FCC Chairman Brendan Carr asked for a review of the E-Rate program, which helps many public schools and libraries, and some private schools, pay monthly internet bills.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Catch up on what you missed with our Education newsletter, sent weekly.
A program that helps connect schools and libraries to the internet at discounted rates is under review by the Federal Communications Commission. Educators and advocates are bracing for the funding to shrink or be eliminated.
The so-called E-Rate program, created in the 90s, has considerable bipartisan support. The agency’s recent focus on the program has left educators including David Thurston on edge.
Thurston oversees technology for the 33 school districts nested inside California’s San Bernardino County. The area covers more than 20,000 square miles of southern California: “We have mountain regions, far-flung desert regions, and then our urban and suburban areas. We’re a really diverse county,” Thurston says.
The county already built the infrastructure to get internet access from the edge of Los Angeles all the way to the state’s eastern border, but the spending doesn’t end once the fiber optic cables are installed. Internet access bills come monthly.
“There’s no doing without,” he says. School districts “are gonna have to pick up the costs.”
For San Bernardino districts, that’s tens of thousands of dollars every month.
“Those are ongoing, essentially, utility costs,” he says. “That’s what E-Rate pays for.”
A “healthy” program
E-Rate has had a notable impact since its founding. It was created by Congress in 1996, when only 14% of schools and libraries could access the internet. That number is now near 100%. The FCC has overseen the program through both Democratic and Republican administrations, so when the agency announced a full review of the program in late June, some were confused.
“By its own data and its own measurement, the program is healthy,” Thurston says. “The program is doing what it needs to and is important.”
Others saw this coming. The Project 2025 blueprint singled out federal broadband policy as a target for cutting agency spending.
Current FCC Chairman Brendan Carr helped write that chapter of the document, compiled by the conservative Heritage Foundation, which was meant to guide the second Trump administration.
Less predictable was the chairman’s reasoning for reviewing the program: kids getting too much screen time. In the now approved notice of proposed rulemaking, the FCC calls for a review “to better protect children when using E-Rate-funded networks, including to limit screen time.”
His prepared statement at the commission’s June hearing focused heavily on the dangers of screen time for kids and the growing body of research around it.
Since January, states including Alabama, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia have passed some form of legislation that calls for reevaluating technology’s role in teaching and testing, and more than 10 other states are considering similar restrictions. The Los Angeles Unified School District, the second-largest in the country, recently approved a policy to limit screen time for its students.
Some advocates for limiting screen time at school say gutting E-Rate funding isn’t the way to reduce how much time kids are spending on devices.
“We believe there are ways of strengthening school policies to promote more limited and privacy-protecting use of EdTech without taking away critical E-Rate funding,” said Josh Golin, executive director at Fairplay, a nonprofit focused on digital safety for kids, in a statement to NPR.
Although states and districts are searching for ways to limit screen time, few — if any — are looking to operate without the internet altogether. Many schools rely on internet-based systems to track attendance, monitor school bus routes and give tests required by their state. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 48 states now have some kind of online component with exams.
Bob Bocher, a senior fellow with the American Library Association (ALA), says that because the program is written into the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC likely cannot fully eliminate it. And last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the Universal Service Fund, which collects the money that schools and libraries in turn use to lower internet costs, is constitutional.
But the FCC could change the way the E-Rate program is run to make it more complicated, so the ALA is still worried.
Bocher, who helped work on the original law back in the ’90s, worries the program could become so onerous it drives schools and libraries away by design.
“It’s like death by a thousand cuts,” he says, “death by a thousand rules and regulations.”
Keeping up with the rest of the world
While internet access has expanded significantly since 1996, internet pricing and options haven’t changed the way Bocher or his contemporaries expected.
“A common assumption that a lot of people had [was] … competition will evolve,” he says. “And then drive down the price.”
In cities, this may be true, but for many rural and remote areas, competition for internet service providers or ISPs is nonexistent.
“In rural Alaska, we don’t have numerous options,” says Patrick Mayer, superintendent for the remote Alaska Gateway School District. “We have one provider.”
His district, where some students rely on planes to get to school in the winter months, has just under 400 students. Still, the district spends more than half a million dollars per year to ensure it has internet access at its six schools. The price tag is high, but the connection is what allows them to keep up with the rest of the world.
“It means the difference between having a school in the 21st century,” Mayer says, “or a school in the 20th century.”
The expansion of connectivity in his district allows students to take dual enrollment courses online with a local college and access virtual speech and occupational therapy.
“To backfill that funding,” he says, “would be very, very difficult.”
He imagines there would be no way around cutting down on staff and student services to find money to pay the district’s entire internet bill. For now, he’s focused on making some noise.
Once the FCC officially publishes notice of its planned review, the public can comment for 60 days. After that, there will be a reply comment period of 30 days, followed by a full review of all of that input by the agency. The process can take a long time, but Mayer and other advocates are already working to draw attention to the issue.
He spent a few days this month in Washington, D.C., to meet with legislators about the importance of keeping Alaska’s students connected.
Edited by: Nirvi Shah
Visual design and development by: LA Johnson
