, they are

turning to alternative sources of technology, although a device may have online functions it

might not be optimized for school capabilities. Dankowski (2022) coins this term as, “usable

device instead of internet-enabled device. Smartphones are internet-enabled devices, but it is

DIGITAL EQUITY 8

very difficult to submit a résumé or write a research paper on them” (p. 39). Students need

usable devices that are designed for school and work functions, the time of improvising to make-

do needs to be done. Perseverance and grit have their place in the classroom, but when the need

to demonstrate both becomes the norm, the issue becomes numb and inequity reigns.

Nevertheless, access to technology does not solve the issue at hand. Equitable access to

educational resources is moot without training on implementation. Utilizing PowerPoint or

Google Slides while assisting with delivery of a lesson does not help further any technology

skills. Teachers need to get to a level where their confidence with resources can help students

develop habits of interacting and using technology for their own gain. Through professional

development educators can build these skills, however they also need to be open to changing

their styles of instruction. Badamas (2021) proposes that teacher personality could be an

indicator of how reluctant or willing to change a teacher may be. As districts strive for increasing

their students and teachers’ digital literacy, time needs to be allocated. Time is consistently being

stripped away from teachers whether for meetings, coverages, building duties, the list goes on.

This loss of 45-60 minutes a day adds up fast. To expect teachers to plan, grade, and master new

teaching styles outside of contractual hours under-the-guise of being for the children, is not a fair

ask of their time. This will inevitably breed resentment and reluctance to change with potential

teacher burnout, leaving the students as the ones who pay the price

Strategies

A vast array of strategies has been utilized over the years to chip away at the growing

digital divide affecting students. These approaches range from newly implemented methods for

training teachers to initiatives to boost access to technology for students in low access areas.

Schrum and Sumerfield (2018) write, “programs like 1:1 device and bring-your-own-device
DIGITAL EQUITY 9

(BYOD) initiatives have addressed student access issues … programs such as the E-rate program

have been widely adopted to ensure that students have reliable broadband internet connections”

(p. 141). Execution of these programs has assisted with increasing student access to technology

in the schools. Some districts have even equipped their buses with Wi-Fi capabilities for students

to complete homework while riding to and from school. Additionally, these buses are then

parked in the community for students to be able to access the internet while at home.

Furthermore, districts are offering free hotspots for families to use to access the internet if other

options are unavailable (Schrum & Sumerfield, 2018). Communities are districts are working to

lessen the tangible digital divide for students.

Moving forward a harsh lens needs to be applied to the structure of how some of the

initiatives for families and students is being broadcasted. If an initiative tackling internet

accessibility is only able to be accessed on an online website, then the system is flawed.

Additional methods of enrollment need to be examined and employed. Strategies that are the

most effective must overlap under three ideals: affordable internet and devices, training, and

outreach (Gleason & Suen, 2022). It is then from here that programs can work with families,

students, and teachers to create a system of best practices. Prescott (2021) poses three ideals

moving forward to work towards lessening the digital divide: “Expand definitions of curriculum

quality to include representation, relevance, and inclusion…reconceive what digital equity means

and what it looks like in practice…provide teachers the support and learning they need to deliver

digital equity and culturally responsive learning experiences” (p. 9-11). Through scaffolded

professional developments teachers can begin to build their toolkit of resources to use and pass

on to their students. Just as instruction is differentiated for students, the sessions for teacher

should be as well. While these trainings could be built and structured in-house, teachers should
DIGITAL EQUITY 10

not be left to find their own resources for learning until they have begun to reflect aspects of

digital literacy. As government and state programs work towards lessening the cost for

accessibility to technologies, and teachers become more apt in how to include digital tools into

their lessons for student engagement, then educators can start to make a dent in the digital divide

through digital equity.

