 |
| By Dax Bradley |
A University of Chicago
study examined the impact of an E-Rate program and found that the number of
poor schools going online had increased dramatically. However, the study found no evidence that the
program had any effect on students’ performance on the Stanford Achievement
Test. Should this be sufficient evidence
to discontinue this program, which costs U.S. taxpayers roughly $2 billion per
year?
The annual spending per student has seen a decline in recent
years. Balanced-budget rules have forced
spending cuts to education in most states ("School Spending per Student
Drops for Third Straight Year," 2016), which puts educators in the
difficult position of determining how to spend the funds that are
available. The E-Rate program, provided
through the Telecommunications Act of 1996, earmarked $2.25 billion to provide
schools funds for upgrading their access to Internet resources (Reynolds, 2012, p. 325).
The problems unearthed by the press and by a Federal investigation
highlight some very serious issues.
Among the discoveries outlined by House Representative James Greenwood (House
Hearing: E-Rate Program: Waste, Fraud, and Abuse, 2004):
·
In Puerto Rico $28 million worth of improperly
stored and stockpiled equipment
·
$58 million network equipment sitting unused
·
NEC allegedly rigged millions of US dollars in
bids in several states
·
$101 million for setting up high-speed Internet
yielded two computers per school, using dialup
·
$31 million paid for high-speed Internet access
which went unused
·
Consultants paid high fees without doing any
work, leaving schools with no equipment or with technology they had no idea how
to implement
·
Government warehouses contained many pallets
loaded with shrink-wrapped E-Rate computers paid for but never used
It should be noted that the Congressional Hearing contains over
100 pages, and the summary above depicts a small portion of what was discovered. The E-Rate program was designed with the goal
of providing students with improved technology and Internet access, which would
be a helpful tool in providing an education, particularly today where students
must be prepared to enter the market already saturated with computer
technology. However, if a tool is not
being used, or is being mishandled irresponsibly, then it represents a colossal waste. The issue is not with the program
itself, but an apparent lack of oversight.
The funds were controlled by a collection of telecommunication
company representatives which calls itself the Universal Service Administrative
Company. The
Federal funds earmarked for education should be distributed to the state, not
one company handling bids for the whole country. With better oversight, the E-Rate funds would
be used to improve low-income schools rather than “over-building” existing networks
in higher-funded schools in areas such as Washington (Eggerton, 2017).
The fault is not strictly with USAC, however. Funds were distributed according to requests
filed by the school districts, which entailed some restrictions. For example, schools were instructed that
only one service provider could be used to build the network. The Russell-Tyler-Ruthton School District was
ordered to repay over $42,000 when it was discovered that multiple contracts
were awarded to different providers (Isaackson,2017). Additional guidance is needed
for districts to understand precisely what the restrictions are, and how to
properly utilize the federal dollars allotted to them. Confusion, rather than greed could be just as
likely the cause for some situations. For example, Idaho
schools stand to lose $2 million of E-Rate funds because they negotiated
telecommunication contracts independent of USAC’s guidelines, voiding their
agreement (Richert, 2016).
All is not lost, however.
The program should not be eliminated, but should have more
accountability across the board. It is
insufficient to blame the telecoms for charging and not fulfilling the
contracts, or to crucify school district heads who do not follow up on
equipment that might have been shipped and never installed. There should be greater attention to detail
from conception to installation. There
has been improvement since the 2004 hearings.
According to the State of States
Report published by the Education Superhighway, 77 percent of districts
have access to high-speed internet, more than double the amount which achieved
the target set by the FCC in 2013 (Schaffhauser,2016).
Does shuffling more money into schools automatically guarantee
gains in performance? While there has
never been conclusive empirical evidence that directly connects spending to
school performance (Turner, 2016),
the better question should be about how the funds are spent. Proponents of technology integration argue
that students should be given the latest tools to learn from (King, 2012). The point of emphasis here is that as long as
technology integration is exactly that, a tool,
and not the focus of the education, then it can be a highly effective resource
and deserves proper funding.
Reference:
