It is not clear, however, that impact and equity are being considered sufficiently in this planning and development. Given what we know about current student needs as well as use and access patterns of the technology, priority should be given to demonstration projects, pilots, and research on "at risk" learners--to explore how higher level cognitive skills and real understanding can be developed among minority and disadvantaged learners and to see how performance gaps might be narrowed.
What will come first, the development of the R&D base for technology in education or concern about equity? If we proceed to explore the potential of the technology without immediate and concurrent concern for equity, we do serious harm by further widening the gap. The disadvantaged have always been forced to play catch up. If we have a tool that can help students overcome previous disadvantage and reach their educational potential, we have a moral obligation to give priority to this purpose.
Becker H. J. ( 1986). Instructional uses of school computers (Reports from the 1985 National Survey, Nos. 1-3). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for the Social Organization of Schools
Berryman S. ( 1983). Who will do science? New York: The Rockefeller Foundation.
Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. ( 1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.
Center for the Social Organization of Schools. 1983 National Survey of Instructional Uses of School Computers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
The College Board. ( 1984). Academic Preparation for the world of work. New York: Author.
The College Board. ( 1985). Equality and excellence: The educational status of black Americans. New York: Author.
Cetron M. J. ( 1985). Schools of the future: How American business and education can cooperate to save our schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Focusing on communication aids and techniques. (Summer, 1987). Communications Outlook, 9( 1).
Gilliam D. ( 1984, February 9). Technogap. The Washington Post.
Hartmann H., Tilly L., & Kraut R. (Eds.). ( 1986). Computer chips and paper clips (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.
Hodgkinson H. L. ( 1985). All one system. Washington, DC: The Institute for Educational Leadership.
Malcom S. M., Aldrich M., Hall P. Q., Boulware P., & Stern V. ( 1984). Equity and excellence: Compatible goals (AAAS Publication 84-14). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
National Science Foundation. ( 1986, January). Women and minorities in science and engineering. Washington, DC: Author.
National Urban League. ( 1987). The condition of black America. New York: Author.
Ramist L., & Arbeiter S. ( 1985). Profiles of college bound seniors. New York: The College Board.
Redden M. R. & Stern V. (Eds.). ( 1983). Technology for independent living: Volume II. Issues in technology for daily living, education, and employment. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. ( 1985). Demographic trends and the scientificand engineering work force: A technical memorandum