Conclusion

As society works towards lessening the digital divide and providing equitable access, a

few objectives need to be held. While increased access is required in rural and low-

socioeconomic areas, access to technology is not enough. Digital literacy needs to become the

motive of the hidden standard for lessons. While delivering content-based instruction, teachers

need to make the most of the resources available. Finally, this can only happen with adequate

time allocated for learning opportunities. Teachers need to be given time to interact, try, fail,

persevere, and then succeed with their technology-based lessons and implementation. Then the

same needs to be done for the students. By being able to extend both opportunities and grace for

interaction with educational technology and digital tools students can build their skillset and set

themselves up for success as they grow up and pursue college and careers. However, if the

digital divide is not lessened soon, the physical divide of resources will no longer be the only

issue, and a digital literacy gap will be added to the long list of different sorts of educational

gaps.
DIGITAL EQUITY 11

References

Aguilar, S. J. (2020). Guidelines and tools for promoting digital equity.  Information and

Learning Science, 121(5), 285-299. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1108/ILS-

042020-0084

Badamas, O. L. (2021). Basic school teachers’ personality type as determinant of classroom

management in Lagos State, Nigeria. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn),

15(3), 329–334.

Dankowski, T. (2022). Getting There Together: Digital equity coalitions offer partners new ideas

and extra resources for solving problems. American Libraries, 53(3/4), 38–41.

Ford, C. A. (2018). Equity and Digital Literacies: Issues of Access, Ethics and Engagement in a

Youth Community Setting. Language and Literacy, 20(3), 67-72.

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.20360/langandlit29409

Gleason, K., & Suen, J. J. (2022). Going beyond affordability for digital equity: Closing the

“Digital Divide” through outreach and training programs for older adults. Journal of the

American Geriatrics Society, 70(1), 75–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.17511

Herseim, J. (2019). Digital equity: What comes after access? Students need to be taught how to

use tech or a digital divide will persist even if everyone has a device. District

Administration, 55(10), 83.

Hye, J. K., & Hwan, Y. J. (2020). Sustainable Technology Integration in Underserved Area

Schools: The Impact of Perceived Student Change on Teacher Continuance

Intention. Sustainability,  12(12), 4802. 

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.3390/su12124802

ISTE. (2022). Equitable access. ISTE. Retrieved March 20, 2022, from

DIGITAL EQUITY 12

 https://www.iste.org/standards/essential-conditions/equitable-access

Lieberman, M. (2021, May 28). Most students now have home internet access. but what about

the ones who don't? Education Week. Retrieved March 28, 2022, from

https://www.edweek.org/technology/most-students-now-have-home-internet-access-but-

what-about-the-ones-who-dont/2021/04

Meir, D. (2018). Further Education and Inclusive Practice: Past Experiences, Current Issues and

Future Concerns. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 23(3), 328–347.

Mucetti, R., EdD. (2017). From Forty-to-One to One-to-One: Eliminating the Digital Divide and

Making Equity Actionable. Educational Leadership and Administration, 28, 28-36. 

Prescott, S. (2021). Bridging Digital Equity and Culturally Responsive Education in PreK-12:

Leveraging Pandemic Pedagogy to Rethink the Status Quo. In New America. New

America

Schrum, L., & Sumerfield, S. (2018). Learning supercharged: Digital Age Strategies and

insights from the edtech frontier. International Society for Technology in Education.

Statti, A., & Torres, K. (2020). The Forgotten Minority: Exploring Deficiencies in Access to

Education and Technology in Rural America. Peabody Journal of Education, 95(2), 173–

182.

Vogels, E. A. (2021, October 19). Some digital divides persist between rural, urban and

Suburban America. Pew Research Center. Retrieved March 28, 2022, from

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/19/some-digital-divides-persist-between-

rural-urban-and-suburban-america/

Walker, R. W. (2017, November 16). Report: Rural Schools Outpace Urban, suburban peers in
DIGITAL EQUITY 13

access to technology. EdScoop. Retrieved March 28, 2022, from

https://edscoop.com/report-rural-schools-outpace-urban-suburban-peers-in-access-to-

technology/

Willems, J. (2019). Digital equity: Considering the needs of staff as a social justice issue.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 150–160.

https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.550