Patricia F. Lewis
MMC 6402 -- Seminar in Mass Communications Theory
April 1996

Universal Access to the Internet: Can We Narrow the Knowledge Gap?

Access to advanced telecomputing technologies and services [1] can no longer be considered a privilege reserved for those who can afford it. Instead, such access will come to determine rather than reflect one's socioeconomic status (SES) and potential for upward social mobility. Our federal, state, and local governments increasingly recognize this fact and are implementing policies to deploy computers and Internet access to schools, libraries, community technology centers, and hospitals. These policies often state as their goal the desire to prevent a society of "information haves" and "information have-nots," but rarely include a thorough investigation into the theoretical underpinnings of what drives technology use. Policymakers seem to believe that if they build it, the poor will come.

This paper illustrates the extent to which SES-based access inequities to technology exist in our society and relates those inequities to the knowledge gap hypothesis. It presents knowledge gap studies relevant to the access issue and discusses how the knowledge gap hypothesis has been refined over the years. The paper next addresses the likely consequences of access inequities if disparities are not adequately addressed by policymakers. The paper reviews current initiatives to increase access and encourage technology education and use in our schools and communities. Finally, options for improving current policy for the future are suggested.

It is undeniable that computer ownership and use of the Internet are growing at remarkable rates in the United States. For example, in July 1992, there were approximately 1 million Internet hosts worldwide. By July of 1995, that figure had grown to almost 7 million hosts (Anderson, et al., 1995). It is also readily apparent that there is a great disparity in the accessibility of technology based on SES in this country.

Today, 50 percent of our Nation's schools have access to the Internet (Department of Education, 1995, Table 1). While this figure is a significant increase from the previous year's 35 percent, the breakdown of this number by the SES of the students describes a less optimistic picture (Department of Education, 1995, Table 4). In contrast to the wealthiest schools, 62 percent of which are connected to the Internet, only 31 percent of the poorest schools [2] are connected. There is also a marked difference in access according to school size. Thirty-nine percent of schools with fewer than 300 students are connected to the Internet while 69 percent of schools with enrollments of 1,000 or more have access. Even though Anderson's data indicates that location-based (i.e., rural versus urban) disparities are decreasing, the present figures should concern policymakers.

With respect to actual classroom access, overall, 7 percent of the schools with an Internet connection have no access in any instructional room, [3] 47 percent have access in one room, 24 percent have two to three rooms, 4 percent report access in four rooms, and 19 percent have access in five or more instructional rooms (Department of Education, 1995, Table 6). This means that even in schools with access, less than half of those students have access in more than one room.

The figures are just as discouraging when looking at computer ownership and Internet access in the home. A recent study by the RAND Corporation (Anderson, et al., 1995) reports findings of household computer access and network use by income, education, race/ethnicity, age, sex, and location of residence. Although each of these factors may indicate SES, the two most significant factors are education and income. For this reason, they are highlighted here. Samples taken in 1989 served as a baseline and were compared with figures collected in 1993. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the differences based on income and education. Figure 3 presents a summary of all the socioeconomic findings (Anderson, et al., 1995). [4]

Both Figures 1 and 2 illustrate startling differences in SES-based access. The changes in computer ownership based on income between 1989 and 1993 for the bottom income quartile hardly changed, growing from 6 percent to 7 percent over that period. For the same period, the top income quartile, which already held a huge advantage in 1989 with 35 percent of homes owning computers, saw its computer ownership jump to 55 percent. Income-based disparities in network access (i.e., Internet or some service provider such as Compuserve) are just as stark. While both the highest and lowest segments both increased their access, the actual statistics remain disappointing. The lowest segment grew from 2 percent to 3 percent while the uppermost quartile grew from 12 percent to 23 percent. The figures based on education are just as telling, and in the case of network access illustrate even greater disparities. Whereas those with less than a high school education grew -- if it can indeed be called growth -- from 0.5 percent to 1 percent over the four years, those with a college degree increased their network access from 18 percent to 34 percent.

Yet another study released in early 1996 by Odyssey, a San Francisco-based technology research firm, further confirms the previous findings. It found, not surprisingly, that higher income homes -- where children are present -- are more likely to have a computer. Sixteen percent of homes with annual incomes of less than $30,000 were found to own a computer. This figure stands in contrast to the figures for those homes with incomes of between $30,000 and $50,000 and more than $50,000. Thirty-seven percent and 72 percent of those homes, respectively, have a computer.

