How well did federal pandemic funds improve digital access for historically underserved K–12 students and their families? Last week, PPIC researcher Joseph Hayes presented new findings on efforts to close California’s long-standing digital divide in education, with suggestions for building momentum now that federal emergency funds have ended.
Simply put, the digital divide means that while most communities are well connected to digital resources, others lack robust digital infrastructure, are unable to afford high-speed internet or devices, and have poor digital literacy. “The problem to be solved,” Hayes pointed out, “is unequal access to online connectivity along the lines of race/ethnicity, income, and geography, to name just a few elements.”
The Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF) was a federal pandemic program with the potential to help historically underserved populations, including English Learner, Black and Latino, and low-income students. “The COVID-19 pandemic really highlighted existing inequities,” Hayes said. “We’ve been looking at the digital divide for a couple of decades at PPIC, but when instruction went online it became immediately clear that this was an urgent problem.”
School districts could use ECF to purchase internet service, equipment to connect to the internet—such as routers, modems, or hotspots—or laptops and tablets. Where necessary they could even request funds to construct new networks to establish a high-speed connection. How well did this program work for school districts with high shares of target populations?
Although he cautioned that it was too soon to make a definitive statement because of how recently the program concluded, Hayes was optimistic about the results. “California school districts serving high percentages of the populations we’re looking at responded well to this funding opportunity,” he said. Applicant districts reflected California’s school populations overall, and historically underserved students were slightly overrepresented. Although that lead was small, Hayes found this “encouraging, in that it reflects that the ECF was having some success in reaching the students it was meant to reach.”
Indeed, a majority of the funds awarded in California went to districts with large populations of historically underserved students. Their per-student funding eclipsed that of their better-served counterparts. For instance, districts with high shares of EL students procured $229 versus $208 for their counterparts; of Black and Latino students $320 versus $143; and of low-income students even more, $355 versus $148. All types of districts favored connectivity purchases across the board, but many more high-need districts did so—about 75%, in stark contrast to the non-high-need districts at 67%. The latter requested slightly more devices—laptops and tablets—than did high-need districts.
Educational technology introduced in the pandemic is now standard. As Hayes noted, “many online tools—Khan Academy for instruction, Canvas for homework, Aeries for parent/school communication—remain critical elements.” So how well did districts believe their purchases would fulfill their students’ needs? Those with high shares of targeted populations estimated a remaining lack between 9% and 16%, versus their counterparts’ 10%.
Hayes pointed out that even though the ECF has recently wound down, many resources remain at the federal, state, and even local levels that districts can take advantage of to maintain and build on their momentum. “On the federal side,” he said, “programs are slated to provide more than $60 billion over the next several years.” He also emphasized California’s Senate Bill 156 and the many continuing local efforts throughout the state in the form of nonprofit organizations and community minded internet service providers that are working to get people connected.
