Technology may evolve, but inequity remains
Being part of a privileged society, we often lack awareness of the technological advantages we enjoy. In Western society, technology is largely taken for granted. I’ll admit that before this class, I hadn’t given much thought to the digital divide. I was aware of disparities between rural and urban internet access, but I hadn’t fully considered the wider societal impacts of this inequality.
Photo by Clker-Free-Vector-Images on Pixabay
I grew up in rural Saskatchewan, where internet access was extremely limited. I remember being stuck on dial-up and using a clunky old computer running Windows 98. Even today, high-speed internet is unavailable in my home community. According to Statistics Canada, 22.8% of rural communities still lack access to broadband internet. When I visit the farm, I rely on mobile data. I know it’s a “first-world problem,” but it underscores deeper issues around technological inequality.
Canada is the second-largest country in the world, yet 90% of our population lives within 160 km of the American border. The rest live in rural or remote areas, where infrastructure is both more difficult and more expensive to implement. That’s where inequality begins. That’s where inequality begins. Although the government has invested in improving and expanding infrastructure, the sheer size of the country makes these efforts insufficient. For example, SaskTel is installing fiber-optic internet in some smaller towns, but not all. 15% of communities with low population densities will still be dependent on expensive satellite internet for patchy high-speed access or expensive mobile data plans.
Technology is expensive. Those who have a lower socioeconomic status or a fixed income in Canada affects their use of technology, let alone cover the cost of Internet or a data plan. During COVID, these inequalities became more visible. Some students needed to borrow laptops, while others couldn’t access online classes at all. Even within the same province, different school divisions prioritized technology differently. Some emphasize educational tech, while others can’t justify the cost due to connectivity issues. Why invest heavily in ill-performing technology when other issues, such as bussing, are more important?
Technology inequality isn’t just a matter of location or money. Technology has created barriers for older generations. Many essential services such as banking, healthcare access, government forms, now rely on digital platforms, and older generations are being left behind. For example, my 80 year old father struggles to use a basic flip phone, let alone a computer or online banking information. He’s essentially a Luddite. My mother stayed relatively up-to-date until she retired. After retirement, however, her skills began to decline from lack of use. We see this gap among educators as well. Some confidently incorporate technology into their classrooms, while others avoid it. This inconsistency leads to unequal student experiences, depending on which classroom they’re in.
One of the most equity-enhancing aspects of technology is accessibility. Assistive technologies (ex. screen readers, voice-to-text tools, and talking boards, etc.) have transformed learning environments for students with disabilities. These tools benefit students by enabling access to curriculum, communication, and social relationships. However, this comes at a cost. This technology can be expensive, requires consistent advocacy, and usually requires training for both the teacher and the student. Despite progress, people with disabilities often still face barriers when using digital technologies, whether due to universal design flaws, not exactly matching needs, budget constraints or limited support.
Surveillance through technology also complicates digital equity. While smart devices and AI programs are convenient, they also collect vast amounts of personal data, with or without our full understanding or consent. This affects everyone, but not equally. Marginalized communities are more likely to be subjected to digital surveillance, while those with more resources or education (i.e. privileged) can better protect themselves using tools like VPNs, privacy settings, or encrypted platforms.
Even trusted institutions are vulnerable. Regina Public SD, for example, was the target of a ransomware attack, and hackers gained access to sensitive school data to hold hostage. This incident revealed how insecure some of our systems can be, and how easily our data can be hacked without sufficient protection. My division has since created new and more strict policies to ensure online security and privacy.
These breaches don’t just raise privacy questions, but equity questions. Who has the tools and knowledge to opt out of this digital exposure? Who understands the risks? Who faces consequences when protections fail? Without strong safeguards and digital literacy education, we risk leaving the most vulnerable people to face the consequences of these threats.
