Introduction

In education, educators strive to eliminate as many barriers as possible using Universal Design for Learning (UDL), assistive technology, and multiple means of learning. Fortunately, educators have various tools to support these students, including screen readers, speech-to-text programs, and captioned videos. However, there are still many barriers that educators and students must overcome for every student to be successful. One of these barriers is the type of access students from different minority backgrounds have to accessible technology. While accessible technology has a critical role in reducing barriers that students and educators face, the access to the technology itself can pose as a barrier to these minority students for a few different reasons, such as the digital divide between the various socioeconomic demographics, limited access to assistive technology to students from marginalized communities, and technology that does not accommodate all of the different cultural or linguistic diversity that is present in classrooms today. Other factors also contribute to these barriers, including a lack of training and outdated policies that fail to align with current classroom practices.

Digital Divide and Socioeconomic Barriers

The ability to utilize technology in education has created opportunities for educators to provide more individualized and inclusive learning experiences for students with diverse needs. Unfortunately, there is still an issue of these technological tools not being distributed evenly across all schools in Ontario, especially in racialized and low-income areas. The barrier that certain schools in Ontario face in accessing these tools has been referred to as the “digital divide,” which impacts students from marginalized communities with limited access to quality internet connections and devices, such as Chromebooks (Chen, 2015). This divide became apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic, when students had to learn online. According to People for Education (2021), students from low-income communities were less likely to have access to the learning technology and support from family that they required to participate and be successful while learning online. Many students from marginalized and low-income areas did not have access to their own devices and often had unreliable internet service. Meanwhile, students from more affluent areas were more likely to have access to their own devices, reliable internet connections, and support from family members (People of Education, 2021; Golden et al., 2023).

There are also many Indigenous, immigrant, and students who live in rural areas that have a history of being underfunded and geographically isolated, which also presents another barrier that prevents them from having access to accessible technology (Freeman et al., 2022). According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the lack of accessible technology to these populations is considered systematic discrimination and is a human rights issue (OHRC, 2022). This includes any action that would limit the participation of students in marginalized communities, which is seen as a human rights violation.

Another barrier that students in these marginalized communities face is limited access to training on the effective use of assistive technology. The Ontario Ministry of Education (2017) encourages school boards to support more inclusive education by incorporating technology into the classroom. However, there is a significant discrepancy between school boards prioritizing the benefits of students in more affluent communities, who have access to more consistent support, including speech-to-text software, audiobook service subscriptions, and visual learning tools. To remove this barrier, more action is required than simply distributing Chromebooks or iPads. It requires a more thorough review of how funding is allocated, building a stronger digital literacy program that benefits students, families, and educators, and ensuring that assistive technology tools are distributed with an equity focus (UNESCO, 2021). Until these issues are addressed, minority students across Ontario are at risk of falling through the cracks in a system that relies heavily on technology to create more engaging learning experiences.

Disability-Related Accessibility Issues

Kirmani and Kalyanpur (2005) discuss the notion of how the digital divide impacts and affects minority groups, as not all students have access to the same type of technology that other students have. Kirmani mentions how the digital divide impacts students who come from low-income households, students who have a disability, students who come from different cultures, as well as students who identify as females. In addition, Kirmani and Kalyanpur discuss the types of inequities that people from diverse backgrounds and minority groups face, how the digital divide impacts the classroom, the lack of training that educators face, and what can be done to lessen this divide and ensure all students are receiving the same type of access and education.

When it comes to the types of inequities that students face, it is essential to remember that not all students have access to the different types of technology present (Kirmani & Kalyanpur, 2005). In addition, the types of inequities can be broken up into two subheadings: access divide and usage divide (Kirmani & Kalyanpur, 2005). Access divide involves the physical and financial barriers that minority and diverse students face. For instance, when it comes to infrastructure, some students may be in schools that receive less funding, which results in the school being unable to provide its students with the proper technology available (Kirmani & Kalyanpur, 2005). This may include not being able to have proper internet access, having no computers, or not having enough computers so that every child may receive one. In addition, when it comes to the students’ home lives, it is crucial to remember that many minority students come from low-income households and, therefore, will not have access to the internet or computers. This, in turn, could affect how students complete their homework (Kirmani & Kalyanpur, 2005). As educators, it is important to keep that in mind and ensure that when assigning tasks to complete at home, the work can be completed equitably, whether students have access to technology or not. Furthermore, with the digital divide and the lack of technology that low-income or less-funded schools face, students and minority students with disabilities will lack access to assistive technology resources that are beneficial for students’ growth and success. When students lack technology, they will not acquire knowledge in digital literacy, which could affect their future in terms of getting a job or their everyday interactions. Moreover, usage divide, the second type of inequity, refers to the fact that even if technology is available, it does not mean that minority students use the technology. For instance, minority and low-income students are often perceived as students who need to be in math and language programs due to their background (Kirmani & Kalyanpur, 2005). The other students are often given programs on coding, creative writing applications, and applications where they can express their creativity and ideas differently (Kirmani & Kalyanpur, 2005). As educators, we must never assume what type of programs our students need, but rather, conduct proper testing to assess and determine the needs of our students.

