God uses willing hearts far more often than able bodies. 

There is picture of this quote on my classroom work desk. It serves as a reminder to myself that I can make it. I will figure it out. I will make it happen for my students. Yet, during these last few years- even months- I seem to look to this quote for strength much more than ever before. It takes a selfless person to be an educator, I know this. I know the type of person I am-- I give and give until I have nothing left for myself. That's just who I am. That is how many teachers are. But who will be selfless for us? Who will help us solve our problems with the gap? How are we supposed to take care of others and teach when we are not taken care of first? When are we allowed to think selfishly and reflect on our own monster of a digital divide before thinking of accommodating our students'?

When discussing the digital divide, many conversations seem to veer towards digital equity and the homework gap. As a current graduate student in an educational technology program, I read about digital equity and the lengths communities and even countries must go to create this for all members, closing the digital divide and the consequences if not-- so on and so forth. Yet, all of the articles, news reports,  and data I find and am provided seem to primarily focus on one subgroup of the population-- K-12 students. 

As much as I find our future generations and their education to be of the utmost importance, as an educator, I can't seem to understand why we are so concerned about the homework gap when we (those that actually make the learning happen) have a gap of our own to worry about... I like to refer to it as:

The Planning Gap

My definition of the planning gap is similar to the homework gap, yet it applies to our educators who do not have equal access to the internet or tech devices, whether it is at work, at school, or both.  Many experts note that as the demands for internet use increase to function in society, work, and school, the gap seems to continue to widen with little to nothing done about it in the majority of the school districts and communities, specifically relating to internet access (both at work and home) and mobile work devices.

Teachers continue to have their plates overloaded and added to. This has escalated dramatically since the pandemic. So how can teachers continue to keep up the ever-quickening pace of instruction, along with yearly changes to curriculum, the new "purposeful" implementation of technology requirements, as well as the authentication of assessing when they do not have adequate access to internet or their salary does not support such expensive technology and bandwidth? All of these new expectations for teachers require more work and more time for planning, but what if teachers can't plan at home? We are just as "stuck" as students are with the homework gap, yet no one seems to pay much attention to our issues, since we typically fulfill the role of problem solvers for our students and others.  

Over the course of the next 5 weeks, I plan to share my research and findings on "the planning gap," as well as present my ideas behind how we can better close this gap for teachers, so that we can then truly focus on what we do best and enjoy most-- teach! 

For decades, educators have been told that technology would “level the playing field.” The promise was that if every student had a laptop and Wi-Fi, equity would follow. But as the last few years have proven, access alone isn’t enough. As a teacher of students with visual impairments and an instructional leader, I’ve witnessed how the “digital divide” shows up in quiet but powerful ways — in accessibility barriers, gaps in teacher training, and whose voices are heard when technology decisions are made. Digital equity must go beyond hardware. It’s a commitment to inclusion, design, and empowerment for both educators and students.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

When conversations about digital equity surface, the focus often lands squarely on students. Yet educators experience the same structural divides that shape opportunity. Researchers like Jan van Dijk and Ellen Helsper remind us that the digital divide operates on multiple levels: access, use, and outcomes (Van Dijk and Helsper 569). The first level — access — concerns who has reliable devices, Wi-Fi, and technical support. The second involves how people use technology and the skills they possess. The third asks who truly benefits from technology in terms of learning, agency, and empowerment.

Even before the pandemic, roughly 17 percent of U.S. students lacked reliable home internet (Education Trust–West)-- and that only included the English-speaking families who could participate in the survey and fully know what the questions were asking. When classrooms suddenly went virtual, that gap became impossible to ignore. Some rural or low-income districts saw as many as one in five students unable to complete assignments online (Education Trust–West). At the same time, many teachers faced their own challenges — learning new platforms overnight, navigating accessibility issues, and trying to engage students through screens with little prior training.

The same pattern extends to teacher readiness. Faculty in higher education, for instance, show wide variation in confidence and preparedness to integrate technology, depending on the professional learning they’ve received (Cutri, Mena, and Whiting). When teachers lack meaningful training or autonomy in technology decisions, inequity multiplies. In other words, students’ digital opportunity is tethered to educators’ digital readiness.

Beyond Devices: Understanding the Three Levels of Divide

The first-level divide — physical access — is the most visible and, in many ways, the easiest to measure. School districts invest heavily in Chromebooks, hotspots, and classroom connectivity. Progress here is real, and it matters. But researchers like Anique Scheerder, Alexander van Deursen, and Jan van Dijk emphasize that the second and third levels of the divide — skills, pedagogy, and outcomes — are where inequities persist and are most prevalent (Scheerder, Van Deursen, and Van Dijk 1609).

