Waiting for the Feds

On the Telecommunications Act, only time will tell

By Kathleen Vail

Kathleen Vail is an assistant editor of Electronic School.

Poised to spray information into the classroom like a fire hose--that's how one technology pundit describes the Telecommunications Act of 1996. How the historic overhaul of the communications law is going to do this remains in the hands of federal regulators. But until the feds figure out how the law is going to work, educators are left to figure out what it all will mean.

"The Telecommunications Act potentially makes different models of learning affordable," says Chris Dede, a professor at George Mason University (GMU), Fairfax, Va., and a veteran technology watcher. "It only does that to the extent that schools use technology and use it well."

The purpose of the act's school provision was to bridge the gap between technology "haves" and "have-nots." Now, theoretically, children won't be hampered by their schools' finances from entering the information age.

Predictions of an explosion of technology in the classroom abound. On-line services will allow children to look over the shoulder of an astronaut walking in space.Virtual reality technology will let students test physics concepts "hands-on." Distance-learning technology will put a single master math teacher into thousands of classrooms. Rural school kids will take interactive Polish, Swahili, or Urdu language classes along with the children of other countries. In short, the potential for siphoning information into the classroom is vast.

One of the founding fathers of the Internet, Bob Metcalfe, says on-line services will present possibilities to children, especially rural kids, that they never knew existed. "The Internet will help students escape parochialism," says Metcalfe, who invented the first local area network, or Ethernet, in 1973. "They'll break out of the walls of their schools."

Universal service

The bulk of the Telecommunications Act, signed into law by President Clinton in February, ends federal restrictions on competition between long-distance and local telephone companies and between cable companies and television and radio stations. But the act includes two other important provisions that will affect schools. One is that "universal service" now extends to schools (and hospitals and libraries). This means phone companies must offer to schools "affordable" telephone connections and, possibly, affordable service rates as well. Affordable connections and service rates might allow schools not already on the Internet, or those with only a few connections, to hook up all their classrooms to the new technology. And that, according to research by the National Center for Education Statistics, could be a lot of hook-ups--only 9 percent of classrooms right now have access to on-line services.

The second item of special interest to schools is that the act forms the National Education Technology Funding Corp., a nonprofit organization that will lend money to schools for hardware and, potentially, could provide technical assistance and training to make sure schools can use the network technology that will soon be knocking at their doors.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has until May 1997 to make the rules that put the act into motion. A pivotal decision to be hashed out: what is "affordable," and how much of a discount schools will receive on connections and service rates. Another decision: What constitutes "service"? Does service mean a one-time telephone hook-up to schools? Or does it mean ongoing services for high-speed Internet access and interactive video communication?

The telephone industry and education and library groups have weighed in to the FCC with their opinions on how to interpret the act. Predictably, these opinions are often at odds. A coalition of about 20 education groups, including the National Education Association, the National School Boards Association, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals, recommended that the discount should apply to hooking up every classroom to on-line services. Some telephone companies, for their part, advocate limiting the discount to connecting at least one computer lab in each school to telephone lines. School groups say deeper discounts should be given to schools in poor areas; phone companies suggest giving block grants to the states, which would give schools vouchers after they've submitted technology plans.

If ongoing services aren't included in the interpretation of the act, poor students will continue to be at a disadvantage, says Arthur D. Sheekey, a former U.S. Education Department official and currently an education technology adviser in Washington. Richer schools will be able to afford better and more elaborate services for their students, Sheekey says, leaving the poorer kids and their connections behind. "What kinds of services will be considered basic?" he asks.

No silver bullets

The debate has led some observers to issue words of caution. GMU's Dede advises educators not to think of technology as the "silver bullet," the magical cure to education woes. Schools need to prepare themselves for technology in the classrooms, he says. They must figure out ways to train teachers and incorporate new technologies into the curriculum. Otherwise, all the connections and computers won't make a difference. "If [educators] use [technology] inappropriately, there won't be an impact," says Dede. "Then they get disillusioned."

Another admonition: Let the buyer beware. Unscrupulous telecommunications companies might be waiting to take advantage of novice school technology purchasers. Don't make long-term contracts with service providers, says James Carlini, a technology consultant in Hinsdale, Ill. Schools in long-term contracts could get stuck with inflexible technology that becomes obsolete before the contract is over, he says. "If a school system isn't locked into a contract, it can take advantage of new services," says Carlini.

Quiet history

A video conference in New York made history in April: "quiet history," according to Donald Jacobs, founder of Project Connect at Buffalo State College. For the first time, people in different parts of the state--Buffalo, Binghamton, Olean, and Cheektowaga--spoke to each other by digital voice and video signals that travel through fiber optics. Before the Telecommunications Act, long-distance learning projects like Project Connect were limited to schools in the same calling area because local phone companies couldn't sell long-distance service.

Now, the act has opened up competition among telephone companies and allowed local phone companies to provide long-distance service to its customers. The deregulation offers new opportunities for long-distance learning, according to Jacobs. Project Connect currently links some 30 schools in western New York. These schools can receive classes from Buffalo State College and from each other, providing language and advanced classes to small and rural schools that might not otherwise have the resources to provide them.

Project Connect is a private network right now--only schools with the correct equipment and wiring can tap in. But with the opening up of the telephone lines, Jacobs foresees the day when everyone can "dial" into the network and take any classes they want.

"Information is no longer place-bound," says Jacobs. "We can get it quickly and robustly. It's one of the major megatrends of the century."