For students to learn with the tools and content of the Internet, they must have ready access to its supporting technology. But even the term access must be more sharply defined. "Access" is more than getting one's hands on a computer, or simply connecting to the Internet.

Access must be convenient and affordable. It must offer a user the opportunity to find and download complex, content-rich resources. The technology that supports access must be where the learner is located and be available whenever he or she needs it. Access may take place in the school or college or adult literacy classroom, in the library or after school center, in the community center or workplace, or in the home.

Those who work with the technology that supports access must have the skill and understanding to apply it well. If the user-whether teacher or learner, parent or administrator-does not know how to work with technology or where to go on the Internet to find material of value, that learner does not have real access to what the Internet offers.

Access also implies that once a user has the connection and is able to use it, he or she can find content and applications that have meaning and value for his or her learning needs. Much of the content on the Web is created for adults, not schoolchildren. And little is written at a level that works for the 44 million Americans who read below the average literacy level.1 Non-English speakers and those from other cultures find little on the "shelves" of the Internet that speaks to them or to their interests.

All these are issues of access-the linchpin connecting all other issues raised in this report.

Without broad access, there will be little demand for the innovative content and applications that can bring new teaching techniques and new assessment models. Without access, teachers cannot benefit from the just-in-time training and support the Internet has made possible in other professions. Without access, schools and universities will not have the links that could move research into practice and practice into research.

Access is fundamental.

Technology Trends:
Delivering on the Promise

The promise of widely available, high quality web-based education is made possible by technological and communications trends that could lead to important educational applications over the next two to three years.

The first trend is toward greater broadband access and better data packet handling capabilities resulting from the new "Internet2" project. For learners this will mean a richer delivery of content than today's delivery of simple text. Tomorrow, higher "bandwidth" will enable richer interactive environments.

The second trend is that of pervasive computing, in which computing, connectivity, and communications technologies connect small, multipurpose devices, linking them by wireless technologies. It is much cheaper to build cellular relay stations than lay miles of cable. Wireless solutions may enable underdeveloped and remote areas to quickly take advantage of the Web via wireless phones, two-way pagers, and hand-held devices.

The third trend is digital convergence: merging the capabilities of telephone, radio, television, and other interactive devices. The ubiquitous infrastructure of television will be significantly enhanced by conversion to digital transmission, which has been mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Through this increased capability, stations can offer dramatically enhanced programming by "datacasting" a wealth of supplemental information to accompany the regular broadcast. This may include course materials, software, and reference guides delivered via text, video, or audio formats. Direct satellite connections to the home offer another pathway for rich content.2

The fourth trend accelerating the pace of educational technology advances is the establishment of technical standards for content development and sharing. Groups involved in developing learning standards are working together under the umbrella of the federal Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) initiative. Led by the U.S. Department of Defense, with the cooperation of other federal agencies, academia, the private sector, and the technology industry, this group has developed standards for interoperability known as the Sharable Courseware Object Reference Model (SCORM).3 These standards provide a foundation for the Pentagon to build the learning environment of the future. The influence of this initiative will reach far beyond the military, as have past initiatives including the development of the Internet.

Similarly, the Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF) is an industry initiative to develop an open specification to ensure that K-12 instructional and administrative software applications can work together. Close to 100 hardware and software companies and school districts are involved in this effort.4 Their objective is to "revolutionize" the management and accessibility of data within schools and school districts, enabling diverse applications to interact and share data efficiently, reliably, and securely, regardless of platform. Adopting standards such as these makes sharing of content and collaborative design more feasible. For example, the SchoolTone Alliance, a global partnership of over 25 leading education service providers, is developing a framework for web-based portals that build on this model.5

The fifth trend is the emergence of "adaptive technology"-technology that combines speech recognition, gesture recognition, text-to-speech conversion, language translation, and sensory immersion to change the very substance of network-enhanced human communication.

