Schools, libraries say E-Rate’s ‘ongoing’ work should continue

The Federal Communications Commission received thousands of comments in favor of keeping a program that helps schools and libraries pay for internet access and other services.

A chorus of schools, libraries, state representatives, associations, nonprofits and more urged the FCC to maintain its E-Rate program, which helps pay for discounted services, internet access, equipment and maintenance for schools and libraries. Commissioners voted earlier this year to examine whether the program, which has existed since 1996, should be amended, or even ended.

And in response to some commissioners suggesting that the program has achieved its goals and questioning whether the funding is being spent to properly advance educational outcomes and protect children’s online safety and from overuse of devices, public commenters said the work must continue.

“The E-Rate program is not merely a historical bridge to connectivity; it is an ongoing affordability mechanism that allows schools and libraries to obtain and sustain the broadband and internal network services on which modern educational systems depend,” wrote Daaiyah Bilal-Threats, senior director of the Education Policy and Implementation Center at the National Education Association, in a comment letter to the FCC. “The fact that E-Rate has helped produce near universal connectivity should be understood as evidence of the program’s success, not as evidence that its work is finished.”

The FCC is taking public comment on a wide range of issues related to E-Rate, including any actions it can take to ensure E-Rate is advancing educational outcomes and protecting children’s online safety, as well as ensuring funds from the program are being spent responsibly and for educational purposes.

The FCC is also seeking public comment on any legal or policy efforts for assessing children’s screen time and involving adults more in decisions around their access to networks and services funded by E-Rate. FCC Chair Brendan Carr said previously this review is part of a wider effort to examine the effects of children’s screen time on their performance in the classroom, and whether E-Rate’s use for various devices has been detrimental.

That review set off a furious lobbying campaign that included public schools and libraries across the U.S. to try and prevent drastic changes or an ending to the E-Rate program.Hundreds of schools and school systems, as well as libraries, submitted comments to the FCC, according to a Route Fifty analysis of the commission’s online portal that collates those comments. And those who commented wrote to express their support of E-Rate’s continuation and strengthening.

“Reliable, affordable broadband is not a supplemental service in our schools; further, the equipment needed to maintain connectivity is essential,” Orange County, Virginia Public Schools Superintendent Daniel Hornick wrote. “Overall, these items make up core infrastructure for our school division. Our district relies on high-capacity connectivity to run instruction, assessments, student information systems, safety and security operations, transportation, communications, and other essential functions that keep schools open and operating.”

Others noted the sheer level of funding that could be lost and how that would impact budgets. Jennifer Hogue, director of legislative services for the Ohio School Boards Association, wrote that in FY 2025, Ohio schools and libraries received around $82 million in E-Rate support, and removing or reducing that funding would not remove connectivity needs but “simply shift more of the cost to local school districts and libraries.”

Libraries are similarly concerned. Brian Reimers, board president of the Bucks County Free Library in Pennsylvania, noted that the libraries there are “busier than ever” with thousands of sessions on public computers and Wi-Fi. Removing E-Rate, he said, would mean “our internet access would be much costlier, less modern and less safe.”

“Eliminating the E-Rate service or limiting its participation to rural and single-provider areas would increase the amount of spending at our local level at a time when keeping up with inflation has already stressed our budgets,” Reimers wrote. “An increase in spending on this infrastructure would require either cost-cutting on staffing or a passing the cost on to constituents through higher taxes, neither of which is viable for us.”

Other groups made a similar argument about the economic impact of a reduction or elimination of E-Rate. An economic analysis by the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition found that removing around $2.6 billion in annual E-Rate support would reduce annual real gross domestic product by about $4.2 billion. That would mean, the group said, about $1.60 in lost economic activity for every $1 of support removed.

Skeptics, however, argued that E-Rate should always be subject to scrutiny and oversight. Randolph May, president of the Free State Foundation, a free market think tank, said in comments submitted to the FCC that the relationship between E-Rate funding and students’ reliance on devices and the resulting mental health impacts should be studied, and this is the perfect time to do so.

“There are some who suggest, quite facetiously, that there is no relationship between E-Rate funding of connectivity in schools and libraries and the increased use of "screens" by students,” May wrote. “To be sure, there is no ‘one-to-one’ relationship between the two, no magical mathematical equation revealing the relationship. But, of course, a primary purpose of funding broadband connections through the E-Rate program has always been to facilitate the connection of desktop and laptop computers, and tablets and cellphones — and all these devices have screens.”