Even numbers such as these do not convince everyone that there is a problem, however. Compaine (1988) has suggested that there is no need to set policies to encourage deployment of new technologies. He does not believe these statistics confirm the existence of information haves and have-nots. Instead, he believes those statistics are a manifestation of the diffusion of innovations theory. This theory was explained by Compaine:

"Innovations do indeed start with a small vanguard of adopters who tend to be better off economically than the population at large. But the market created by this vanguard often starts a process that leads to greater interest, higher volume, thus lower cost, reduced skill levels needed, and ultimately mass utilization." (p. 184)

He counters claims of a knowledge or information gap by saying new technologies simply take longer to "diffuse" to those of lower SES. He uses a number of examples to illustrate his point, such as the telephone, electricity, automobiles, radio, and television. Compaine says that these technologies had no public policies to promote their diffusion -- as some would have the government do in the case of computers and the Internet -- and yet they still gained in popularity and became staples of American life.

Compaine, obviously, does not believe that government policies are needed to ensure the gaps between rich and poor do not increase. Unfortunately, while his argument is interesting, his comparison of the computer to previous technologies can be challenged in a number of ways. The computer offers far more possibilities to its users than the technologies he mentions. One does not learn new skills by switching on the light, turning on the television or radio, or owning a car. The computer is inherently interactive and, as such, requires the user to participate: the "technology is itself information and the transfer of technology is basically the transfer of knowledge or information" (Bowie, 1990, p. 136-7).

The fact is, these figures do suggest the existence of a knowledge gap concerning advanced technology. Introduced in 1970 by Tichenor, et al., the knowledge gap was meant to apply, in general, to the public's knowledge of public affairs information. The original hypothesis states that:

"as the infusion of mass media information into a social system increases, segments of the population with higher SES tend to acquire this information at a faster rate than the lower status segments, so that the gap in knowledge between these segments tends to increase rather than decrease" (p. 159).

This section reviews the findings of three knowledge gap studies, Lazarsfeld's 1940 "Radio Audience" studies, Tichenor's 1970 "Man on the Moon" study, and Ball's 1970 and 1971 "Sesame Street" studies, including a 1974 reanalysis of these data by Katzman. These studies provide an overview of how the hypothesis has assisted in understanding the knowledge gap and lead into the following section, which discusses how the hypothesis has been refined over the years to address factors other than only SES.

The "Radio Audience" Studies

In several studies, Lazarsfeld (1940) found a gap among the interests of the high, upper middle, lower middle, and low SES segments in society. His first study examined the audience composition of a radio speech given by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black. In analyzing the characteristics of these listeners, their likelihood of listening to the speech broke out as 62 percent of high SES, 49 percent of upper middle SES, 42 percent of lower middle SES, and 35 percent of low SES. A parallel study of a speech given by President Roosevelt yielded similar findings. Forty-three percent of the high SES segment listened to the speech as opposed to 38 percent, 35 percent, and 28 percent for each of the other three segments, respectively.

These studies indicate not only a possible difference in access to a radio, but also to the interests of the listeners. Assuming that access to a radio was not a limiting factor and that no special skills, other than an understanding of the English language, were required to listen to the speech, these differences were probably based on issue interest or salience. For someone of low SES, perhaps a speech by either of those officials was not very salient. These studies support the premise that motivation plays a significant role in how people use the media.

The Man on the Moon Study

Lazarsfeld's radio listener studies indicated the existence of a knowledge gap at a particular point of time. The Man on the Moon study, on the other hand, which was reported in Tichenor's original 1970 knowledge gap article in Public Opinion Quarterly, illustrates how the gap increases over time. The baseline data, collected in 1949, indicates the percentages of each of three educational levels (grade school only, high school, or college) that believed a man would land on the moon in the "foreseeable future" (Tichenor, 1970).