Two students may own identical laptops, but their experiences differ profoundly. One might learn to code, collaborate, and create; the other may only use the device to fill out digital worksheets. The difference lies not in access, but in how technology is used and supported. As Van Dijk explains, “The more complex and interactive the use of digital media becomes, the more dependent users become on their resources and support structures” (Van Dijk and Helsper 575).

The same holds true for educators. Without ongoing professional development, collaborative design opportunities, and mentorship, technology integration often remains surface-level. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) notes that “closing the digital use gap requires systems of support, not isolated workshops” (Closing the Gap 2). In my own experience coaching teachers, that means the real work of equity happens between sessions — when educators are given time, trust, and encouragement to experiment, reflect, and grow.

Where Educators Are Left Out

Teachers are too often left out of the digital equity conversation altogether. We hear policy statements like “students need access,” but rarely “teachers need inclusion.” In schools across the country, professional development remains uneven. Many teachers describe “drive-by” PD sessions that offer tools but little follow-up and little to no alignment with what they are trying to accomplish in growth to mastery of their clientele. Others report top-down decision-making, where software or platforms are selected without teacher input or consideration for classroom context-- wasting, most times, thousands and thousands of funding dollars in the little budget we receive now. 

The assumption that all educators share the same baseline digital skills also creates inequity (no different than our assumptions about digital natives). A new teacher entering the profession may have strong tech fluency but little pedagogical grounding, while a veteran teacher might have powerful instructional instincts but need scaffolding with digital tools. When training fails to differentiate, teachers can feel overwhelmed, unsupported, or alienated.

Neil Selwyn’s recent research warns that exclusionary or punitive digital practices—such as surveillance-based software or rigid attendance tracking—can deepen inequity and erode trust between teachers and institutions (Selwyn). Technology meant to enhance learning can quickly become a form of control if not implemented ethically. If educators are left out of conversations about design, training, and data use, even well-intentioned initiatives can backfire.

Digital Equity Is Pedagogical, Not Just Technical

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) emphasizes that persistent inequalities can undermine inclusion unless systems intentionally build universal design and differentiated access into their educational frameworks (Digital Equity and Inclusion in Education). Accessibility, therefore, cannot be an afterthought. For students with visual impairments, for instance, a screen reader that skips graphs or unlabeled buttons doesn’t just inconvenience—it excludes.

The same principle applies to educators. Professional learning platforms that are not compatible with screen readers or accessible formats inadvertently sideline teachers with disabilities. Equity must be built into the digital ecosystem, from procurement to professional development.

True digital inclusion begins when we view technology as part of pedagogy rather than as an add-on. It means aligning tools to the ways students learn best, ensuring they can create and contribute, not just consume. It also means giving educators the agency to adapt tools to their context and students’ needs. As the ISTE framework suggests, equity emerges not from uniformity but from intentional differentiation and sustained human support (Closing the Gap 2).

What the Data Tell Us

Recent studies reinforce what many of us have experienced. Students without home internet are significantly less likely to complete assignments or engage in remote learning (Education Trust–West). School-level readiness doesn’t always guarantee equitable use or outcomes (Aesaert et al.). Exclusionary technology policies can disproportionately harm marginalized students (Selwyn). Educator readiness—more than hardware or bandwidth—remains one of the strongest predictors of meaningful integration (Cutri et al.).

Community-based partnerships also matter. Research by Zhai and colleagues found that collaborations between schools, libraries, and broadband providers reduced digital disparities and built long-term digital literacy among families. Such partnerships remind us that equity work doesn’t stop at the school gate; it extends into the neighborhoods our students call home.

Minding the Gap in Practice

So, what does “minding the gap” actually look like? It begins with awareness but demands follow-through. Schools can start by conducting digital equity audits that measure both student and teacher access, usage, and satisfaction. This data should be disaggregated by grade level, demographic group, and subject to uncover hidden patterns.

Equally important is rethinking professional development. One-off training sessions rarely change practice. Coaching models, like the Dynamic Learning Project, demonstrate how sustained mentorship and co-teaching can help educators build confidence, increase student engagement, and refine instruction (ISTE 2021).

Educator voice should also guide technology adoption. When teachers participate in selecting and evaluating tools, the resulting systems are more responsive and sustainable. Inclusion must also extend to design. Schools should prioritize technologies that meet accessibility standards such as WCAG and Section 508, and involve specialists like Teachers of the Visually Impaired in vetting digital materials for usability.