A final trend is the dramatic drop in the unit cost of broadband. Bandwidth will decrease in cost and increase in power more rapidly than the advances in chip technology described by Moore's law.6 Ubiquitous Internet access can become a viable option for all, rather than a privileged few.7

These are promising trends. But to benefit fully from these trends, learners must have affordable, easy access to the computing power necessary to bring these resources to the desktop, the laptop, or the appropriate Internet-enabled handheld-or even wearable-device.

Digital Inclusion: Are We Doing Enough?

A number of surveys tracking the growth of computer connections in homes and schools provide a picture of what the U.S. Department of Commerce calls a growing trend toward "digital inclusion."8 But digital inclusion must work wherever the learner and learning opportunities come together-at home, at school, and on the college campus.

Household Internet Access9

In the last two years Internet access in households has grown dramatically. In just a year and a half (from December 1998 to August 2000) the share of households with Internet access doubled, rising from 26.2 percent to 41.5 percent. Rural households are catching up. The data show a 75 percent increase in rural household access over this 18 month period, so that today 38.9 percent of rural households have Internet access. Broadband penetration is still greater in central cities (12.2 percent) and urban areas (11.8 percent) than in rural areas (7.3 percent). The national average for households with broadband access is 10.7 percent.

But troubling gaps remain and are expanding in some cases:

· Between December 1998 and August 2000 the gap in Internet access between Black households and the national average grew from 15 percent to 18 percent; for Hispanic households the gap grew from 14 percent to 18 percent.

· About a third of the U.S. population uses the Internet at home; only 18.9 percent of Blacks and 16.1 percent of Hispanics do so.

Home access is important for students doing research, taking online courses, and communicating with teachers and other learners. For parents, online access means new kinds of communication with their children's schools, with their children's teachers, and with other parents. For all households, Internet access is another way to connect with their communities and government services. Home access helps to advance economic opportunities: low-income users were the most likely to report using the Internet to look for jobs.

Wiring Schools and Libraries

Those learners without Internet access at home rely on schools, libraries, and other public places to provide this access. For households with incomes below $40,000, students are more likely to have Internet access at school (31 percent have Internet access at home versus 56 percent at school).10

For many economically disadvantaged and minority group youngsters, a computer at school or in the library after school is the only link to the wide world of the Internet.

Educational institutions are struggling to provide students with Internet access, and great strides have been made in bringing schools, libraries, and postsecondary institutions online.11

But here again, there are gaps.

The E-rate has been a major factor in providing school and library access. Enacted as a part of the Universal Service Program of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the E-rate program provides discounts to public and private schools, libraries, and consortia on the costs of telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal networking. However, E-rate discounts do not reach places where many others could benefit from the learning opportunities of the Internet-from daycare centers to senior centers, and from adult literacy programs and community centers to museums, and other venues for both formal and informal learning.

K-12 Educational Access12

The recent growth in Internet connectivity has been dramatic. School connectivity has grown from 65 percent in 1996 to 95 percent in 1999. But what counts most for instructional purposes is classroom connectivity, providing student access to Internet connections where they learn-in the classroom. Classroom connectivity has soared from 14 percent in 1996 to 63 percent in 1999.

Classroom access is still greater for the wealthy. Wealthy school classroom access almost doubles that of poor schools. And per computer access is no better: schools with the highest percentage of students in poverty (measured by percentages of students receiving free and reduced price lunches) average 16 students per Internet-linked computer. For wealthy schools the ratio is 7 students per computer, while the national average is 9 to 1. Poor schools need a significant investment to reach the ratio of 4 students per classroom computer considered a minimum level of access for effective use.13

Postsecondary Institutions

Postsecondary education institutions are also rapidly expanding student access to the Internet. Yet, there are institutional disparities. For example, 58 percent of all postsecondary students own their own computer. This figure varies from a high of 79 percent of students at private universities, to 34 percent of those attending private two-year institutions, and 39.6 percent of those attending public two-year institutions.14