In 1949, all three segments held similar beliefs. Approximately 12 percent of those with a grade school education, 15 percent of those with a high school education, and 18 percent of those with a college education believed it was possible that a man would be put on the moon in the foreseeable future. Five years later, in 1954, there was a somewhat greater disparity in the views of the three groups: the figures were now 25, 36, and 46 percent for grade school, high school, and college educated persons, respectively. A third measurement was taken another five years later, in 1959, at which time the percentages had increased and also grown further apart to 30, 54, and 65 percent for the same three groups. Finally, in 1965, just four years from realizing the goal of putting a man on the moon, the gap had increased even further. At that time, the disparity had grown even wider: 35, 58, and 80 percent of the three groups, respectively, now believed in the idea putting a man on the moon in the foreseeable future.

These data demonstrate that while those of lower educational levels did, indeed, learn over time, they did not learn at nearly the same rate as those of higher education. Why? Was it a lack of access to the information or was it that those of lower educational levels found the information not relevant to their daily lives? In 1965, access to the information was probably not a significant factor, since by 1965, print, radio, and television news most likely carried similar stories concerning the space program. Again, we must return to the question of salience. How is the notion of putting a man on the moon relevant to a poor family wondering how to feed its children? This question echoes the findings from the Lazarsfeld study and is important in devising policies that make technology accessible. What if the technology is installed and no one wants to use it?

The Sesame Street Studies

The Sesame Street studies, conducted in the early 1970s, are important for two reasons. First, they further demonstrated that those of higher SES are more likely to seek educational information, such as Sesame Street, for their children. Second, and even more importantly, it was the first study to indicate that the knowledge gap can be overcome under certain conditions.

The original researchers, Ball and Bogatz (1970), measured only children's exposure to Sesame Street using the education of the head of the household as the independent measure. There was no explicit measure of learning by the children reported (e.g., a post-viewing test), but measuring viewing time was considered important as it was an indicator of information-seeking behavior by the segments studied. In general, over two years, they found that children whose parents had graduated college were twice as likely to watch Sesame Street as children whose parents had not graduated high school. Assuming access to a television was not an issue for even low-SES households in 1970, we must conclude that these children were not encouraged to watch. In other words, they were not motivated. If access were an issue, the data should have been skewed in favor of the higher SES children from the beginning. As discussed earlier, disadvantages based on access alone may be addressed through policy solutions, but policies cannot motivate people to seek knowledge.

A few years later, in 1974, Katzman reexamined the study data, including some that had not been used previously. The most significant finding was that the knowledge gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children, this time measured by changes between pre-viewing and post-viewing test scores, virtually disappeared among the heaviest viewers of Sesame Street. Among the lower three quartiles of viewers, there were approximately equal gaps. Severin and Tankard (1992) note that the post-test scores for the disadvantaged children were actually higher than for the advantaged children at the two lowest quartiles of viewing. This was an exciting finding, as it suggested that previous theories based on ability might be incomplete. Questions, however, remain. Aside from being assigned to watch Sesame Street for a given amount of time, why would some children watch the show more than others? Was it solely a matter of access outside of the laboratory or was it that high-viewing children enjoyed the show more and were thus more motivated to watch and learn? These are important differences when considering policy solutions and should be studied further.

We now turn to a discussion of the evolution of the knowledge gap hypothesis in an attempt to clarify the access and skills versus motivation controversy. This paper employs a modified version of the difference framework, specifically the use of "transsituational" factors and "situation-specific" factors to assess the causes of the knowledge gap. Transsituational factors exist because of an individual's lack of basic communication skills and another condition closely associated with SES, access. Situation-specific factors are caused by differences in motivation and can be overcome regardless of SES.

Tichenor, et al., explained the gap purely as a function of SES, meaning that poorer, less educated people suffer a deficit that keeps them, under all circumstances, less knowledgeable than those of higher SES. This approach, as we saw in the Sesame Street experiment, does not account for how children of low SES approached the knowledge levels of high SES children at high levels of exposure. Also, the deficit theory only addresses one part of the problem and does not take into account the other factor we have identified as crucial to learning: motivation.

A more appropriate framework for assessing the knowledge gap is the difference approach. Cole and Bruner (1971) introduced this approach to explain the combined influences of skill and motivation. The difference interpretation accepts that "those groups ordinarily diagnosed as culturally deprived have the same underlying competence as those in the mainstream of the dominant culture, the difference in performance being accounted for by the situations and contexts in which the competence is expressed" (Cole and Bruner, as found in Ettema and Kline, 1977). This approach acknowledges that low-SES populations can learn as easily as high-SES populations if the topic has salience for them; that is, they will learn if they can see how doing so will be an advantage to them. This finding has been affirmed by Lovrich and Pierce (1984), who found that motivation played a greater role in knowledge attainment than did skill. Ettema and Kline (1977) go one step further and reformulate the knowledge gap hypothesis to take this information into account. They restate the hypothesis as:

"As the infusion of mass media information into a social system increases, segments of the population motivated to acquire that information and/or for which that information is functional tend to acquire the information at a faster rate than those not motivated or for which it is not functional, so that the gap in knowledge between these segments tends to increase rather than decrease" (p. 188) (emphasis added).