Furthermore, the digital divide also impacts the classroom. For example, the authors state that some educators use technology to address the negative and bad behaviour. In other words, educators are not using technology for what it is intended for, which is to provide students with the proper resources they need to achieve success in their learning (Kirmani & Kalyanpur, 2005). In addition, if there is technology present in the classroom, educators must make sure that the programs and resources used represent all students, including minority, coloured, and disabled students (Kirmani & Kalyanpur, 2005). Moreover, educators must receive proper training to ensure that students use technology properly (Kirmani & Kalyanpur, 2005). Educators should have allocated time for personal development days regarding the type of technology that is used in the classroom (Kirmani & Kalyanpur, 2005). Furthermore, it is essential that when we provide our students with technology, we ensure that they are participating in it properly. In other words, students should be using technology not just for leisure and pleasure, but rather, for creating and solving problems with the help of technology (Kirmani & Kalyanpur, 2005). In the end, it is essential that when technology is in the classroom, educators are meeting and establishing programs that meet the needs of the students and ensure that it is being used appropriately, not just as a reward, but for students to achieve greater success. It is also essential to ensure that the assigned tasks represent all, so that students are encouraged and motivated to complete the tasks at hand.

Communication Barriers

Educators must consider the effect that communication barriers have on students in the educational field. Students who are deaf or hard of hearing, unfortunately, face many barriers that hinder their potential for success in learning. It is for this reason that many students who are deaf, are unable to achieve their goals or aspirations even outside of the classroom.

There is a growing need for sign language interpreters in schools in order for students to be able to achieve the same success as their peers. When this does not happen, students are subject to experiencing language deprivation. Moreover, when children are learning languages in general, it is critical to remember that children are like sponges and what they retain in the first five years in regards to language is essential (Murray et al., 2019). When deaf students are not receiving proper sign language instruction, in schools where they spend most of their time, then this is when language deprivation is occurring, and this in turn can result in more serious problems such as cognitive disabilities, poor mental health, and lower academic achievements (Murray et al., 2019). School boards must find ways in order to budget for and accommodate all students if administrators and educators truly want equity to be the core of their beliefs.

In addition, with rapid research and technological advances taking place, sign language interpreters are often overlooked or not seen as essential anymore due to the devices that are available for students who are deaf or hard of hearing (Murray et al., 2019). While cochlear implants are essential and help students with their hearing and learning, it has been shown that students who also have a sign language interpreter tend to succeed more than students who do not (Murray et al., 2019). When discussing the importance of neurocognitive abilities, it is stated that when children who are deaf or hard of hearing receive proper sign language instruction, it is as though they are receiving the one-on-one communication that others experience (Murray et al., 2019). Unfortunately, due to the lack of resources available in some schools and even in some countries, less than 2% of those who are deaf or hard of hearing receive the proper support and sign language instruction needed (Murray et al., 2019). It is imperative to note that when language deprivation occurs, it affects the person’s overall social well-being and makes them feel a sense of isolation (Murray et al., 2019). When a person’s overall social well-being is impacted, it also affects how they function through society; whether that is in the medical field (i.e., going/making to appointments), communication with others, and even the possibility of the inequities deaf or people hard of hearing may face (Murray et al., 2019). Moreover, when this happens, it can also affect their overall identity, and they begin to ask the big question of who am I? (Murray et al., 2019).

One of the biggest solutions to these problems is to provide students with sign language interpreters in schools, as well as policies to make sure that interpreters can be accessed outside of schools too (Murray et al., 2019). In addition, in order to ensure that language deprivation does not occur and there is no feeling of isolation, it is essential to find bilingual interpreters, so that identity is also preserved (Murray et al., 2019). Moreover, educators and caretakers should receive the proper training and education in sign language in order to help students or children with this disability (Murray et al., 2019).