The lower figure for community colleges is particularly troubling because community colleges-with their tradition of low tuition, flexible programming, open door admissions, and customized services-enroll proportionately larger percentages of the postsecondary student population, and larger percentages of minority students. Currently 55 percent of Hispanic- and Native-Americans, and 46 percent of African-American undergraduates, are enrolled in community colleges.15

In e-testimony to the Commission, the United Negro College Fund (UNCF)16 reported that only 15 percent of students attending member institutions had their own computers. They also reported that:

· College students nationally are more than twice as likely to have access to a college-owned computer than their private historically-black colleges and universities counterparts (one computer for every 2.6 students in higher education institutions nationally vs. one for every 6 students at UNCF colleges and universities).17

· Seventy-four percent of faculty nationally owns their own computer18 as compared with only half of UNCF faculty. Less than half of UNCF faculty have college-owned computers at their desks.

· The number of network servers at UNCF colleges per 1,000 students is approximately half that of all colleges and universities nationally.

· Seventy-five percent of these servers, hubs, routers, and printers are obsolete or nearly obsolete and need replacement.

· Because so many of these institutions are located in rural areas, they face the additional burden of limited access to high-speed Internet access or other learning resources.
Internet Ramps for the Disabled

One in five Americans aged 16 and over has a disability of some kind19. As our population ages, the number of learners with vision, hearing, and physical limitations will continue to grow.

The Internet is a double-edged sword for these learners-it can be a gateway to new opportunities, or a barrier that challenges them even further. Among Americans of all ages, nearly 60 percent of those with a disability have never used a personal computer, compared with 25 percent of those without a disability. Among those with a disability, people who have impaired vision and problems with manual dexterity have even lower rates of Internet access and are less likely to use a computer regularly than those with hearing and mobility problems.20

Students with disabilities comprise 11 percent of preK-12 and 7.2 percent of beginning postsecondary students.21 Current laws mandate that recipients of federal funds cannot discriminate on the basis of disability. These laws have been extended to ban discrimination by any state or local government under the Americans with Disabilities Act.22 Educational institutions receiving federal funds must offer equitable access to technology for all students.

With the advent of adaptive technology, equity of access for disabled students is possible. Speech synthesizers and screen access software allow the computer to speak whatever text appears on its monitor, facilitating use for blind users. Audio components and simulcasts can be accompanied by real-time captioning. But not all sites and not all distance-learning programs provide these capabilities.

Currently, there are basic design and development guidelines that are widely available and accepted by industry and consumers, through the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium.23 As a support for Web site developers, the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) created Bobby, a Web-based tool that analyzes Web pages for their accessibility to people with disabilities. CAST offers Bobby as a free public service in order to expand opportunities for people with disabilities through the innovative uses of computer technology. Once a Web site receives a Bobby approved rating, it is authorized to display a "Bobby Approved" icon. CAST also maintains a database of Bobby-approved Web sites.24

Universal designs are those that eliminate "gratuitous barriers" while adding functional equivalents. These universal design principles ultimately benefit all learners.25

They support what neuroscience and other learning research have shown us about learning-there is not one "typical" learner, just as there is not one path to learning. Web-based learning environments can provide support and challenge through multiple means of:

· Representation (e.g., a math concept in both text and graphic modes; animated science simulations; poetry read aloud by the author; etc.)

· Expression (i.e., use of text; sound; images; video; and combinations of media as vehicles for expressive literacy through writing, illustrating, speaking, video-making, and drawing)

· Engagement to attract the easily bored or the easily distracted learner26

Designing accessibility into an Internet site or a course at the beginning is far less expensive than after the fact. Designs that create barriers harm everyone, not just people with disabilities.27

In the final analysis, if the Internet is to raise the quality of education for some of our nation's learners, it should do so for all.