Thinking again about the three knowledge gap studies reviewed earlier within the difference framework allows us a clearer view of the reasons for the gaps. First, we see that if access is not an issue -- as is the case using the diffusion of innovations theory -- we are left with motivational factors as the explanation for the gaps. If access is necessary to build skills that will earn a living wage and the government promotes policies that encourage or mandate access, we must then determine how we will demonstrate to those previously without such access how using it will improve their futures.

What are the consequences of such inequities? We now turn to a review of recent findings concerning job skills needed for success not only in the future, but now. Before we can apply the knowledge gap hypothesis to estimate the consequences of access inequities, we must establish that technology access is, in and of itself, knowledge. This section examines two processes that aid in this conceptualization. These explanations provide a segue into assessing the consequences of inequities of access to advanced telecomputing technologies. Whereas the knowledge gap has dealt in the past with knowledge defined as what is learned from the content of the media, telecomputing technologies expand this definition necessarily to include not only the message as knowledge but the medium itself as knowledge.

The first scholar to make this argument was Marshall McLuhan. Extrapolating from McLuhan's 1967 [5] statement that the "medium is the message" to the "medium is the information" lets us view technology and how it relates to the knowledge gap in a different way. Not only are the computer and Internet the means of acquiring knowledge, they are knowledge itself. A television viewer does not learn new skills simply by watching television; however, simply "surfing" the web or exchanging electronic mail with another person is, in itself, teaching the user new skills.

How important is it to provide these new tools for learning? Is there a growing stratification of our society? The answers are "very important" and "yes," respectively. As cited in the President's National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council's (NIIAC) KickStart Initiative Report (1996), the Secretary of Labor's 1991 Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) named three skills necessary for success "in the workplace of the 21st century:"

• The ability to read, write, perform arithmetic and mathematical operations, listen, and speak;
• The ability to think creatively, make decisions, solve problems, visualize, learn outside of the classroom environment, and reason; and,
• Personal qualities, including responsibility, self-esteem, sociability, self-management, and integrity and honesty (NIIAC, 1996a).

It is also true that technology is further stratifying the country based on education and income. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The increase in technology use has both decreased the demand for low-skilled workers (e.g., industrial manufacturing) and increased the need for high-skilled workers (Gattschalk and Joyce, 1995). Between 1979 and 1986, for example, those in the "low education" and medium education" categories saw their median real wage fall from $18,572 to $16,615 and from $26,311 to $23,431, respectively. The "high education" segment, however, saw its wage increase, albeit not by much, from $30,629 to $31,952.

This section highlights current government initiatives to increase technology use among the disadvantaged. Programs sponsored by the President's National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council, the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Education (ED) will be reviewed. [6] These short descriptions are in no way meant to be exhaustive. Instead, they are meant to give readers unfamiliar with the programs a general understanding of their goals. There are, of course, a multitude of private groups that are working to deploy technology and link schools to the Internet, but they will not be discussed here.

The President's National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council

The NIIAC was established to represent the key constituencies with a stake in the national information infrastructure (NII), including private industry; state and local governments; and, community, public interest, education, and labor groups. The KickStart concept is an initiative of this group. KickStart Initiatives are community-based efforts to bring the Internet to all individuals through schools, libraries, and community centers (NIIAC, 1996a). The initiative is based on the premise that if everybody in America has access to the Internet, a more vibrant society and a more robust economy will result: access could improve the lives of individuals, reinvigorate education, expand businesses, and strengthen communities. Proponents of the initiative have an important goal, to teach the general public about technology and make it a part of everyday life. (NIIAC, 1996b)

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

NTIA's Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP) provides seed money for innovative, practical technology projects throughout the United States. Many projects to connect rural and urban underserved Americans to information networks would never occur without the Federal assistance provided by this program. TIIAP provides matching grants to non-profit organizations such as schools, libraries, hospitals, public safety entities, and state and local governments. Grants are used to fund projects that improve the quality of, and the public access to, education, health care, government services, and economic development. (TIIAP, 1996).