Cultural and Linguistic Obstacles

Cultural and linguistic barriers play a major role when it comes to discussing the inequities that take place in schools. Whitehead et al. (2023) address the topic of why minority students, students of colour, immigrants, and Indigenous people face difficulty when it comes to digital health technologies. When it comes to the actual use of technology, the population mentioned above often struggles or is limited in their technological literacy, which results in their fear of using technology. In addition, those coming from diverse backgrounds, who are Indigenous people, and minority students, often struggle when it comes to the financial background with technology (Whitehead et al., 2023). To help with these struggles, policies must be changed to provide this population with the proper digital literacy education and financial aid to acquire technology. Moreover, another problem regarding technology and how minority and ethnic backgrounds use it is how user-friendly an application is (Whitehead et al., 2023). Health applications must be user and language-friendly for the population mentioned above for the application to be considered valuable and helpful (Whitehead et al., 2023).

Health technologies are also related to the digital divide that minority and low-income people face. As mentioned above, when creating health applications, the creators must consider not just the language barriers but also the financial costs of these applications, the cultures represented, and how user-friendly they are (Whitehead et al., 2023). Just like health applications must take into account diverse backgrounds and represent them, classrooms must do the same. Classrooms must represent all students present for greater achievement to be made. In addition, policy changes regarding technology in the classroom must be made. Firstly, educators and policymakers need to ensure that if Chromebooks are being issued, each student at home and in school can have one. It is essential to ensure that the student at home has internet access to make it equitable (Whitehead et al., 2023). Moreover, the programs on the computers must represent not only minority students or students of colour, but Indigenous people as well. Ultimately, the implications that minority students face in classrooms are like the ones faced by diverse people trying to access health technologies. Technology should be made accessible and equitable to eliminate any struggles and challenges that can be faced. They should be made user-friendly with minority and ethnic backgrounds in mind.

Teachers and Minority Groups with Special Needs

When it comes to educators teaching minority students with special needs, they can, at times, bring with them their unconscious beliefs or assumptions (Cate & Gluck, 2019). These unconscious beliefs or assumptions can stem from students coming from different backgrounds and ethnicities, the type of disability they have, their gender, and their socioeconomic status in society (Cate & Gluck, 2019). Some educators, unfortunately, will establish biases against students coming from low-income homes or backgrounds, and will in turn have preconceived notions and judgements on how these students will perform (Cate & Gluck, 2019). Even though these biases might not be vocalized by the educators, students are still able to feel and sense the judgment being made towards them, whether that is through body language or the educator’s facial expressions (Cate & Gluck, 2019). In addition, many educators believe that if students are coming from diverse backgrounds and identities as special needs, then these students automatically are deemed as less successful or unable to achieve the same type of success as other students (Cate & Gluck, 2019).

Even if a student does not have a disability, educators will at times judge and have unconscious biases towards the gender of a student (Cate & Gluck, 2019). For instance, educators can give off the impression that they believe that those who identify as female tend to be more talkative and into subjects related to the arts, while those who identify as male are more skilled in the maths and sciences (Cate & Gluck, 2019). If students can identify and pick up on the educator’s unconscious biases through things said, then it can have a negative impact on the students’ overall success and ability to try challenging things.

Educators, regardless of their ethnic background, socioeconomic status, how students choose to identify, and the type of disability a student may have, should always attempt to foster a safe, equitable, and welcoming learning environment for all. This is the only way to ensure that students feel safe and for all to have the same opportunities to try and achieve success and their goals.

Policy Gaps

In Ontario, frameworks are in place to support the accessibility and inclusion of all students, including the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) (2025) and Ontario’s Education Equity Action Plan (King’s Printer for Ontario, 2017). However, even with these different frameworks, there are still gaps where students are falling through due to the implementation, training of educators, and lack of accountability (Rezai-Rashti et al., 2021). These continued gaps allow for students from minority backgrounds, especially those who have disabilities or language barriers, to fall through the cracks because of limited access to effective and inclusive assistive technology.

According to the AODA, all educational institutions must provide accessible learning environments, which include the availability of assistive technologies for all students (AODA, 2021.). Unfortunately, many schools are falling short of this legal requirement. This is not due to malicious intent; it results from the limited resources available at the board and classroom levels (OHRC, 2022). The application of these policies is often uneven because school boards are often left to use their discretion and professional judgment to interpret what the accessibility standards are and what they mean. An example would be how some boards have strong protocols about including Special Education Allocation (SEA) devices in IEPs and providing appropriate training to staff and students. In contrast, other boards might leave these decisions to the individual educators, who may not have the resources or be knowledgeable enough to support these students who would benefit from having access to them.

