Disadvantaged Learners And The Digital Divide: Reflections On The Last Budget

Digital learning is something we were interested in even before the pandemic. It’s clear that the future of education will be hybrid, using digital learning in various forms to complement in-person teaching skills. However, the digital divide – defined as a lack of physical access to tech, lack of access to affordable data, or a lack of digital skills – has been a persistent problem in education and nowhere more evident than during lockdown and school closures.

Our recent report confirmed that with online and remote learning, the schism, far from being narrowed, has actually grown; of the 1,500 teachers we surveyed, 70 per cent said the most disadvantaged students lost learning due to limited or no access to digital devices. This further separates them from their peers in terms of educational attainment and so impacts on their future prospects in both higher education and employment, and their wellbeing.

Digital services are fundamental to our infrastructure. If we truly want to level up, we need to invest in all aspects of digital learning. Lockdown may be over, and there are many more devices in pupil hands, but the divide remains. The Budget offered a chance for the government to address these issues and invest in children for the future. But did it?

The £1.8bn reserved for the catch up premium is welcome, but it only increases the recovery fund to £5bn. When we consider that Sir Kevan Collins, as Education Recovery Tsar, asked for up to £15bn to help children catch up on lost learning, and the EPI research laid out the need for an investment of £13bn, the Budget settlement does not address this need. Furthermore, when we compare ourselves with countries such as The Netherlands and US, whose per pupil recovery spend is £1,800 and £2,100 respectively, our £500 settlement for every child simply does not go far enough, particularly when we consider the scale of impact and the widening divide. Schools will also get a further £4.7bn for the core schools’ budget, but as this is only returning to 2010 levels, it masks the ongoing pressure on school finances.

The end of the public sector pay freeze is good news for recruitment and retention, and the promised £30,000 starter salary goes some way to acknowledge the pressures many teachers have experienced. Yet these rises will need to come out of the additional funding, as well as factoring in increases to NI contributions and rising energy bills. Additionally, the DfE needs to make 5 per cent departmental savings which, added to everything else, could result in school cuts and yet more pressure on teachers.

There are other areas that the Budget failed to address. There is no specific provision for teacher training, for example, even though it is a hidden factor in the digital divide. 56 per cent of the teachers we surveyed globally told us that teachers and learners alike lacked the skills to make digital learning a success. In our report, we consequently recommended a focus on ‘always-skilling’ among teachers, to reflect the ever-evolving nature of technology and digital pedagogies.

Sporadic upskilling runs the risk that knowledge will become outdated; far better to be ‘always-skilling’, in which teachers have regular training touchpoints. At OUP, we would have welcomed government funding that was specifically ringfenced for this purpose, given the need to future-proof the system. We would also welcome more emphasis placed on evidence-based digital resources and research into ensuring we better understand how they can deliver the right educational outcomes. With a drive towards digital, we need to ensure products are pedagogically sound.

The Budget also lacked any significant wellbeing support for teachers and pupils, despite the pandemic taking a huge toll on the population’s mental health. Our report revealed that 44 per cent of teachers felt that the wellbeing of disadvantaged students had been particularly negatively affected during the pandemic. A little over a third of teachers (36 per cent) also reported that there was a lack of support for teacher wellbeing. Unhappy children cannot learn and unhappy teachers cannot teach—so it is a missed opportunity that wellbeing isn’t being adequately supported by the catch-up fund.

And there was not enough support for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, even though they have been disproportionally affected by the shift to digital learning. As part of the government’s levelling up agenda, there will be improved internet access for 1,000 schools and 500,000 laptops for disadvantaged students. While this is an encouraging step towards bridging the digital divide, this is only one piece of the puzzle: more resources won’t make a difference unless teachers and learners can use them effectively.

The government needs to prioritize disadvantaged learners with a clear, holistic strategy to support their needs. And not just with equipment either – we know through our own research that this group of learners may not have the same digital skills as their peers, and their parents may lack these skills too. Our research showed that 50 per cent of teachers cited ‘lack of parental familiarity or understanding of the tools / platforms’, which makes it harder for disadvantaged children to get support at home. And we should not lose sight of the benefits of print – portable and accessible at any time.

All in all, it’s a mixed picture for schools and teachers. And, with little ringfenced government investment to support disadvantaged learners, schools will need to proactively manage their resources themselves to prevent these children from falling further behind.

Some of the recommendations in our report may provide inspiration. For example, we recommend more independent learning by giving pupils the support and encouragement needed to develop a sense of agency and take an active role in their own learning. While catch-up learning can take place online, outside normal school hours, to supplement in-person teaching, our view is that digital learning does not need to involve screen time all the time, especially as this disadvantages children with limited access to devices.

To end on an optimistic note, it’s important to reflect on the incredible successes of lockdown learning – teachers and parents worked together more closely than ever before, forging a partnership and understanding of each others’ roles that going forward could prove invaluable. Research reported that digital learning benefitted some children with special educational needs or a disability (for example, through accessibility software), and this is something we should seek to preserve in the classroom. The immersive crash course in digital learning may not have been welcome at the time, but if we can preserve and build on those skills, encourage ongoing PD, while simultaneously taking steps to improve connectivity and access, we can go a long way in the future.

Jane Harley is Policy and Partnership Director, UK Education, Oxford University Press. She has over 30 years’ publishing experience in the education field, working on both UK curricula and resources for the international market. She believes passionately in working with teachers and policy makers to help deliver the best pedagogies, programmes, and professional development support and to make a real difference to educational outcomes in the classroom.