After Billions in Spending, the FCC May Finally Ask Whether E-Rate Improves Student Learning

It’s an increasingly common sight: Students enter the classroom and immediately deposit their phones in signal-blocking pouches on the wall, where they stay until class ends. Over thirty states have reportedly adopted full or partial phone bans on school grounds. Underlying such bans is the notion that restricting devices helps students stay focused, reduces distractions, and improves mental health and academic performance. But in a growing number of classrooms, students are then handed a school-issued tablet or Chromebook to complete their studies. Since the pandemic, most American school districts now maintain a one-to-one device environment, providing a device to each student, some as early as kindergarten. This continues despite recent studies questioning the relative effectiveness of screen-based learning, and amidst teacher surveys suggesting that students regularly use school devices to play games, watch videos, or scroll social media—the same activities that phone bans seek to prevent. Last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced a long-overdue inquiry into the role the federal government’s E-Rate Program plays in perpetuating this cognitive dissonance. E-Rate is the single largest component of the Universal Service Fund (USF). It spends $3.5 billion annually to support telecommunications and internet services within America’s schools and libraries. Like all USF programs, it is funded by a surcharge on consumers’ monthly telephone bills. With that surcharge projected to reach a record 42.3 percent next quarter—an astronomical tax rate by any measure—the Commission’s inquiry into E-Rate’s effectiveness is both welcome and timely. As I’ve noted elsewhere , many have questioned whether E-Rate is an effective use of these funds. In response to criticism from the Government Accountability Office , the Commission itself has admitted that “there was no way to tell whether the program has resulted in the cost-effective deployment and use of advanced telecommunications services for schools and libraries.” The Commission has never studied whether E-Rate expenditures have measurably improved student learning outcomes. And the limited academic literature suggests otherwise . The burgeoning screen time debate makes this lack of evaluation more troubling. In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , the Commission cites research linking adolescent screen time to “declines in academic performance, language development, cognitive and social development, and mental health.” Such findings reinforce the Surgeon General’s recommendation that minors consume no more than two hours per day (one hour if under age six). Yet E-Rate continues to subsidize screen time in the classroom, starting as early as preschool in many states, without measuring the impact these interventions have on student learning or overall mental health. The Commission notes that even in the educational context, some studies suggest reading comprehension is weaker on screens than on paper, and cites a multinational analysis by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development linking classroom device use to weaker math skills, even after controlling for socioeconomic variables. Of course, the issue of digital learning is more nuanced. By reducing information costs, the internet revolutionized knowledge acquisition, and some ed tech products are likely beneficial to students. The problem is that current Commission rules do not adequately separate the wheat from the chaff, nor do they consider broader questions of the cumulative impact of screen-based education. Current regulations limit E-Rate funds to services “primarily for educational purposes.” But the Commission has also established a legal presumption that activities that occur on school property serve an educational purpose. This relieves schools and ed tech providers from the need to demonstrate the educational value of a service before receiving funding. Repealing this presumption would be a significant improvement. E-Rate expenditures should require an assessment of what a service does and how it enhances education, rather than where the service is located. This assessment should also demonstrate specifically why this service is superior to analog alternatives. By subsidizing 20-80 percent of eligible costs, E-Rate puts a thumb on the scale for digital interventions. At the margin, procurement officials may focus less on whether a tool best serves students and more on whether it qualifies for funding. Finally, the Commission should consider the indirect costs of E-Rate initiatives, such as the impact of digital learning on a student’s daily screen time consumption, and the lack of parental control over the quantity and content of material their children are consuming online in the classroom. Whatever the Commission decides about the future of the program, rigorous outcome measurement should be a precondition for continued funding. If a specific project cannot demonstrate educational benefits, it should be denied. And if the program overall cannot show a measurable contribution to student learning outcomes, it should be sunsetted. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asks whether the E-Rate program should be changed to reflect today’s digital environment. The honest answer is that we don’t know, because we’ve never properly measured it. The post After Billions in Spending, the FCC May Finally Ask Whether E-Rate Improves Student Learning appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI .