This article in the New York Times this morning says that FCC chairman Tom Wheeler is proposing to increase school spending on internet access from 1.5 to 3.9 billion.
After reading the article, do you think this should or should not be a primary concern as far as school funding goes?
Some important points to keep in mind are:
1) This funding will be used for nonrecurring infrastructure updates as well as increased monthly payments for service
2) Spending increases by the FCC will have an (arguably modest) increase in average consumer prices for internet service
3) Connectivity in schools ranges from poor to advanced correlating to the affluence of the school district
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/business/fcc-chief-aims-to-bolster-internet-for-schools.html?action=click&contentCollection=Business%20Day®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article
One of the comments that I felt was most significant was, "Mr. Wheeler, speaking at an education technology conference in September, told of a district in Mississippi that paid $750 a month for a 1 gigabit per second Internet connection, while across the state line in Louisiana, a school paid $5,000 for the same service." This to me seems really unfair for some districts (and consequently students) to either be rewarded or at a disadvantage. I also don't think the marginal increase in prices for consumers is dangerous; I don't believe the slight increase would stray consumers from purchasing the service. Ultimately, I think it is a good idea, but a 62% also seems really high and I imagine with such an increase some other areas will have to be cut.
ReplyDeleteA 62 percent increase seems high, but developing and improving schools' WiFi is important in a day and age that's technologically driven. I'm curious though if some school districts will get more money than others to be supplied with better internet connection. For schools in rural areas, more money is required because it is harder to get access to internet out there as opposed to schools in urban areas. Also, what schools are getting this money? Public? Private? High Schools? Colleges? All of them?
ReplyDeleteI am in favor of a 62 percent increase in spending for technology for schools, but I am not in favor of this. Let me explain. I know how the money for technology should be distributed and what products to purchase so that students can actually benefit from this technology. Most likely what will happen is these schools receive a stipend for internet access, yet still have to cough off up some of their budget for reliable internet. In addition to this, they will feel an obligation to purchase smartboards and other unnecessary technology that will take away from other programs. Internet access by students is typically used for non-work related activities, even with a website blocker. It is easy to manipulate the system. The FCC is attempting to get as many companies, schools and individuals under its wings so that they can pass Net Neutrality and have the government regulate these groups through the internet. I am in favor of implementing technology and internet in the lives of students, but this is not the right way to go about it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with TJ. I believe that the internet is a powerful learning tool, but that it is difficult for a school to use it efficiently. With the exception of research projects (and how often are those actually assigned in k-12?) I can't think of many cases where internet would be a necessity for learning. While computer skills are important, many of these skills can be accomplished without blazing fast internet. Students can still learn to type and use basic programs such as word and PowerPoint. Internet only causes obligations to schools to purchase internet capable devices that will often be underutilized by students. I think the money would be better off put into other budgetary needs within the school system.
ReplyDeleteI also share concerns about how the money will actually be used, and by what schools. I agree with T.J., in that some schools getting expensive technology that they rarely utilize, such as smart boards in some cases, is not the best use of public funds. However, if this effort will play out like they say it will in that it will increase public access to Internet services, then I am for it.
ReplyDeleteScott you make a good point about how much do students actually need fast internet in K-12. Yet I think as the internet continues to become such a vital resource to access information, pay bills, and communicate, it is important that public institutions have the same access as wealthier private individuals. Therefore overall I lean towards being in favor of a spending increase for Internet in libraries and schools, as long as the money is going to the ones who really need it.
I think that if the money is distributed in a way that goes to schools with the worst internet connections, it could be a very positive development. In those kinds of schools, it is likely that school computer labs are many students' best way to access the internet. At better schools, the money probably wouldn't be as effective.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Phil. As long as the money goes to the schools in poorer districts, this could be positive. In many of these districts, the school is the only place some of the students can have internet access. In the more wealthy districts, students probably have no issues accessing the internet.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Philip as well. This will have large diminishing marginal returns for schools with comfortable budgets, as increasing initially superior internet capabilities will have a very tiny additional benefit for students. The internet is an amazing place to learn from, and is getting more and more important, so schools need to be incorporating it into their learning curriculum.
ReplyDelete