Part V: Summary of Conclusions and Key Points:

We have demonstrated that the Digital Divide still exists, and despite rapid penetration of Internet usage across all sectors of society, the divide is widening according to most historic indicators.

We have seen our understanding of Digital Inclusion morphing from a yes-or-no question to one that seeks to find out what kind or degree of access is critical to individual benefits in education.

We have seen that our most underserved and disadvantaged youth are being further underserved in this critical new arena.

We have demonstrated that the Broadband Divide exists not as a regional factor, but as a geographic location factor determined by subscriber density.

We have seen the development of good programmatic integration of technologies and measured their benefits. These observations provide an excellent platform for further study and development.

We have understood the challenges effecting not-for-profit groups in their mission to serve individuals and communities while defining and upholding reasonable review techniques. We have further understood the need for change in this critical arena to be one which will involve diverse stakeholders at the grant-inception phase.

We may therefore conclude that we have all tools at our disposal to confront and eliminate this disparity except the political will.

It should be noted with my final conclusion that we have no way of knowing what the eventual saturation level of access will be. POTS penetration has only just broken 90% and significant portions of POTS access may converge with IP platforms within a few short years.

Moving Through the Spheres of Knowledge?

From a technologist's perspective in the trenches, the course of evolution of technologies in schools and in not-for-profits has been one of endless repetition on multiple levels. Much of our highly specialized project methodologies are geared to isolating third-sphere-of-knowledge issues in a very preliminary stage because it is assumed that at any given time there is much being done around the world that you might not know about. The requirement for continuous learning is paramount. Not, in fairness, that any orderly well-planned effort could have taken place in anything approaching the time frame of deployment that we have seen in so many sectors. The efforts of hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions are represented here. As I mentioned at the outset of this paper, I find no precedent for this kind of multi-dimensional internal reform or remediation effort in my lifetime.

To illustrate the third-sphere of knowledge phrase (sorry, don't know whom to cite), consider what you know that you know to be your first sphere of knowledge. This would include everything that you know, period. Now consider those things that you know you don't know to be your second. For me, this includes how to weld steel or the many cosmological phenomena that I have no idea exist specifically. Finally, your third sphere of knowledge is those things that you don't know you don't know. These latter are the ones that will get you. The way they get you will usually be found to be described as a "pitfall" by one group or another for whom the issue if first-sphere.

To the credit of trial and error, we see the source of concern society-wide operating just in advance of the learning curve. When we saw millions of computers flying into not-for-profits and community centers, we knew that a massive hardware and software effort would ensue. The effort to get the machines networked and connected then took place. I imagine that a lot of lights were on and a lot of hard drives humming before anyone realized that they needed programs at that point. Now we are finally coming down to brass tacks on what is making a difference, in all of this, in the lives of our young people. For kids in school, technology seems to be coming around to being what it should be-a tool rather than a product. The emphasis has come back to the educators and the curricula which is where it should be for connected schools. Of concern to many has been the fact that prevailing conditions of decay in many of our schools makes a focus on technology deployment seem ludicrous at best. Shameful would be a better term in my mind. A great equalizer the Internet may be in terms of getting information across, but a substitute for a quality learning environment with competent and caring adults it is not. Who would even want it to be so?

With this it is worthy to note that if one does not know how to read or write, or if one has not been trained to think in an analytical and linear manner, the Internet will do little for you in the terms we have discussed. Search techniques aside, if one does not ask questions outside the realm of the Internet, why would we presume that access to the Internet would prompt more frequent inquiry on any topic?

Tangentially, the issue of socially appropriate Internet content has been discussed for some years. In this school of thought, one would not expect minority groups to adopt Internet usage readily because most of the content is produced for or by white professionals. While I would readily accept this thesis for the entertainment-interested Internet user, we cannot take this observation seriously in the educational or informational arena because we cannot expect to derive ethnic or racial mirror-content on the web as a policy objective. To do so would be to make the mistake of reinforcing isolation instead of inclusion. We should not be ready to abandon our longstanding recognition that education, awareness, critical and independent thinking and respect for civic norms are central to society but rather seek to refine the tools which allow us to impart these essential life skills to each other.