Since its inception in 1994, TIIAP has received more 2,800 applications from across the country. Because TIIAP is a matching grant program, the applications have spawned hundreds of millions of dollars in commitments from local, state, and private sector sources. TIIAP is currently awarding 117 grants in 47 states and the District of Columbia, totaling more than $35.7 million and matched by more than $60 million in non-Federal funds. These new projects will help bridge information gaps for children in farming communities and inner cities, bring improved health care to elderly patients without requiring them to leave their homes, provide worker training and new job opportunities in economically depressed areas and improve public safety by supporting the extension of emergency telephone service throughout the country. By serving as models that can be replicated in similar communities across the country, TIIAP projects extend their effects far beyond the communities in which they take place, and provide economic and social benefits to the nation as a whole (TIIAP, 1996).

Department of Housing and Urban Development

The Department of Housing and Urban Development sponsors the Communities of Learning program (Communities of Learning, 1996). This program sponsors two initiatives, Campus of Learners and Neighborhood Networks, to provide computer access and education for youth, adults, and senior citizens with the goal of economic empowerment. Both programs emphasize public/private partnerships and involve community-based organizations, colleges and universities, businesses, foundations, and citizens.

Campus of Learners is designed to provide public housing residents an opportunity to live in a campus-like setting focused on learning. Between 15 and 20 public housing sites will be designated as Campuses of Learners where children will participate in special educational programs and families will undertake educational opportunities, learn new telecommunications and computer technology skills, and participate in job training initiatives with local businesses. This initiative combines private and public sector resources by incorporating education, technology, and job training opportunities in public housing developments. Through partnerships with educational entities and corporations, the goal of the Campus of Learners initiative is to transform public housing developments from places that are often physically, socially, and economically separated from mainstream society into electronic and education campuses.

Neighborhood Networks is an initiative designed to enhance the self-sufficiency, employability, and economic self-reliance of low-income families and the elderly living in HUD properties by providing residents with onsite access to computer and training resources. Computerized learning centers will be established to provide early childhood educational programs, adult education opportunities, and access to job data banks. Residents and property owners will work with local businesses, educational institutions, private foundations, and other community organizations to create and operate computerized learning centers. HUD envisions such facilities as providing residents with:

• Early childhood educational programs.
• Adult educational opportunities at the high school, vocational, community college, and university levels.
• Typing, word processing, and computer skills.
• Personal and job-training software.
• Access to job data banks.
• Microenterprise development opportunities.
• Participation in online civic and government forums.

Department of Education

The Department of Education (ED, 1996a), not surprisingly, has a number of initiatives to increase technology education in schools. Three of these initiatives, Goals 2000, School-to-Work, and the National Plan for Educational Technology, are discussed here (ED, 1996b).

Goals 2000 was initiated in a law passed in 1994 through the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. It provides states and communities a voluntary opportunity to strengthen and broaden their reform efforts by developing coordinated, flexible, grassroots-based education plans to enable children to achieve their academic goals. Many states use Goals 2000 funds to develop comprehensive state improvement plans and to build widespread support for education reform. In addition, states use available funds to develop technology plans. In time, school districts and schools will be able to use Goals 2000 funds to build local partnerships and start up or expand local education improvement efforts.

The School-to-Work Opportunities Act became law in 1994. It provides seed money to states and local partnerships of business, labor, government, education, and community organizations to develop school-to-work systems. This law does not create a new program. Instead, it allows states to undertake efforts at education reform, worker preparation, and economic development to create a system that prepares students for high wage, high skill careers. Using federal seed money, states can design a system that makes the most sense for them. There is no single model. While these systems are different from state to state, each provides:

• Relevant Education, allowing students to explore different careers and see what skills are required in their working environment;
• Skills, obtained from structured training and work-based learning experiences, including necessary skills of a particular career as demonstrated in a working environment; and
• Valued Credentials, establishing industry-standard benchmarks and developing education and training standards which ensure that proper education is received for each career.

