Digital marginalization is well-known. Morrisette (1996) called the differential IT access among US households and schools the "digital gap." Theorists and educators have expanded this phrase since then. "Digital poverty" became popular during the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital poverty is "the inability to fully interact with the online world, when, when, and how an individual needs to," according to the Digital Poverty Alliance (2021). 2020's pandemic shocked UK education. Human interaction with learning and teaching resources changed overnight and appears permanent two years later. The fast use of technology to advance education created the biggest revolution in education custom and practice in living memory (Times Education Commission 2022). Before the 2020 pandemic, most UK schools had online platforms where students and teachers could interact and share content (Reimers et al 2022). After the epidemic, certain lesser-known platforms became essential to educational institutions' core offerings (OECD 2021). Accessing new or updated equipment was expected to be difficult for users. UK projects provided IT infrastructure to as many students as possible. Many poor students acquired equipment via philanthropy or school loans (Government Education Statistics Service 2022). Global technology businesses gave the poor special rates and "pay-forward" agreements (Children and Young People Now, 2021). These activities addressed Morrisette's digital gap, but users' proficiency with these services was more important. By following an updated Maslow 1970 hierarchy, this course transforms participants from digital poor to online learning and teaching champions. This lesson highlights how teachers had to change their methods overnight. The student-academic digital gap showed a power shift. Many "have" students (those with IT and digital services) wanted to study faster and deeper than the teachers could. Students had control because they expected a swift and thorough transition and no course content compromise. Late adopters, "have not" students felt burdened by a system that was changing faster than they could adjust (Rogers 2003). Teacher experiences varied. Many employees felt like "have nots" as they were swept into a new work style without the knowledge, skills, or resources to adapt quickly. Lessons varied. "Hands-on experience learning, production or access to real resources and equipment" made practical subjects like Nursing and Fine Art harder. Business and law classes moved online more easily (Birmingham City University 2021). This event will study how the five "C's" of digital teaching and learning—Conversant, Capable, Competent, Comfortable, and Championing—impact digital poverty through a competency-based hierarchy of demands (Gee 2022).

BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY (2021) COVID-19: An unequal Impact? Birmingham, UK. BCU CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE NOW, CYPN (2021) Disadvantaged pupils offered free data in bid to tackle digital divide DIGITAL POVERTY ALLIANCE (2021) How we define digital poverty GOVERNMENT EDUCATION STATISTICS SERVICE (2022) Laptops and tablets data, April 2022. MASLOW, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. MORRISETTE, L. (1996) in ROBYLER, M. D. (2003). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall. ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, OECD (2022) REIMERS, F.M, AMAECHI, U, BANERJI, A, WANG, M (2022) Education to Build Back Better. Cham, Switzerland: Springer ROGERS, E. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed). New York: Free. TIMES EDUCATION COMMISSION (2022) Bringing out the Best: How to transform education and unleash the potential of every child. times-education-commission-final-report.pdf (documentcloud.org) accessible at < Internal server error | The Times & The