Great Expectations, The E-Rate at Five: New Models and Policies to Maximize the Impact of America's Investments in Educational Technology
A Forum — November 16, 2001
This forum, co-sponsored by the Benton Foundation and Center for Children and Technology (CCT), Education Development Center gave policymakers an update on the impact of the E-Rate, a federal program established through the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and made recommendations for program and policy changes. The forum also discussed educational technology evaluation and state/local policymaking in this area.
The Telecommunications Act was passed by a bi-partisan effort in Congress to ensure that more Americans would have access to and benefit from information technology. In an effort to bridge the “digital divide,” Congress provided funds through the Act to “spur the development of affordable and widespread telecommunications services by deregulation and increased industry competition.” The Act authorized the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to create a program, the E-Rate, to offer discounts of 20 to 90 percent on telecommunications services to schools and libraries serving underserved rural and poor communities. Services include phone service, Internet access, internal connections and related equipment, but the funds may not be used to purchase computers, software or support services. The two main sponsors of an E-Rate amendment to the Act were Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME) and Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WA).
According to Norris Dickard, Senior Associate, Communications Policy Program, Benton Foundation (formerly a senior policy advisor at the U.S. Department of Education where he managed the Community Technology Centers program and worked on various workforce development initiatives), the E-Rate – at $2.25 billion a year – is the largest federal technology infrastructure investment ever to be made in America’s schools. Dickard described an earlier E-Rate study conducted by Benton and the Center for Children and Technology (CCT) that examined four large urban districts (Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit and Milwaukee) to determine the benefits of the E-Rate discounts and to provide recommendations for changes. The good news is that 98 percent of schools are now connected to the Internet and schools generally have a five to one ratio of students to computers. Multimedia connected PCs are becoming the norm and 70 percent of classrooms are wired. Currently, 26 states require teacher training in computers and the Internet before being licensed to teach. Dickard praised the strides that have been made through the E-Rate to assist high poverty schools, but stated that more is needed. During the fourth year of the E-Rate program, the nation’s schools have made requests totaling $5.5 billion, but with the E-Rate cap at $2.25 billion, this suggests many still have significant needs unmet under current E-Rate policies. Also, while school districts laud the E-Rate discount, they complain about the burden and hassles involved in “applying and complying.”
Recommendations to policymakers were informed by dialogues at two national Benton Foundation roundtables as well as conversations with key stakeholders. Key recommendations include: 1) Keep the E-Rate at the FCC and the focus the same. Calls to move the E-Rate to the Department of Education as part of a technology block grant are misguided. 2) Lift the funding cap from the current $2.25 billion. The work is far from over as indicated in data on the connectivity of the nation’s schools. 3) Reduce the paperwork burden on applicants. Researchers found that many underserved schools in California desperately need E-Rate, but do not feel they can negotiate the highly technical application process. 4) Conduct outreach and assistance to schools in low-income communities. Researchers found that 43 percent of disadvantaged schools participating in their study did not know about the E-Rate.
5) Investigate ways to improve program administration and structure. For example, should the application process be administered at the state level? 6) Reassess the appropriateness of current discount levels and priorities. Is the current matrix of discount levels appropriate and do the priorities reflect the most pressing and strategic needs? 7) Expand the list of eligible products, services and vendors. Despite progress in this area, are the current definitions of eligible hardware too limited? Is the program keeping up with new technologies?
Speaking on the benefits of educational technology and describing how it has demonstrated positive effects on student achievement, Margaret Honey, Director, Center for Children and Technology, provided a list of factors that must be in place to continue the education technology work that has been assisted by the E-Rate. According to Honey, if technologies are to be used to support real gains in educational outcomes, the following factors must be in place.
- Leadership must guide technology use that is linked to educational objectives. Placing technology in schools without leadership does little good.
- Sustained and intensive professional development for technology use as a tool that becomes a process embedded in the culture of the school.
- Adequate technology resources such as hardware and technical support to keep systems running smoothly.
- Recognition that real change and lasting results take time.
- Evaluations conducted that enable school leaders and teachers to determine whether they are reaching their goals and to help them to evolve their plans.
To help move education technology further, Honey and her colleagues at CCT have worked with teachers and school staff in urban districts to develop an "Evaluation Toolkit." Andy Gersick, a Researcher at CCT, presented a draft version of the Toolkit, which he said will help educators determine how specific types of technology tools can be useful for promoting certain skills, and will aid teachers in planning, implementing and evaluating technology-rich lessons. The Evaluation Toolkit will be applied at the classroom level where CCT hopes it will also provide assistance to administrators and policymakers seeking to assess the impact of technology-rich activities on skills development, student learning, and media literacy.
Chris Dede, Timothy E. Wirth Professor of Learning Technologies, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, described strategies to enhance state and local policymaking regarding educational technologies. According to Dede, the policy climate is shifting from an emphasis on direct federal grantmaking towards formula-driven block grants to the states, increasing the power and responsibility of state and local education agencies. Dede has developed a State Policy Framework for Assessing Educational Technology Implementation, funded by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Science Foundation, and more recently supported by resources from the Benton and Joyce Foundations. The State Policy Framework includes “concept maps” for 1) improvements in student assessment and 2) financial support and purchasing discounts. The maps were created to help aid decision makers in understanding how to alter the overall configuration of state policies in response to a change in any single area of education. Dede believes that the framework should serve as a menu of possible policy actions, as a guide on interrelationships among policies, and as a strategy for self-assessment by states, but not as a means to identify a single “best” model for technology policies. The variety among states is so large, with unique politics, culture and local implementation challenges, that one approach cannot fit all.
Barbara Pryor, from Senator Rockefeller’s office, spoke to the audience prior to the question and answer session to say that the key challenge is still getting those in the rural areas hooked up to the Internet. “Every school and every library should have access. We need to convince the new administration that this is a priority.”
This brief is from an American Youth Policy Forum held on November 16, 2001 on Capitol Hill reported by Sarah S. Pearson.