Ultimately, equity must be measured by outcomes, not by the number of devices distributed. Schools should track how technology impacts student growth, creativity, and critical thinking. Asking, “Who is benefiting most—and who is still excluded?” can help shift the focus from compliance to compassion.

Sustaining this work requires community. Partnerships with libraries, nonprofits, and universities can expand access and foster trust. Initiatives that began as pandemic stopgaps must evolve into long-term commitments, ensuring that digital inclusion remains central to every district’s vision.

Closing Reflections: Equity as Relationship

When I walk into classrooms at the Louisiana School for the Visually Impaired, I’m reminded that technology can be either a barrier or a bridge. A screen reader that can’t process images is a barrier. But a tactile-graphic maker or an accessible talking calculator becomes a bridge — one that connects learners to independence and confidence.

Equity begins with empathy — understanding what access truly feels like for each learner and teacher. When we, as educators, mind the gap together, we move closer to classrooms where technology amplifies human connection rather than replacing it.

The numbers don’t lie: gaps persist. But with inclusion, thoughtful design, and collective effort, we can close them — not just for students, but for everyone who calls a classroom home.

Works Cited

Aesaert, Koen, et al. “Multilevel Analysis of Digital Readiness and Socioeconomic Composition.” Computers and Education: Open, vol. 3, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100099.

Cutri, Ramona Maile, Juan C. Mena, and Edward Whiting. “Faculty Readiness for Online Crisis Teaching: Transitioning to Online Teaching During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 17, no. 54, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00191-5.

Education Trust–West. A Commitment to Equity: Digital Equity Brief. 2020, https://west.edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/EducationTrust_2020_CACommitmentToEquity_Digital-Equity_V2.pdf.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Closing the Gap 2: Excerpt from ISTE 2021 Program Session Model. 2021.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Digital Equity and Inclusion in Education. OECD Publishing, 2023, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/digital-equity-and-inclusion-in-education_7cb15030-en.html.

Scheerder, Anique, Alexander van Deursen, and Jan van Dijk. “Determinants of Internet Skills, Uses and Outcomes: A Systematic Review of the Second- and Third-Level Digital Divide.” Telematics and Informatics, vol. 34, no. 8, 2017, pp. 1607–24.

Selwyn, Neil. “Exclusionary Digital Education Practices and the Reproduction of Inequality.” Educational Philosophy and Theory, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311231224083.

Van Dijk, Jan A. G. M., and Ellen J. Helsper. “The Digital Divide and Social Inequality in the Information Age.” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 68, no. 3, 2012, pp. 569–95.

Zhai, Y., et al. “Community Partnerships to Reduce the Digital Divide.” Computers in Human Behavior Reports, vol. 4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100122

When we talk about digital equity, it’s tempting to think the solution is simple: give every student a device and reliable Wi-Fi. But anyone who’s taught through the pandemic—or who supports students who rely on assistive technology—knows that access alone doesn’t guarantee inclusion-- It's a whole can of worms you are opening up!

True equity requires more than hardware. It demands human support, accessible design, and shared responsibility between teachers, leaders, and communities. So, what are our options?

Rethinking “Access” (review of last blog if you missed it!)

Researchers describe three levels of the digital divide: access, use, and outcomes (Van Dijk and Helsper 569). The first—access—is visible. It’s the number of Chromebooks in classrooms or the Wi-Fi strength in homes. Yet equal access doesn’t lead to equal benefit.

Even before COVID-19, about 17% of U.S. students lacked reliable home internet, with higher rates among low-income families and students of color (Education Trust–West). When learning moved online, that gap became impossible to ignore.

Educators face similar barriers. Faculty readiness for digital instruction varies widely depending on access to training and support (Cutri, Mena, and Whiting). As long as teachers are excluded from decisions about tools, design, and professional learning, inequity will persist across every level of the system.

From Hardware to Humanware

If devices are the hardware of digital education, then teachers and students are the humanware. Hardware can be purchased; humanware must be nurtured.

That means treating educators as designers of learning, not just users of software. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) urges systems to build universal design and differentiated access into every policy and practice (Digital Equity and Inclusion in Education). Accessibility isn’t a technical feature—it’s an ethical standard.

At the Louisiana School for the Visually Impaired, where I teach and coach, every tool we adopt is tested for screen-reader compatibility, tactile options, and teacher usability. It’s not an afterthought—it’s part of the culture.

Build Capacity, Not Just Connectivity

The first option for closing the gap is to invest in educator capacity. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) found that “closing the digital use gap requires systems of support, not isolated workshops” (Closing the Gap 2).

Coaching programs like the Dynamic Learning Project pair teachers with technology mentors for ongoing reflection and modeling. Schools can replicate this with teacher-leaders or instructional coaches, creating cycles of collaboration instead of compliance.

