E-Rate isn’t simply an “extra” funding stream. It’s a vital component of many districts’ annual budgets.
Prominent leaders representing AASA, The School Superintendents Association, are advocating against the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to “narrow” or “reorient” the E-Rate program. Educators are now expressing widespread concern about the program’s future.
Anxiety stems from the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in June that Chairman Brendan Carr framed as simply a review of the program to determine: whether it should continue in its current form, whether funding should focus on schools and libraries that still lack sufficient broadband, and if eligibility should be limited geographically or by need.
Education advocates argue that the administration aims to “explore sweeping changes that would fundamentally reshape—or even dismantle—this critical source of connectivity for the nation’s schools and libraries,” wrote Noelle Ellerson Ng, chief advocacy and governance officer at AASA.
For instance, the proposal argues that the FCC should determine whether E-Rate-funded networks are being used for genuine education purposes and potentially play a role in limiting student screen time.
“The [notice] includes a handful of far-reaching, high-stakes proposals, including: sunsetting of the program; restricting funding to rural schools, excluding PreK/Head Start and penalizing or removing funding for CIPA compliance issues,” Ellerson Ng wrote in a blog immediately following the notice.
Several weeks ago, three AASA superintendents visited all three FCC offices to underscore the devastating financial impact restructuring E-Rate would have on public school districts.
E-Rate is the fifth-largest federal funding stream for America’s public schools. If it disappears, school districts may be forced to reduce staff to cover connectivity costs, according to AASA’s filing.
The three supersuperindents argued the screen time debate is better suited for state and local education professionals.
“Should there be a federal conversation about the content on devices, the FCC—as the agency with expertise in connectivity—is not where those conversations should happen,” the filing reads.
Regulating screen time
To date, at least six states, including Iowa, Tennessee, Utah, Alabama, Virginia and Maine, have enacted screen-time legislation varying widely in approach.
Iowa schools are limited to 60 minutes per day of digital instruction on one-to-one devices for students in kindergarten through fifth grade.
Over the summer, the Los Angeles Unified School District became the first major school system to impose screen time bans in response to community-wide pushback against tech use. The restrictions limit second- and third-graders to 20 minutes of screen time (including homework) and up to a maximum of 10 hours per week for high schoolers.
Students will also no longer be given school-issued computers to take home.
“It’s an incredibly robust and groundbreaking document,” board member Nick Melvoin, who introduced the initial resolution earlier this year, told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s going to be the basis for reform throughout the country, if not the world.”
However, some educators contend that the national screen time debate fails to consider how students interact with technology.
Classroom technology should be judged by student outcomes, not the amount of screen time,veteran Florida educator Leigh Ann Norris asserted in an op-ed for the Tallahassee Democrat,
“Every few years, a new program, initiative, or approach promises better results,” she wrote. “But the truth is much simpler: students grow when great teachers have the right tools and use them well.”
“Not all screen time is the same,” she added.
Leaders should consider several factors when balancing instruction with tech, says an October article briefing from Common Sense Media, which provides technology recommendations for schools and parents.
The briefing cites the “SAMR” framework to help educators think critically about integrating technology. Here’s an explanation from the model’s creator, Dr. Ruben Puntedura:
