Home AdvocacyPolicyWashington Notes1999 Jun

Contents

• FCC Votes on Year 2 E-Rate Funding
• Political Opposition to E-Rate Remains
• Administration Announces ESEA Legislation
• Copyright Office Releases Distance Learning Report
• McCain Holds Hearing on Filtering Bill
• Youth and Families Committee Holds Hearing on Education Technology
• Congress Prepares Cuts in FY2000 Education Budget

FCC Votes on Year 2 E-Rate Funding

On May 27, the Federal Communications Commission voted 3 to 2 to increase funding for the E-Rate program by almost $1 billion annually. In this decision, the FCC set collection rates for the second year of the program at $2.25 billion, the highest level allowed by the 1996 Telecom Act. Commissioners Kennard, Ness, and Tristani supported the decision, and Commissioners Furchgott-Roth and Powell dissented.

The May 27 vote reverses a dramatic cut in E-Rate funding that the FCC enacted just a year ago. Last summer, facing intense criticism from congressional opponents the FCC voted to overhaul its original plans for the E-Rate and instead limited E-Rate funding to $1.6 billion over an 18-month period. Because the first year of the program was extended by six months, the annual funding level amounted to just more than $1.3 billion, and fell far short of the $2.02 billion that schools and libraries nationwide had requested; thousands of applicants were denied portions of the E-Rate funds.

Since that vote, education advocates have lobbied the FCC to restore funding to its recommended level. At an EdLiNC news conference in April, FCC Chairman William Kennard finally announced his intention to support full funding of the E-Rate. His decision was widely praised in political, business, and educational circles. Last month, 33 Senators sent a letter to Kennard “enthusiastically” supporting his plan for full E-Rate funding.

Fourteen corporate executives also sent letters of support to Kennard. Those executives included officials at 3Com, Cisco, IBM, Apple, and Compaq.

Political Opposition to E-Rate Remains

Although the Federal Communications Commission has already set the funding level for the second year of the E-Rate, political obstacles remain that could threaten that decision. Just after the May 27 vote, House Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley (R-VA) denounced the FCC and its decision. Bliley believes that increased E-Rate funding will result in higher phone bills for consumers; he likened the increase in funding to raising taxes on American consumers. Another influential lawmaker, Rep. W. J. “Billy” Tauzin (R-LA) attacked Vice President Gore’s support of the program, which has been a long-standing tactic of E-Rate opponents. “In my opinion, this is a thinly veiled attempt to prop up Al Gore’s sagging presidential campaign,” he said. Even the Commerce Committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) criticized the FCC decision.

Rep. Tauzin and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) recently introduced the “Schools and Libraries Internet Access Act” (H.R. 1746, S. 1004), a bill that would overhaul and limit the scope of the E-Rate program. The Burns-Tauzin legislation would remove the FCC’s jurisdiction over the E-Rate and fund the program by an existing tax on long distance calls—instead of the current universal service mechanism. Not only would the Burns-Tauzin bill limit the E-Rate’s annual budget to $1.7 billion, but by changing the funding source, this legislation would take fiscal authority over the E-Rate away from the FCC and place it in the hands of Congress. Education advocates fear that Congress might use that authority to scale back or eliminate the E-Rate in the budget process. A spokesman for Tauzin has said that negotiations are underway to hold hearings on the legislation in the House Ways and Means Committee.

A bill that Rep. Dingell is considering is much more reasonable. The planned Dingell legislation would offset any increases in phone bills by requiring phone companies to lower their rates by the amount that they will save from government-ordered access charge reductions; these savings roughly approximate the cost of the E-Rate. Dingell’s bill will likely not include any limits on the E-Rate itself.

In February, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) introduced the “E-Rate Termination Act,” (H.R. 692) a bill that would eliminate the E-Rate program in its entirety. Although the bill has received many cosponsors (including GOP whip Tom Delay, R-TX), the legislation is still pending before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, with no planned action in the near future.

The coming weeks will be vital to the E-Rate’s future. Because the FCC will soon begin collection of $562 million in funding for the E-Rate, opponents of the program promise swift action, and may try to prevent that money from being collected.

Administration Announces ESEA Legislation

At the end of May, the Clinton Administration released their proposal for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

The Administration’s legislation, dubbed the “Education Excellence Act for All Children,” promises to focus on professional development for teachers, to increase flexibility for states and school districts, and to emphasize accountability for high-quality education.

Title III of the bill encourages the development and use of innovative technologies in the classroom, helps teachers learn to use and integrate technology in the classroom, expands the use of distance learning and information exchange, and narrows the technology gap by helping the neediest schools get access to technology.

