Communications Policy and Practice
SearchLibraryRelated sitesAbout BentonContentsFeedback

The Digital Beat

March 14, 2001

"No Child Left Behind" and the Bottom Line:
The Case of Edtech Policy


by Norris Dickard, Benton Foundation

President Bush has proposed in his education manifesto, "No Child Left Behind," to consolidate existing educational technology programs, reduce paperwork and direct more funding to the classroom. Sounds good, right? But what's the rest of the story -- what's the bottom line?

In FY 2001, total funding for the U.S. Department of Education (ED) increased by $6.5 billion -- a record increase. As President Clinton noted in a statement about his last budget, "We have now increased funding for the Department of Education by 76 percent since 1993 -- and targeted that funding to programs that work."

One of those programs was educational technology, which proponents argued had the power to enhance teaching and learning and vastly improve the productivity of the education enterprise. U.S. Department of Education funding for the eight edtech programs under Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) rose to $872 million -- a 5,700 percent increase from the $23 million appropriated in 1993. Add to this the $2.25 billion in E-Rate discounted telecommunications services and, as they say in Washington, "A billion here and billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."

Not to be outdone, President Bush proposed an ED increase for FY 2002 that he said would be the highest for any federal agency, more than 11 percent, with $4.6 billion in new funding. "Education is my top priority and, by supporting this budget, you'll make it yours as well," Bush told Congress during his State of the Union address. This was clearly a break with his party's past; in previous years, the G.O.P. had as its central education plank the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education.

Bottom line #1:
 When it comes to political rhetoric, education remains the top national priority.

Congressional Democrats quickly accused the President of fuzzy math, noting that the number the President used as a baseline for comparison, $39.9 billon in "budget authority," did not include more than $2 billion in "advance" appropriations contained in the FY 2001 budget, but not available until the start of the 2002 fiscal year (October 1, 2001). Bush's budget blueprint highlights the $4.6 billion figure, but then adds that the actual increase in ED funds would be nearly $2.5 billion -- a 5.9 percent increase.

Critics also complained that with such a large chunk of Bush's tax cut going for the wealthiest one percent of Americans, this increase was too small. The Committee for Education Funding (CEF), a nonpartisan coalition of 100 education organizations, expressed concerned that the proposed 5.9% increase falls short of growing needs and expectations. "This increase would represent the smallest percentage increase for the Department of Education in five years if enacted," they noted in a press release.

Bottom line #2:
 The rhetoric of education as a national priority is backed up by a proposed increase in ED funding -- but not by as much as reported, and not by enough to assuage critics.

While proposing to increase federal funding for education in general, President Bush has questioned whether this funding has been targeted to programs that work or are delivered in such a way to maximize impact. Edtech is a case in point. During his campaign, then-Governor Bush pledged to consolidate the E-Rate with other Department of Education technology programs and to create a single, $3 billion "Enhancing Education through Technology" fund. His campaign proposal described the federal educational technology program as "balkanized, inflexible and administratively burdensome."

Following through on that campaign proposal, the Bush administration asserted in their ESEA reauthorization (aka "No Child Left Behind"):

Schools should use technology as a tool to improve academic achievement, and that using the latest technology in the classroom should not be an end unto itself. This proposal begins to accomplish that goal by streamlining duplicative technology programs into a performance-based technology grant program that sends more money to schools. Consolidating the technology grant programs and allocating with E-Rate funds by formula ensures that schools will not have to submit multiple grant applications and incur the associated administrative burdens to obtain education technology funding.

In his initial budget blueprint, President Bush specified increases for many ED programs, like $600 million more for reading and $1 billion more for Pell Grants, but total funding for other programs, such as edtech, remain a mystery.

Bottom line #3:
 From all indications, the Bush administration believes educational technology investments are important and should be continued, but just not in the current manner.

The proposal to merge the E-Rate with other ED technology programs created a firestorm. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), one of the program's key congressional champions, immediately announced his opposition to President Bush's proposal, calling it "a grave mistake...a major step backwards." He promised to fight the consolidation aggressively because much was at stake:

Each school {under the E-Rate} gets to apply for the telecommunications services they want and need. Under the Bush block grant approach, local schools would have less flexibility, not more. Under the Bush block grant, private and parochial schools would have to negotiate with State education agencies and worry about entanglements of federal regulations. Most importantly, the secure funding for the E-Rate and investments in technology would be jeopardized.

