Digital equity in education: A multilevel examination of differences in and relationships between computer access, computer use and state-level technology policies;Equidad Digital en la Educación: Una examinación de niveles múltiples de las diferencias y las relaciones entre el acceso al ordenador, el uso del ordenador y políticas-estatales sobre tecnología

Education Policy Analysis Archives

Volumn 15, Issue , 2007, Pages 1-36

  Becker, Jonathan D ^a  

^a HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Educational technology; Equity; Multilevel modeling; State level policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847222744     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10682341     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14507/epaa.v15n3.2007     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Adelman, N., Donnelly, M., Dove, T., Tiffany-Morales, J., Wayne, A., Zucker, A. (2002). The integrated studies of educational technology: Professional development and teachers' use of technology. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
2. Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74(3), 252-259.
3. Becker, H.J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51). Retrieved November 7, 2002, from http://epaa.asu/epaa/v8n51.
4. Bryk, A.S. & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
5. Carvin, A., (Ed.) (2000). The e-rate in America: A tale of four cities. Washington DC: The Benton Foundation.
6. Cattagni, A., & Farris-Westat, E. (2001). Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools and classrooms: 1994-1999. Stats In Brief. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Retrieved April 12, 2003 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp? pubid=2001071.
7. Cheong, Y.F., Fotiu, R.P., & Raudenbush, S.W. (2001). Efficiency and robustness of alternative estimators for two- and three-level models: The case of NAEP. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 26(4), 411-429.
8. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. Dayton, J. (2000). Recent litigation and its impact on the state-local power balance: liberty and equity in governance, litigation, and the school finance policy debate. In N.D. Theobald & B. Malen (Eds.), Balancing local control and state responsibility for K-12 education (pp. 93-120). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
10. Dickard, N. (Ed.). (2002). Great expectations: Leveraging America's investment in educational technology. Washington DC: The Benton Foundation.
11. First, P.F., & Hart, Y.Y. (2002). Access to cyberspace: The new issue in educational justice. Journal of Law & Education, 31 (4), 385-411.
12. Green, T.F. (1982). Excellence, equity, and equality. In L. S. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of Teaching and Policy (pp. 318-341). New York: Longman
13. Grissmer, D., Flanagan, A., Kawata, J., & Williamson, S. (2000). Improving student achievement: What state NAEP test scores tell us. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
14. Healy, J.M. (1999). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children's minds - and what we can do about it. New York: Touchstone Books
15. Idaho Council for Technology in Learning. (1999). The Idaho technology initiative: An accountability report to the Idaho legislature on the effects of monies spent through the Idaho Council for Technology in Learning. Boise, ID: State Division of Vocational Education, State Department of Education, Bureau of Technology Services.
16. Kreft, I.G.G., De Leeuw, J., & Aiken, L.S. (1995). The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 1-21.
17. Krueger, A.B. (2000). The digital divide in educating African American students and workers. Working Paper 434. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section. Retrieved August 16, 2002, fromhttp://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/working_papers.html.
18. Labaton, S. (2001, February 7). New F.C.C. chief would curb agency reach. The New York Times, p. B1.
19. Lee, J. (1998). State policy correlates of the achievement gap among racial and social groups. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24(2), 137-152.
20. Lemke, C. & Shaw, S. (1999). Education technology policies of the 50 states: Facts and figures. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, Milken Family Foundation.
21. Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J. & Kottkamp, R. (1999). West Virginia story: Achievement gains from a statewide technology initiative. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation.
22. Milken Family Foundation. (1998). The Milken Exchange state-by-state education technology policy survey. Santa Barbara, CA: Milken Family Foundation.
23. Mitchell, D.E. & Encarnacion, D.J. (1984). Alternative state policy mechanisms for influencing school performance. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 4-11.
24. NAACP Education Department (2001). NAACP call for action in education. Baltimore, MD: NAACP Education Department. Retrieved February 24, 2002, from http://www.naacp.org/work/education/educalltoactn2.pdf.
25. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Stats in brief: Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools (NCES No. 2000-090). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
26. National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2005. (NCES No. 2007-020). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
27. Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J. & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 15-27.
28. O'Dwyer, L.M., Russell, M., & Bebell, DJ. (2004). Identifying teacher, school and district characteristics associated with elementary teachers' use of technology: A multilevel perspective. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(48). Retrieved November 1, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n48/.
29. Oppenheimer, T. (1997, July). The computer delusion. The Atlantic Monthly, pp. 45-62.
30. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y.F., & Congdon, R. (2001). HLM 5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
31. Raudenbush, S.W., Fotiu, R.P., & Cheong, Y.F. (1998). Inequality of access to educational resources: a national report card for eighth-grade math. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(4), 253-267.
32. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
33. Solomon, G., Allen, N.J., & Resta, P. (Eds.). (2003). Toward digital equity: Bridging the divide in education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
34. Stoll, C. (1999). High tech heretic: Why computers don't belong in the classroom and other reflections by a computer contrarian. New York: Doubleday.
35. Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
36. Swanson, C.B., & Stevenson, D.L. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 1-27.
37. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2000). Falling through the net: Toward digital inclusion. Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce.
38. U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Technology Literacy Challenge Fund: Report to Congress. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
39. Volman, M., & van Eck, E. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education: The second decade. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 613-634.
40. Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice. New York: Basic Books.
41. Weatherly, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171-197.
42. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service Policy Information Center.
43. Zhao, Y. & Conway, P. (2001). What's in, what's out: an analysis of state educational technology plans. Teachers College Record, ID Number: 10717. Retrieved February 14, 2003, from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp? ContentID=10717.