12 September 2000
Excerpts: U.S. Study on Expanding Communications Technology in Schools
Government funds technology improvements in 75,000 schools
A four-year old U.S. government program has sent $4 thousand million
to 75,000 schools, 13,000 school districts and 4,500 library systems
in order to improve telecommunications equipment and services. Those
totals are presented in a study released September 11 by the U.S.
Department of Education entitled "E-Rate and the Digital Divide: A
Preliminary Analysis From the Integrated Studies of Educational
Technology."
Also known as the Universal Service Fund for Schools and Libraries,
the E-rate was originally adopted as part of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996. Basic and long-distance telephone service, Internet
access, and network-building are among the items eligible for funding
under the act.
The executive summary outlines the key findings from the study:
- Public schools have received the single greatest proportion of the
funds - 84 percent.
- The funds are being targeted to low-income communities in the most
need of assistance.
- Both poor urban areas and rural areas are benefiting from the
infusion of E-rate funds.
- Applications for E-rate funds vary widely from state to state, as a
result of factors such as poverty, rural location and prior
investments in technological infrastructure.
The report can be viewed in its entirety at
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/eval/elem.html#technology
Following are excerpts from the executive summary:
E-Rate and the Digital Divide: A Preliminary Analysis
From the Integrated Studies of Educational Technology
Executive Summary
The E-Rate Program
The Universal Service Fund for Schools and Libraries - commonly known as
the "E-Rate" - was created in 1996 as part of Public Law 104-104, the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, to provide discounts on the cost of
telecommunications services and equipment to all public and private
schools and libraries. Eligible services range from basic local and
long-distance phone services and Internet access services, to the
acquisition and installation of equipment to provide network wiring
within school and library buildings. Computer hardware and software,
staff training, and electrical upgrades are not covered, however.
Discounts range from 20 percent to 90 percent, depending on economic
need and rural location.
While the U.S. is in the forefront of the technological revolution,
there are segments of our society-particularly the poor and
minorities-for whom access to computers and the Internet is
significantly lower. For many of those separated by this "digital
divide," the targeting of schools and libraries by the E-Rate program
is important because these institutions are their primary means of
gaining access to what the new technology has to offer, and in
particular, to the dramatic changes in the education of the nation's
children being foreseen by many of the proponents of educational
technology. In particular, there are some early indications that when
used correctly, by trained and well-supported teachers, the new
technology can improve learning, especially for the most disadvantaged
children. But, this new technology is expensive and can force school
officials to make difficult choices between investing in technology
and investing in other things that will improve learning, such as
professional staff development, smaller classes, and better
curriculum. This is where E-Rate has its greatest potential effect on
education-by helping to build the necessary infrastructure it can
ensure that all communities have access to the latest technology,
while allowing them to use their scarce resources to support other
critical aspects of modern schools.
The Formative Evaluation of the E-Rate
This early look at the E-Rate is part of a new initiative, funded by
the Department of Education, intended to expand our knowledge of how
technology is changing American education. The report is based on an
analysis of E-Rate administrative records covering the first two years
of program operation, that were linked to detailed national data on
all public and private schools and libraries in the U.S. (a combined
total of nearly one million records). More in-depth reports will be
released late in 2001 after the completion of large national surveys
of states, districts, schools, and teachers.
Excerpts: U.S. Study on Expanding Communications Technology in Schools
The key findings from this initial study are as follows:
- Public Schools Have Taken The Most Advantage Of The E-Rate Program.
In the first two years, the E-Rate has distributed nearly $4 billion
(and 3rd year requests alone have exceeded this total), with 84
percent going to the nation's public schools. In part, this is due to
differences in the program's penetration-more than three-fourths of
all public districts and schools applied for E-Rate funds, compared to
about half of public libraries and 15 percent of private schools.
Thus, there were about 13,000 public school districts, 70,000 public
schools, 5,000 private schools, and 4,500 library systems
participating in the 2nd year of the E-Rate program.
- The E-Rate Has Targeted Poor Communities. Given the intent of the
E-Rate it is important to see that it has met its goals by encouraging
higher rates of application from the poorest communities and getting
funds to the places with the greatest need. For example, per student
funding to school districts increases dramatically with poverty, and
the most disadvantaged districts receive almost ten times as much per
student as the least disadvantaged. Similar patterns hold for
application rates, total funding, and other types of entities (schools
and libraries).
- Digital Divide. Application rates of the most impoverished public
school districts were lower than those of most other school districts
in the first year of the program. This may be a consequence of lower
capacity in these communities. However, application rates rose for all
types of entities in the second year of the program, and by even more
for high-poverty districts than for other types of districts.
- Size Matters. Larger districts, schools, and libraries are more
likely to apply for E-Rate discounts, and when approved receive the
largest total amount of E-Rate funds and higher average funding per
student (or person). This pattern also holds for application rates
even after controlling for poverty or urban location, suggesting that
larger organizations may have more of the human, technical, and fiscal
capacity needed to apply for, and make effective us of, the E-Rate
program.