Senator Rockefeller also said that consolidating the E-Rate would be breaking a "deal" that was cut as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a national quid pro quo between telecom companies and the American public:

The telecommunications companies wanted more competition and the ability to expand. In exchange, we insisted on a strong, continued commitment by the telecommunication companies to "preserve and advance" universal service, including access to advanced telecommunications services for schools, rural health care providers and libraries.

The Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), in a joint policy statement entitled "Preparing the Classroom for the 21st Century," weighed in with the Bush administration as well. They noted up front that the ESEA reauthorization would likely include the consolidation of some edtech funding, giving more discretion to states and local communities over the use of those funds. "The gains that have been achieved thus far will be imperiled if the federal government simply cedes its leadership role in this area," they admonished.

In particular, CoSN and ISTE urged

Bottom Line #4:
 Congressional members and special interest groups have other ideas about President Bush's edtech budget and policy proposals and are shaping the debate.

So what's wrong with federal leadership that returns the power to the states, making it easier for local schools to get funding? What's the problem with these block grants anyway? What are they? Block grants involve the consolidation of numerous federal categorical programs into larger funding streams. In November 1994, the Republican congressional landslide and "Contract with America" ushered in the latest phase of block grant fever that has now been given new momentum by the Bush administration. The 1994 Congress, like the current administration, appeared determined to combine duplicative programs and devolve more authority to states and local communities.

Block grants are not a recent invention, however. Over 50 years ago, a report by the Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch concluded, "A system of grants should be established based upon broad categories." The Nixon administration tried to reduce the number of federal categorical programs through special revenue sharing. With strong support from mayors who wanted more control over Great Society funds, Congress passed the Community Development Block Grant. In 1981, the Reagan administration created nine block grants, consolidating 57 of the more than 300 federal programs.

Often past proposals for federal program consolidation had been sweetened with funding increases. Yet, the Reagan administration proposals were clearly designed to curb federal domestic spending. Block grants thus became code for cutting the budget. After enactment of the Reagan block grants, the change in the level of federal funding varied. The Community Services Block Grant sustained a 30 percent cut from the previous appropriations for the separate programs that made up the block. Others actually increased funding. The Community Development Block Grant received a 10 percent higher appropriation than the categorical programs had previously.

In 1997, a proposal to turn $11 billion in federal education programs into a block grant was offered as an amendment to the FY 1998 appropriations bill for the Department of Education. Known as the Gorton Amendment after its sponsor, Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA), the amendment would have affected Title I, Goals 2000, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, educational technology, bilingual and immigrant education and a number of smaller programs. Supporters of those programs feared that with discretion left to the states, many of these important activities would not be funded.

In summary, critics of block grants contend that:

Bottom Line #5:
 In the context of edtech, the specter of Bush block grants as prelude to future cuts has fueled opposition to the proposal.

In their edtech campaign proposals the Bush team was careful to combine edtech funding into one block without proposing an overall cut. The $3 billion in the Bush edtech proposal was roughly the same amount as the E-Rate and ESEA Title III programs combined. Moreover, the Bush team did not propose edtech programs to be block granted with other programs as in the Gorton Amendment.

But many in the education community have feared that a move to fund the very large E-Rate investments ($2.25 billion) as part of the U.S. Department of Education budget would open up the program to future cuts.

The FCC-administered E-Rate program provides schools and libraries with discounted access to telecommunications services, internal connections, and internet access. It is not a program for which Congress appropriates funds but is part of the Universal Service Fund, originally designed to ensure equitable telephone access through mandatory financial contributions by telecommunications carriers. In order to combine the E-Rate in an edtech block grant, the administration would have to take the complicated regulatory step of eliminating the FCC requirements and then requesting additional funding for the same activities under the new ED block grant.