The final initiative is the National Plan for Educational Technology. The report is scheduled for release in the Spring of 1996. The plan is not a program, but a vision to implement technology education in the schools. The plan was mandated by the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 and will be based on "four pillars":

• Modern computers and learning devices will be accessible to every student.
• Classrooms will be connected to one another and to the outside world.
• Educational software will be an integral part of the curriculum -- and as engaging as the best video game.
• Teachers will be ready to use and teach with technology.

Thus far, this research has demonstrated that: (1) there is a significant difference in access to advanced technologies based on socioeconomic status and that, without effective policy solutions, that difference will increase in the coming years; (2) the knowledge gap hypothesis can and should be applied to the realm of access to advanced technologies; and (3) this increasing knowledge gap will have societal consequences. The preceding section then highlighted a number of government initiatives aimed at decreasing the gap in access in the hope of reversing the current trend in social impact. This final section of the paper will draw conclusions based on the findings of this research and offer policy recommendations for the future.

Good policy is the nexus of good law and good theory. As we have discussed earlier, providing access through legislation and other policy initiatives is a solution to part of the problem, but the theory behind what drives actual technology use is often ignored. Access is the first condition that must be satisfied for a person -- child or adult -- to learn how to use new technologies, but unless that person is motivated to use the technology, he or she will not use it.

So, how do we motivate people to use new technologies? How can the use of these new technologies be made salient to the disadvantaged? According to Dallas Smythe (1907-1992), a pioneer in research into using technology to benefit society, we cannot expect people to simply adapt to new technologies without "designing [those] technologies to serve the real needs of people" (1994). Simply put, technology must fill some need. We cannot expect people, children or adults, to seek access to advanced technologies without motivating them to seek it -- giving them a reason to seek it. And we cannot motivate them unless we show them how having access will serve their needs. Additionally, we cannot expect people to adapt to technology without access to that technology in the first place. It appears we are caught in a Catch-22 situation: we cannot prove to those who oppose universal access that it will narrow the gap without first providing access, but we cannot motivate people to seek the technology and make use of it unless they have access. Universal access policies, and programs that provide that access, however, are the first steps needed.

The programs discussed earlier all have excellent goals. Overall, each seeks to bring technology to the disadvantaged, thus providing the requite access. As stated repeatedly throughout this paper, though, access is a solution to only half the problem. None of the programs explicitly addresses motivation as a factor in technology use. These programs have a strong potential to play a significant role in reducing the knowledge gap if managed correctly and executed with a broad vision of providing access and instilling motivation. It will be important to use the technology for creative teaching and learning -- media literacy, if you will. New technologies must not be used to simply automate and replicate teaching methods that stress repetition and rote learning. They should be applied, instead, to developing more creative and exploratory methods of learning; methods that encourage children and adults alike to seek knowledge.

In the future, the success of these and other programs should be assessed quantitatively to ensure they maintain their funding. Experiments like the Sesame Street studies would be ideal, using computer and the Internet as the knowledge source. Such studies would also further confirm the validity of the difference framework. Such testing must be careful to avoid a short-term vision, however. Immediate changes may not occur. Like many forms of social regulation (e.g., environmental regulation) the initial cost may appear steep in comparison to the short-term benefits, but we must realize that significant changes will only occur over time.

In addition to not carefully examining motivational factors, this research identified another issue with these programs. They are run separately and managed with little coordination between the managing agencies. Providing access and the motivation to seek that access are not problems that can be addressed effectively by a single agency or department. Policy development in this area must be a horizontally integrated approach across appropriate entities. While singular efforts by the NTIA, HUD, and ED solve a piece of the problem, an approach involving those three plus the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Commerce (in addition to the NTIA) would produce a more holistic solution. Also, the current segregation keeps program managers and participants from learning about the others' successes and may exhaust limited resources. As education-related initiatives seem to be a favorite area for funding cuts, available funding must be allocated effectively.

A possible solution would be to establish a focal point, perhaps within the Executive Branch or a department currently involved in these initiatives, to oversee and coordinate the various efforts. The focal point is not meant to be another layer of bureaucracy; instead, it is meant to be one to three people who would perform coordination and outreach functions by working with various government agencies and private industry and consortia. Another possibility would be to establish a government interagency task force managed by that focal point. Working together, these groups could develop a truly unified vision for the Nation's technology access and education efforts. In this way, existing programs would have the greatest possible impact -- providing the public with technology access as well as the motivation needed to learn and succeed.