Photo by TheDigitalArtist on Pixabay
The equity concerns of surveillance go beyond corporations. Government surveillance can be equally harmful. For example, the Trump administration’s tightening of border security policy where visitors’ technology and social media are being searched for Anti-Trump rhetoric. Due to the lack of rights one has when entering a country, they are unable to refuse to submit their cell phone for inspection if a border officer demands it. Already, several foreign visitors traveling in the US have been detained and had their immigration status checked. A French citizen, for example, was deported back to France after comments criticizing Trump were found on his social media. Government’s technology security policies, particularly in shifting political winds, can disenfranchise different groups of people of their rights and/or safety.
Despite these challenges, technology can promote equity through intentional use. Remote learning platforms can allow students in remote locations to access education. Digital translation tools help alleviate language gaps for newcomers. Virtual mental health services, as problematic as they are, offer access when in-person support is unavailable. However, Katia made the comment that technology without purpose is ineffective. She referenced the laptop project in Nepal. That comment really resonated with me. Society tends to assume that more technology equals progress. I don’t believe this is always true. Our intentions behind the inclusion of technology in our society, and education, must have well reasoned intentions. At the same time, we should continue advocating for equitable access to technology for all.
Wow, what a powerful reflection!
I really connected with your point about how access does not always equal equity. Your rural Saskatchewan example reminded me of what I saw back home as a teacher, students who were bright and eager but were constantly limited by poor connectivity and lack of devices.
I also liked how you mentioned older generations; that part resonated with me on a personal level. My parents still struggle with basic digital platforms, and I often see how it leaves them out of important services.
Yes, Katia was indeed right “technology without purpose is ineffective”. I agree we sometimes rush to add technology without thinking if it actually solves a problem or widens the gap.
Thank you for sharing such a balanced perspective. It really made me pause and think about how digital inclusion needs so much more than just handing out devices.
Kritika
This is a very well thought-out and deep look at the issues around technology and equity. I think technology is pushing us towards equity, but at the pace of your old dial-up internet. Capitalism gets in the way; corporations don’t see the benefit of supporting technology at reduced or free rates. I would also argue that technology is approaching essential status; governments with private aid (risky) should be working to build the infrastructure necessary for equitable tech access, especially in public schools and libraries.
I completely agree that technology is becoming essential. I thought it was interesting the the UN found it so important that they were looking at including it as a human right. Granted, we have seen that UN determined human rights are not always followed by government (ie. pronoun legislation). I think that when we incorporate private funding with government policy, it becomes more of a quid pro quo situation, regardless of intention. Thank you for your input, I appreciate your opinions and ideas.
Thanks for sharing Sheila! Your post on how digital access without intentional support can actually deepen existing inequities struck a chord with me.
I also explored this tension, recognizing that giving students devices is just one piece of the puzzle. From my classroom experience, I’ve seen tools go underused or even work against student success when there’s no scaffold, training, or culturally relevant design to support their use.
I particularly resonated with your point that access plus intention makes the difference. A device doesn’t automatically empower a student, it’s the educator’s choices, the supports in place, and the PURPOSE behind the technology that matter most. Without those layers, gaps don’t close, they can grow wider.
Thanks again for another great class, and I hope you have a wonderful summer!
Thank you for writing such a personal post about the digital divide. It is so easy for us to take the internet and all its conveniences for granted when we compare our experiences to those who are shut out of the technology world. I was unaware of just how difficult it was to access the internet when it was first made available to consumers. I think it is so helpful to know how these types of circumstances play out for so many different reasons. I am in agreement that just because we have a variety of advancements at our fingertips does not mean that we have achieved equity for all. Availability and connection issues still plague rural communities. Also, financial restraints have a huge effect on equal access. There is also a wide generational gap with knowledge of these technologies.
I think it is so important to bring up that technology alone is not enough, it is the purposeful implementation of the technology and associated software that make the big difference. We must never lose sight of the fact that the best intentions do not always equal success. Like the example in the Nepal laptop project.
Thank you for making note of privacy and surveillance issues. It is so important to not just think about who has access to tech, but who is controlling and protecting data, and for who the consequences are.