The Education Excellence Act (H.R. 1960) has been introduced in the House by Rep. Bill Clay (R-MO) and in the Senate (S. 1180) by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

The Republicans are slowly introducing their ESEA legislation Title by Title. The first Republican bill to be introduced was the Teacher Empowerment Act (TEA), Title II of ESEA, the professional development portion of the legislation. Many of the elementary/secondary education groups have already voiced their concern about this bill. The major concerns are that the bill makes it too easy for school districts to receive exemptions from hiring new teachers, and that because States are allowed to determine the formula for distribution, large urban districts will likely be favored.

Copyright Office Releases Distance Learning Report

In late May, the United States Copyright Office released its long-awaited report on distance learning and digital technologies, with favorable recommendations for education advocates.

As part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), Congress charged the Copyright Office to study the application of copyright law to digital distance learning and to make recommendations on whether or not copyright law should be changed to reflect the advent and use of new technology in distance learning.

In its report, the Copyright Office adopted many of the positions of the education and library communities—the report is far more favorable than had been anticipated. Significantly, the report found that the traditional exemptions “embody a policy determination that performances or displays of copyrighted works in the course of systematic instruction should be permitted without the need to obtain a license or rely on fair use.” The conclusion, therefore is that “without an amendment to accommodate these new technologies, the policy behind the law will be increasingly diminished.”

Among its recommendations, the Copyright Office urges that the meaning of a transmission for distance learning exemptions should include digital transmissions (it previously specified only analog technology), that the requirement that a distance learner be in a physical classroom should be eliminated as a criteria for a copyright exemption, and that the use of “reasonable” and “limited” portions of audiovisual works should be allowed for instructional content. These changes, if adopted, will significantly update copyright law in the favor of distance learners. On a less positive note, the report declines to make any changes to the law that would make licensing more accessible and affordable.

The Copyright Office report will form the basis for legislative action in Congress. Hearings in the House are expected at the end of June. The report can be read on the Internet at http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright.

McCain Holds Hearing on Filtering Bill

Last month, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) held additional hearings on the “Children’s’ Internet Protection Act” (S. 97), a bill that would require any school or library that participates in the E-Rate subsidy program to install filtering or blocking software on their computers.

The hearing, held by the Senate Commerce Committee, featured testimony on the availability of hateful and violent content on the Internet, and whether or not filtering software could help block that inappropriate material. Four specialists testified before the committee: a CEO from a company that makes filtering software, an official at the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Chairman of the Antidefamation League, and a special agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. There were no representatives from civil liberties organizations or from the education and library communities.

At the hearing, the witnesses described how easily children could stumble upon hate or violence Web sites—and how some of these Web sites try to lure children to them. Howard Berkowitz, representing the Antidefamation League, argued that there was a “darkside of the Internet” and that children have been “seriously infected with the virus of hate.” Invoking the recent school shootings in Littleton, Colorado, Sen. McCain urged passage of his bill to stop those who preach hate and spread “their toxic message” on the Internet.

Although some of the witnesses raised constitutional questions about mandatory filtering in public institutions, none of the testimony focused on the real merits of McCain’s legislation. Many in the education and library communities believe that a federal mandate for filtering software is too expensive, ineffectual, and takes away local decision making from those who know their communities best.

At the hearing, McCain announced his intention to markup S. 97 in Committee soon. No date has been set yet.

Youth and Families Committee Holds Hearing on Education Technology

On May 11, the Early Childhood, Youth, and Families Subcommittee of the House Education and the Workforce Committee held a hearing on Title III provisions (education technology) of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

The hearing, held by committee chairman Michael Castle (R-DE) and ranking member Dale Kildee (D-MI), was dominated by a discussion of how best to provide equal access to new educational technologies and how to ensure appropriate professional development for teachers so that they can successfully integrate technology into the learning experience. Both Representatives spoke in favor of a strong commitment to education technology and have long demonstrated support for Title III programs.

The witnesses at the hearing included: Eugene Hickock, Secretary of Education, Commonwealth of PA; Terri Austen, Executive Director, Anderson Community School Organization, Anderson, IN; Bruce Drost, Professor, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York; Brenda Williams, Executive Director, Office of Instructional Technology, West Virginia Department of Education; and Robert McNergney, Professor, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia.

Congress Prepares Cuts in FY2000 Education Budget

Last month, Congress took the first steps toward significant cuts in education spending in the fiscal year 2000 budget. Both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committees approved 302(b) allocations to their subcommittees, which included significant cuts for the Labor-HHS-Education subcommittees. The House plan would reduce spending for the subcommittee by $11 billion (12% below a FY1999 budget freeze) whereas the Senate has proposed an $8.7 billion cut (10% below a freeze).

Both the House and Senate allocations would fall billions short of the President’s budget request for education spending. Any cuts in Labor-HHS-Education spending will likely result in the elimination of several education programs. Because of the political unpopularity of such a move, plans appear underway to raise appropriations above the level permitted by the freeze.

Prepared by Leslie Harris, Adeena Colbert, and Phil Ugelow
On behalf of the International Society for Technology in Education