While the vast majority of residents in cities have access to the internet at home, many remain under-connected due to limited data or speed, cost barriers, insufficient digital devices or lack of tech support or digital skills. This negatively impacts the economic mobility, academic performance and social inclusion of low-income students and families. This chapter provides examples of how six cities in the United States have successfully addressed these challenges. All six cities meet the criteria of a technopolis, and each leveraged the strength offered by a technopolis through the development of innovative local policies and collaborative community action. The chapter also describes how policies developed at the state and national level may support technopolis cities in their efforts to move toward digital equity.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
Descant, S. (2018). San Francisco aims to close the digital divide with citywide fiber project. Accessed at: https://www.govtech.com/network/San-Franciso-Aims-to-Close-the-Digital-Divide-with-Citywide-Fiber-Project.html
DSL Reports. (2015) CWA: U.S Ranks 25th In broadband speed. Accessed at: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/CWA-US-Ranks-25th-In-Broadband-Speed-111866
Georgia Department of Community Affairs (2018). Georgia Broadband Deployment Initiative. Accessed 2020, Febuary 20 at https://broadband.georgia.gov/about.
Gorski, P. (2009). Insisting on digital equity: Reframing the dominant discourse on multicultural education and technology. Urban Education, 44(3), 348–364. (2008, May 19).
ISTE. (2019) ISTE National standards for students (Accessed 2019, July 22 at https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students).
Kitchen, R., & Berk, S. (2016). Research commentary: Education technology: An equity challenge to the common core. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(1), 3–16.
Light, J. (2001). Rethinking the digital divide. Harvard Educational Review, 71(4), 709–734.
Lohr, S. (2018, December). Digital divide Is wider than we think, study says. Accessed 2020, February 20 at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/technology/digital-divide-us-fcc-microsoft.html.
Molla, R. (2017, June). More than 60 million urban Americans don’t have access to or can’t afford broadband internet. Access at: https://www.vox.com/2017/6/20/15839626/disparity-between-urban-rural-internet-access-major-economies.
McLaughlin, C. (2016, April). The homework gap: The ‘cruelest part of the digital divide’. Accessed 2020, February 20 at http://neatoday.org/2016/04/20/thehomework-gap/.
NCDE. (2019). National and state summits on digital equity (Accessed 2019, July 22 at http://digitalequity.us/index.html).
Pogrow, S. (1988). Teaching thinking to at-risk students. Educational Leadership, 45(7), 79.
Resta, P., & McLaughlin, R. (2003). Policy implications of moving toward digital equity. Toward Digital Equity: Bridging the Divide in Education, 211–228.
Van Deursen, A. J., & Helsper, E. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online?. Communication and Information Technologies Annual: Digital Distinctions and Inequalities: Studies in Media and Communications, 10, 29–53.
Editors and Affiliations
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Resta, P.E. (2020). Moving Toward Digital Equity in the Technopolis. In: Zintgraff, C., Suh, S., Kellison, B., Resta, P. (eds) STEM in the Technopolis: The Power of STEM Education in Regional Technology Policy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39851-4_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-39850-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-39851-4