ENDNOTES
1. The Children's Partnership. Online Content for Low Income and Underserved Americans: A Strategic Audit of Activities and Opportunities. 2000. http://www.childrenspartnership.org/pub/low_income/index.html
2. American Public Television Stations. e-Testimony to the Web-based Education Commission. August, 31 2000. http://www.webcommission.org/directory; see also http://www.apts.org/digital/index.cfm
3. Among the organizations involved are the Instructional Management System (IMS), the Aviation Industry Computer-Based Training Commission (AICC); Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). For more information see http://www.learnativity.com/standards.html
4. For more information, see http://www.sifinfo.org
5. For more information, see http://www.schooltone.com
6. Moore's law states that the speed and performance of computer chips doubles every 18 to 24 months, thereby expanding computational power in exponential leaps.
7. The price of technologies continues to drop, as evidenced by a nearly 20 percent decline in the 1999 Producer Price Index for electronic computers, which followed decreases of no less than 20 percent in each year since 1997. United States. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2000. "Computer Prices Dip Again". Monthly Labor Review. MLR: The Editor's Desk, October 2, 2000. http://stats.bls.gov/opub/ted/2000/Oct/wk1/art01.htm
8. United States. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion. Washington, D.C. 2000. http://search.ntia.doc.gov/pdf/fttn00.pdf
9. Ibid.
10. Grunwald Associates. Children, Families and the Internet 2000. 2000. http://www.grunwald.com
11. United States. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. eLearning: Putting a World-Class Education at the Fingertips of All Students. Prepublication draft. Washington, D.C. 2000.
12. United States. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Teachers' Tools for the 21st Century. A Report on Teachers Use of Technology, NCES 2000-102, Smerdon, Becky, Stephanie Cronen, Lawrence Lanahan, Jennifer Anderson, Nicholas Iannotti, and January Angeles. Washington, D.C. 2000. http://nces.ed.gov/spider/webspider/2000102.shtml
13. Levin, Douglas A. e-Testimony to the Web-based Education Commission. August 18, 2000. http://www.webcommission.org/directory
14. Green, Kenneth C. Campus Computing 2000. 2000. http://www.campuscomputing.net
15. League for Innovation in the Community College. Community Colleges Bridging The Digital Divide. de los Santos, Alfredo G., Jr. and Gerardo E. de los Santos. 1999. http://www.league.org/publication/abstracts/leadership/labs0002.htm
16. United Negro College Fund. e-Testimony to the Web-based Education Commission. August 28, 2000. http://www.webcommission.org/directory; see also http://www.uncf.org
17. Ibid.
18. Green, op. cit., endnote 14.
19. Based on response to the Survey on Income and Program Participation of the U.S. Census Bureau, research data file. August to November 1999, Wave 11. These were defined as difficulty with walking, vision, hearing, using hands, or a learning disability.
20. United States. Department of Commerce, op. cit., endnote 8.
21. Association of Tech Act Projects. e-Testimony to the Web-based Education Commission. August 18, 2000. http://www.webcommission.org/directory
22. Specifically, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act provides that "no individual with a disability shall be excluded from participation in or shall be denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity or be subject to discrimination by such an entity on the basis of disability." Because Title II covers public elementary and secondary schools and colleges, these institutions must provide the accommodations necessary for deaf and visually impaired students to be able to use the technological resources available to other students in the schools. United States. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. e-Testimony to the Web-based Education Commission. August 18, 2000. http://www.webcommission.org/directory
23. For more information, see http://www.w3.org/wai
24. Bobby Logo is a tradmark of CAST, copyright 1996-2000. For more information, see http://www.cast.org/bobby
25. For more information, see Making Educational Software Accessible. http://main.wgbh.org/wgbh/pages/ncam/cdrom/guideline/introduction.html
26. Association of Tech Act Projects, op. cit. endnote 21. See also Rose, D. and Meyer, A. The Future is in the Margins: The Role of Technology and Disability in Educational Reform. White paper prepared for the United States, Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. Forum on Technology in Education: Envisioning the Future. Washington, D.C. 2000. http://www.air.org/forum/Abrose_meyer.htm
27. CPB/WGBH National Center for Accessible Media. e-Testimony to the Web-based Education Commission. August 14, 2000. http://www.webcommission.org/directory