"The E-Rate program, we think, is working well," said Joel Packer, a lobbyist for the National Education Association (NEA) in a January 2001 eSchool News interview. "It's an innovative way of getting resources to schools without competing for other education funding.... Tampering with the program now would be a huge mistake, and I don't think Congress will agree to do that."

Indeed, with the warning volleys fired, the Bush administration has quietly backed off of their proposal to combine the E-Rate with other ED funds. In testimony on ESEA reauthorization before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on March 7, 2001, Education Secretary Rod Paige said the president would not try to change the E-Rate. In that same eSchoolNews article, White House spokeswoman Lindsay Kozburg confirmed Paige's statement and added, "It's not something that's happening with this round of consolidations...what we are pursuing right now is [the consolidation of] programs that are currently [administered by] the Department of Education...we are certainly reviewing whether we can, and should, consolidate the E-Rate."

Bottom Line #6:
 Campaign proposals are meeting congressional and constituent resistance and are being altered or shelved for "further study."

So what are these programs proposed for consolidation? The 2001 budget for the edtech programs authorized under ESEA Title III include the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, funded at $450 million. This program is the largest of the ED edtech programs and includes a state basic grant used to fund school district purchases of computers, Internet access, software and teacher professional development. The Star Schools program ($59 million) and Technology Innovation Challenge Grant ($135 million) programs support innovative demonstrations in distance learning and educational technology respectively. They had been proposed for consolidation by the Clinton administration into a new Next-Generation Technology Innovation Fund.

The Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology Program, or PT3 program ($125 million), provides grants to colleges of education and others to support innovative program improvements to prepare technology-proficient educators of the future. The Community Technology Centers program ($65 million) helps bridge the digital divide by supporting community technology center development and expansion in distressed urban and rural communities. CTCs provide computer and Internet access as well as educational services using information technology. The administration is proposing to continue to fund this initiative at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The Regional Technology in Education Consortium program ($10 million) funds centers set up on a regional basis to help states, local educational agencies, teachers, school library and media personnel with their edtech needs. RTECs also serve as a clearinghouse on best practices, creating online and offline tools and information for enhancing education with computers and the Internet. Other "smaller" programs include Ready to Learn Television ($16 million), telecommunications demonstrations for math ($8.5 million), and a reserve fund of $2 million for national leadership activities such as conferences and research.

In conclusion, it is questionable whether educators will be better off without these direct, categorical federal investments in edtech. A great deal will depend on which of these activities is allowable under the future block grant and which categories of existing program funding are certainly to remain despite President Bush's proposal to block grant them all. Will states be able to use block grant funding to set up technical assistance centers, like RTECs? Will states take over the business of funding and testing new innovations in distance education and educational technology or will these functions be relegated to the support of corporate foundations? Is the national convening authority no longer needed with the proliferation of edtech conferences? Has the PT3 program completed the job of revamping our colleges of education so that the teachers of the future are proficient technology users or is further investment needed in this area?

Bottom Line #7:
The Bush edtech proposal appears to represent a major abdication of federal leadership in the edtech arena.

The federal government has provided substantial investments to bringing the power of new technologies into the classroom to enhance teaching and learning. It is positive that the Bush administration proposals to date have recognized the power of educational technology and not proposed to cut funding in edtech or include it as part of a broader block grant. But further progress could be stunted if responsibility is simply passed to the state. From convening, to evaluating, to spurring innovation, continued federal leadership in this area is still critical.

Related Web Sites

White House Budget Proposal
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/budtoc.html

Consortium for School Networking
 http://www.cosn.org

International Society for Technology in Education
 http://www.iste.org

U.S. Department of Education
 http://www.ed.gov/Technology

(c)Benton Foundation, 2001. Redistribution of this publication - both internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this message. Past issues of Digital Beat are available online at (http://www.benton.org/publibrary/digitalbeat/). The Digital Beat is a free online news service of the Benton Foundation's Communications Policy Program (../cpphome.html).

(c) Benton Foundation
950 18th St. NW
Washington DC 20006 USA
ph:202-638-5770 fax:202-638-5771
email: cpp@benton.org
www.benton.org

../DigitalBeat/db031401.html
Last updated: 14 March 2001 ac