When teachers feel trusted and supported, they experiment more confidently—and students benefit from richer, more inclusive instruction-- this is also backed in my great grand-mentor's featured book, My Favorite Failure-- How Setbacks Can Lead to Learning and Growth. 

Center Educator Voice

The second option is to include educators in decision-making. Too often, platforms are selected based on vendor promises instead of classroom realities. Neil Selwyn warns that exclusionary technology practices, like surveillance software or rigid data dashboards, can actually reproduce inequity (Selwyn).

Creating a Digital Equity Committee—with teachers, students, and specialists—ensures new tools meet both technical standards (like WCAG accessibility) and pedagogical standards (ease of use, relevance, adaptability). When teachers help shape these decisions, implementation becomes more sustainable.

Redefine Professional Learning

Traditional professional development assumes all teachers begin at the same skill level. They don’t. Differentiated PD—offered in pathways or tiers—allows educators to grow from their own starting point.

Cutri and colleagues found that digital transitions succeed when teachers are supported in communities of practice where “experimentation is encouraged” (Cutri, Mena, and Whiting).

Embedding accessibility and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) across all PD ensures inclusion isn’t a side topic but a foundational habit. Whether it’s learning to caption videos, design tactile graphics, or apply alt text, equity begins with practice.

Measure Outcomes, Not Outputs

Many schools track how many devices were distributed or how many PD hours completed—but rarely ask who benefited most. This is where the third-level divide, the outcome divide, emerges.

Aesaert and colleagues found that infrastructure alone doesn’t predict equitable results; the key variable is culture—how technology is used and supported (Aesaert et al.). Schools should collect both quantitative data and qualitative evidence, such as teacher reflections and student feedback, to measure impact.

Asking “Who is still excluded?” must become a routine part of evaluating success.

Strengthen Partnerships

Digital equity doesn’t stop at the school door. Community partnerships can close gaps in access and literacy.

Zhai and colleagues documented how collaborations between schools, libraries, and broadband providers reduced disparities and built digital confidence among families (Zhai et al.). These efforts show that equity grows when the entire community invests—not just the school system.

Make Accessibility the Culture

Accessibility should be a cultural norm, not a compliance checklist. The OECD calls for embedding accessibility into curriculum, teacher training, and evaluation frameworks (Digital Equity and Inclusion in Education).

That starts with small, daily habits: adding alt text, checking color contrast, captioning videos, and using screen-reader-friendly formats. At our school, teachers model these habits across subjects so students see accessibility as empowerment, not accommodation.

Sustaining the Work

The pandemic made digital equity urgent. Now, it must become ongoing. Schools should create Digital Inclusion Plans that set goals for access, training, and inclusive design—and revisit them annually.

Selwyn reminds us that “technology reflects existing inequalities unless we actively design against them” (Selwyn). Sustained design is how we prevent backsliding once urgency fades.

Closing Thoughts: A Human Approach

When I walk into classrooms at the Louisiana School for the Visually Impaired, I’m reminded that technology can be either a barrier or a bridge. A screen reader that skips images is a barrier. But a tactile graphic or talking calculator is a bridge to independence.

Equity begins with empathy—with understanding what access feels like for every learner and teacher. Our best option is simple but not easy: to keep minding the gap together, with compassion, design, and courage.

Works Cited

Aesaert, Koen, et al. “Multilevel Analysis of Digital Readiness and Socioeconomic Composition.” Computers and Education: Open, vol. 3, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100099.

Cutri, Ramona Maile, Juan C. Mena, and Edward Whiting. “Faculty Readiness for Online Crisis Teaching: Transitioning to Online Teaching During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 17, no. 54, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00191-5.

Education Trust–West. A Commitment to Equity: Digital Equity Brief. 2020, https://west.edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/EducationTrust_2020_CACommitmentToEquity_Digital-Equity_V2.pdf.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Closing the Gap 2: Excerpt from ISTE 2021 Program Session Model. 2021.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Digital Equity and Inclusion in Education. OECD Publishing, 2023, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/digital-equity-and-inclusion-in-education_7cb15030-en.html.

Selwyn, Neil. “Exclusionary Digital Education Practices and the Reproduction of Inequality.” Educational Philosophy and Theory, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311231224083.

Van Dijk, Jan A. G. M., and Ellen J. Helsper. “The Digital Divide and Social Inequality in the Information Age.” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 68, no. 3, 2012, pp. 569–95.

Zhai, Y., et al. “Community Partnerships to Reduce the Digital Divide.” Computers in Human Behavior Reports, vol. 4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100122.