In your opinion, what are the most impactful things schools and lawmakers can do to make sure technology is used as a tool of equity? (access, but also safe and inclusive meaningful use).
Nofisat
Hi Nofisat,
Thank you for the question. I feel the answer is not simple. While access is problematic, so are the challenges our land mass provides us. It is expensive to invest in the infrastructure to allow for equal access to the internet. This then doesn’t impact the cost of technology, which is a barrier for some. Even if we did fund the infrastructure and the cost of technology, there is the question of providing equitable technology. People who have disabilities (blind, deaf, motor, etc.) will not be able to use technology the same way as those who are able bodied. This reminds me of a program run by the University of Calgary (Calgary Pediatric Brain-Computer Interface Program). They “provide children with severe neurological disabilities access to cutting-edge brain-computer interface (BCI) technology to help them achieve greater independence, realize new participation in life, and do things they never thought possible”. I ran into the father of the instagram influencer @brainpaintbyjohn and we discussed, at length, the importance of this program and how it changes his family’s life. As cutting edge and lifechanging as this technology is, it is not available nationally (let alone globally). They specifically only accept those from the Calgary area.
I feel that cost and the complications from capitalism prove to be the main factors in the technology equity void. While we have the UN attempting to enshrine internet access in their Human Rights charter, we see that there are more boundaries than simply declaring access as a right (cue Michael Scott). With that being said, proper education for teachers is essential for ensuring that school technology is used equitably and safely. This would also include teachers becoming well versed in all equitable tech for our students who need assistance. This is, again, costly, but it is essential to the daily operations and access we have with technology in the classroom. I feel that a blanket policy about what is and isn’t allowed to be accessed by tech is important (ie. social media, Roblox, Mini games, etc) ensures the teachers are not having internet sleuth added to their overflowing plates of responsibility. However, with school budgets being slashed down passed the bone each year now, I don’t know if these changes are financially feasible.
I do think that social media should have an age limit that is legislated. Having complete access to the world at such a young age is irresponsible. In very vivid terms, you don’t know who you are allowing to access your students’ classrooms, homes, and bedrooms when you have unfettered internet access. Unfortunately, legislation is determined by MPs who are well over the age of 40 and have a different lived experience than those who are in school now. These MPs, I feel, do not have the understanding necessary to create up-to-date legislation that will protect the country and our students. Not only that, but the time it takes to introduce and pass legislation is also an obstacle.
So, I know that was a rambling answer, but it truly is a severely complex issue. I hope that things like blanket internet policy that is province wide and comprehensive PD for teachers can at least address some of the issues.
Hey Sheila, excellent thought-provoking and comprehensive post! In class, I feel like we only briefly touched on the potential security risks involved with technology use in today’s world. The concern we’re seeing with crossing the border into the United States is one that directly impacts my own family. I am a Canadian & US citizen (I was born and grew up in the States), but my husband is Canadian. Given the reports we are hearing about cell phone seizures at border crossings and similar personal privacy/security issues, he feels incredibly uncomfortable and unsafe crossing the border. This gets pretty complicated when I try to explain why we aren’t visiting to my right-wing family who live in the States.
All that aside, this debate topic was a challenging one for me, too. In some areas, like assistive technology, tech has been an asset for narrowing learning gaps, but at an extreme financial cost to school divisions or individual families. My daughter, who relies on hearing aids and direct audio support, would be at a huge disadvantage in school if she didn’t have those supports in place. We are fortunate to live in an area where the school divisions have funding for audio support devices, but we are in the process of replacing her old hearing aids, and there is very little insurance coverage, even with good benefits, to help cover the cost of hearing aids. My family is very fortunate that we will be able to manage the expense, but not without it putting financial strain on our budgets. My husband and I talked about how insane it is that pediatric hearing support doesn’t have more coverage. This is really where the advocacy piece comes in because I know there are plenty of families who are not as fortunate as mine, and I can’t imagine how they would manage this kind of expense.
Anyway, I appreciated your post and I hope you have a great summer!