- Urban Areas Benefit From The E-Rate Program. Urban schools and
libraries, which tend to have greater concentrations of poor children
and to be larger in size, receive larger average funding levels and
higher funding per student. Similarly, while there are no clear
relationships between E-Rate applications and the concentration of
minority students, because funding is strongly tied to poverty and
minority concentration is highly correlated with poverty, total and
average per-student E-Rate funding generally increases with increasing
concentrations of minority (nonwhite) students.
- Rural Areas Also Benefit. Because the E-Rate funding formula favors
rural applicants with up to half of their students receiving
subsidized school meals, these rural districts receive higher funding
per student than equally poor urban districts. The funding formula
does not distinguish between urban and rural communities with greater
concentrations of poor children and, as a consequence, no clear
rural-urban differences are found in funding per student among
higher-poverty districts.
- Most E-Rate Funds Are Used For Internal Connections. The largest
share of E-Rate funds (58 percent) has supported the acquisition of
equipment and services for internal building connections, with 34
percent used for telecommunications services, and eight percent
allocated to the cost of Internet access. Funding per student for
internal connections was especially high in the higher-poverty
districts (and even more pronounced in Year 2). This greater E-Rate
spending for internal connections in high-poverty districts may, in
part, be due to particularly poor infrastructure needed to support the
development and effective use of telecommunications services. Once
these poorest communities have made the upgrades, funding requests for
internal connections may decrease in future years of the program.
- States Vary Greatly In Their Use Of E-Rate. State differences in
application rates and funding levels reflect a variety of factors
including poverty, rural location, and prior investments in technology
infrastructure. School participation rates may also reflect state and
local priorities and leadership. The fraction of state schools
applying for the second year of the E-Rate program ranged from a low
of 41 percent in Montana to highs of 93 percent in Georgia, 95 percent
in Rhode Island, 96 percent in Arkansas (and 99 percent in Hawaii's
single school district).
- State Differences Are Related To Poverty And Rural Location. On a
per capita basis the big "winners" include Alaska, Kentucky, Puerto
Rico, Mississippi, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia. These
differences are driven by the E-Rate funding formula, which favors
poverty and rural location. Indeed, most of the states in the South,
where child poverty is often more than 20 percent, have high funding
(over $5,600 per 1,000 population), while the reverse is true in the
North, where child poverty is much lower. California and New York also
have high child poverty rates and high E-Rate spending per person. At
the other end of the spectrum Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, Maine, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin all have
comparatively low E-Rate funding (under $5,600 per 1,000 population)
and low child poverty (under 14 percent). Finally, Alaska, which has
high spending but low child poverty, is a very rural state with
significantly higher market costs for equipment and services.
- Other Factors Also Play A Role In State Differences. These
variations also reflect differences in the local market cost of
E-Rate-eligible equipment and services, and the extent to which
institutions in different states need different types of services,
especially the high-cost internal connections. That is, states with a
well-developed technology infrastructure (e.g., Delaware) may be less
able to obtain large amounts of E-Rate funding than those states where
schools and libraries are at an earlier stage of technology
development. Each state has its own story to tell, and what may be the
case for public schools in a particular state may be very different
for the state's public libraries or for public schools in another
state. To get a better understanding of these state-level differences
will require more in-depth study of individual states than is possible
with the data used in this report. At best we can point out the
patterns and suggest avenues for further research.
Recommendations for Future Analysis
The ability to quickly collect and analyze these data has provided an
unparalleled opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of an ongoing and
newly developed policy initiative in a very timely fashion. Improved
collection of identification information, as part of the E-Rate
application, from districts, schools, and libraries could make this
process even faster and more cost-effective for ongoing program
monitoring.
The data already collected, however, are invaluable. While an
extensive analysis of these data has been conducted in a short time
period, the data contain a great deal of rich information that has yet
to be completely analyzed. For instance, more work should be done to
estimate the likely increase in spending on technology caused by the
E-Rate program. In addition, these data could be looked at to analyze
whether entities that applied for a high level of funding per person
for internal connections in one year continued to apply for high
levels in subsequent years. (If not, this would suggest that internal
connections are generally a one-time expense.) Finally, these data
could be used to look at specific types of entities of particular
concern to policymakers, such as schools operated by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and schools and libraries located in Empowerment Zones.
While these data are extremely valuable, they also have important
limitations, many of which will be addressed by the ISET study
described above. By collecting additional data directly from districts
and schools, and specifically from E-Rate coordinators, a much more
complete picture of the E-Rate program will be available including,
how E-Rate funds have enabled schools to leverage other technology
resource, and how the funds (and the technology acquired) has changed
classroom instruction.
Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State.
Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov
|
Electronic Communications