There still exists much in the way of the third sphere of knowledge for all of us. In a way, the build-out of social-service networks has just begun and technologies have introduced some astounding anecdotes. The Pinket study referenced above provides one such touching moment as program participants set out to determine how they could find all of the social services available to them in their community. They found several close by their neighborhood that many did not even know existed. Programs such as these promise to engage the services that are designed to help them and can only tend to reduce the isolative barriers between segments of society. In a sense, the awareness of the Internet as a vehicle of awareness has functioned beneficially for these individuals: it made known to them something they hadn't even though to inquire about and it has done it without the expense of taking a bus or taxi, without the need to obtain a babysitter or the many such incidentals that can represent real obstacles for those with insufficient resources.

For front-line Government service providers, the Internet has been rapidly adopted as a means of disseminating information. Almost every major Federal Government institution has a public website, most cities, towns and chambers of commerce have them as well. They serve as a cost-effective means of 24X7X365 information dissemination. For those institutions bold enough to venture into more interactive forms of communication the results have in cases been frankly touching. Miserable are the public servants who have no pubic to serve; contrary to popular opinion, many people in public service genuinely seek to do just that: serve. Nobody, but nobody likes to feel useless.

So as we have seen, this phenomena is not unique to any segment of society. We're all busy learning from or making mistakes at all times. In previous times, how could one escape this horrible cycle? Even given the historic presence of scholars, experts, shamans or whits, we cannot seems to summon the proper expertise in an orderly fashion sufficient to defeat the old adage that there is nothing new under the sun. I don't propose that any physical constants have been changed, but the Internet is the only thing that can even remotely hope to deal with the requirement that we face: to share enough knowledge and expertise, to locate good enough solutions, and to produce the kind of informed sensitivity such as we will find necessary to navigate our new millennium. The Internet, being our new library, the first universal human library, might one day soon contain every answer that humanity has been able to codify. Trial and error could see a radical drop in marketshare. And by the way, the internet is particularly rich with information on all things technical. No matter what application of technology you are considering, chances are that if it is within the realm of possibility, that someone else has left documentation of it somewhere out there.

With all of this I know that we have only just begun to scratch the surface. The potential seems limitless because it can cut across so many boundaries. I would use this observation to reinforce our need to expand upon these early findings, and to leverage the power of these new tools aggressively. As a nation we have lagged behind in education for too long without adequate redress. We have had a lot of catching up to do for a long time. Our young people will always be a high priority, perhaps the highest that we have as a nation. This is not a priority that will await more stable times or the resolution of global conflicts because children are constantly becoming adults. They have a shelf life as it were and the trick, as always, will be to get to the product before it spoils.

So if the reader will permit me one final point, I would like to close by saying that our children and their education are not partisan issues. Their needs do not change with the economy or with the presence of peace or war. Their needs will not be proven to be invalid by successive administrations and they will not suffer deferred maintenance. We will not be able to conceal the defects that will continue to result if we continue to put them lower amongst our priorities. Just as I would like to see funding institutions become more inclusive in their determination of grants and metrics, I would like to see society set it's priorities in such a manner as they are not subject to automatic retooling every four or eight years.

Thanks:

Special thanks to Cory Smith of the Leadership Conference On Civil Rights for allowing me to attend working sessions of the Digital Empowerment Steering Committee.

Thanks to Andy Carvin, Norris Dickard and all those at the Benton Foundation for providing such a phenomenal source of information and discussion on Digital Divide and results measurement issues.

Appreciation ad infinitum goes out to Larry Irving and all those public servants doing a conscientious and passionate job in executing public trust. You are model citizens and admirable people, an inspiration to all.

To my folks, girlfriend, and my advisor Dr. C. Lobur: thanks for everything. Regards to my former colleagues at Save The Children Federation Inc.

Back to Contents
Back to top