Along with this inconsistent resource allocation, there is a lack of accountability in monitoring timelines and compliance with accessibility standards. In education, very rarely does non-compliance with accessibility standards lead to any type of consequence due to the lack of monitoring and enforcement. The AODA does not currently have a strict timeline of when certain things need to be in place, and no audit system does any type of routine checkups, which are done by other areas of the public sector (AODA, n.d.). For this gap to be managed, more measures need to be put in place that hold people accountable and ensure that the student’s right to accessible technology is being honored and respected effectively and efficiently.

Lack of Inclusive Design

There is also the issue that some of these assistive technology tools are not designed to align with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles. Although UDL (CAST, 2018) is being promoted in the Ministry of Education’s framework for inclusive instruction, many learning platforms are not equipped with accessibility features such as screen readers, customizable options like text size or background colors, voice control, or closed captioning, which puts students who need these features at a disadvantage. Some programs follow a one-size-fits-all strategy that does not reflect the diversity of the users of these programs. One of the issues observed is that companies creating these programs often fail to collaborate with learners as they design the programs themselves. This results in many communities being underrepresented in the creation of these programs. This would include Indigenous communities, immigrants, and neurodivergent people who already struggle to access content that reflects their cultures, languages, or sensory preferences (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2023). In order to reduce this barrier for Ontarians, developers should ensure that all programs have customizable text size, colour, and audio speed. They should also be able to translate the content into many different languages and have content that reflects different cultures. Finally, it should include a combination of text, audio samples, and visuals.

Conclusion

To ensure equitable access to technology, educators and policymakers must make sure that all students, predominantly minority students and students coming from low-income backgrounds, have access to the proper technology and programs offered. To achieve this goal, systemic barriers, such as the digital divide, financial aid, representation, and professional development, must be addressed. When these problems are addressed, UDL can also be achieved. In the end, the main goal as educators is to ensure that all our students, regardless of their background, are achieving success, and to do so, everything from curriculum to policy must be equitable and attainable for all.

References

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, S.O. 2005, c. 11. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05a11

AODA.ca. (2021, October 5). Accessible Education for Students with All Disabilities. https://www.aoda.ca/accessible-education-for-students-with-all-disabilities/

Cate, I. M. P., & Glock, S. (2019). Teachers’ implicit attitudes toward students from different social groups: A Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02832

Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2018b). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines (Version 2.2). https://udlguidelines.cast.org

Chen, B. (2015). Exploring the digital divide: Using digital technologies in Ontario public schools. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 41(3). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083520.pdf

Freeman, S., Marston, H. R., Ross, C., Morgan, D. J., Wilson, G., Gates, J., Kolochuk, S., & McAloney, R. (2022). Progress towards enhanced access and use of technology during the COVID-19 pandemic: A need to be mindful of the continued digital divide for many rural and northern communities. Healthcare Management Forum, 35(5), 286. https://doi.org/10.1177/08404704221108314

Golden, A. R., Srisarajivakul, E. N., Hasselle, A. J., Pfund, R. A., & Knox, J. (2023). What was a Gap is now a chasm: Remote schooling, the digital divide, and educational inequities resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Current Opinion in Psychology, 101632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101632

Kalyanpur, M., & Kirmani, M. H. (2005). Diversity and Technology: Classroom Implications of The Digital Divide. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(4), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340502000402

Murray, J. J., Hall, W. C., & Snoddon, K. (2019). Education and health of children with hearing loss: the necessity of signed languages. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 97(10), 711–716. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.19.229427

OECD. (2023, August 8). Digital equity and inclusion in education.  https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/digital-equity-and-inclusion-in-education_7cb15030-en.html

Ontario Human Rights Commission (2022). Right to Read inquiry report https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/right-read-inquiry-report-0

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2017). Achieving excellence: A renewed vision for education in Ontario.https://www.oise.utoronto.ca/home/sites/default/files/2023-09/on_01_04_14_-_r enewedvision.pdf

People for Education. (2021). Digital technology and student learning during COVID-19. https://peopleforeducation.ca/report/digital-technology-and-student-learning-during-covi d-19/

Rezai‑Rashti, G., Zhang, B., Abdmolaei, S., & Segeren, A. (2021). A critical policy analysis of The Ontario equity and inclusive strategy: The dynamics of non‑performativity. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 2(4), 7–25. https://dx.doi.org/10.52547/johepal.2.4.7

UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707

Whitehead, L., Talevski, J., Fatehi, F., & Beauchamp, A. (2023). Barriers to and facilitators of digital health among culturally and linguistically diverse populations: Qualitative Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e42719. https://doi.org/10.2196/42719