Common Core wires more schools for the wrong reasons, by N. J. Barkauskas

The Common Core State Standards are well intentioned but, like most education policy, they have unintended consequences.  The technological demands that the Common Core places on some districts requires them to improve their telecommunications infrastructure in ways that do not help students in the classroom.  This essay argues that money could be better spent putting technology in the hands of the students rather than making use of federal subsidies to increase capacities that do not aid everyday educational activities. 

School districts are beginning to feel a technological crunch unlike any other in the past.  When we think of budget issues in schools the technological needs of students are often overlooked by policy makers.  With the impending adoption of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) many districts across the nation will soon be required to conduct standardized testing online without the capacity to do so.  Due to the current economic conditions, and the ensuing budget cutbacks, schools are forced to choose between upgrading their computing capacity and increasing their internet bandwidth.  The adoption of the Common Core, and its online testing requirement, forces districts to choose bandwidth over computing which takes valuable resources out of the hands of their students.  While this may not be a large issue yet for schools that already have sufficient bandwidth, there are those schools with Information Technology (IT) infrastructure that aren’t up to speed and they’ll be forced to beef up their capacity any way they can.

The pressure to comply with the online testing component of CCSS in some states means that districts may be forced to apply for E-Rate funding to upgrade their internet service in order to cope with the increased demand for bandwidth (Cavanagh 2013). The relationship between bandwidth and testing is fairly straightforward.  Normally schools only use a small portion of their available bandwidth but during testing large numbers of students will need to be online at the same time to take the test.  Upgrading internet bandwidth (upload and download speeds) will be necessary for most schools to make this happen.  E-Rate is a program started during the Clinton administration to increase internet access in Elementary schools in the US.  The funds are administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and are dispersed through a fairly involved application process to schools who can show a need.  There are a wide variety of services that can be obtained through E-Rate, but the funds can only be used to purchase internet service and infrastructure upgrades from approved providers; the funds cannot be used to buy new computers, software, or training.  When used by districts to upgrade infrastructure, due to the changes proposed under the CCSS, E-Rate is acting more like a subsidy system that reimburses Internet Service Providers (ISPs) directly for offering reduced rates to schools than the capacity building program it was meant to be in 1996.

In 2012, the Fordham Institute for Advancing Educational Excellence conducted a costing-out study for three possible CCSS implementation strategies.  While they explicitly leave technology costs out of their main cost analysis the report provides some discussion, in Appendix A, of potential costs for technological upgrades (Murphy et al. 2012).  The report rightly suggests that there are ways to increase technological capacity in schools but almost none of the Fordham report’s suggestions are covered by E-Rate.  If schools require a technological upgrade to fully comply with CCSS but the most useful upgrades are not covered by E-Rate then there are funding gaps, or hidden costs, for CCSS implementation when it comes to technology upgrades. 

There is an obvious need to increase the technological capacity of K-12 schools and E-Rate helps to do that.  However, increasing technological capacity for the purpose of massive standardized testing seems wrong-headed.  While innovative use of computer technology is still possible under E-Rate, the hardware upgrades necessary to maintain a technologically proficient school are not covered by the program (Universal Service Administrative Company 2012).  E-Rate provides clear guidance about what is, and is not, eligible for a discount or subsidy.  The list explicitly states that computer hardware such as laptops and personal computers are not eligible.  The discount provided by E-Rate can only be applied to internet service and infrastructure upgrades to increase bandwidth.  Under these restrictions some more advanced computing technology like iPads or Smart boards can’t be purchased by districts in need. So, while the CCSS calls for technological capacity building in ways that make students more proficient overall there are currently only avenues for building telecommunications capacity in certain less useful ways. The influx of the Common Core, coupled with the existing lack of K-12 funding, virtually guarantees that E-Rate funding will be used to get ready for testing and acts as a funnel to service providers; this in turn does nothing to help students directly.

It seems we might do well to add “upgrading infrastructure to the test” to our collective educational vernacular right after “teaching to the test”.  Schools may increasingly move budget dollars away from helpful technology like PCs and Projectors and put it towards less useful items like wires and routers.  When we think of a “wired school” we aren’t necessarily thinking of the physical wires that run through the school to carry data.  However, with the current financial situation facing many districts, and E-Rate being one of the sources of relief, this is the only kind of wiring schools are going to get.

The type of upgrades made possible by the intersection of E-Rate and CCSS are not useful to students on a daily basis.  The services schools will now be required to purchase and maintain will only be necessary during testing, in most cases.  A superfast connection, capable of handling 3,000 simultaneous users, is only useful when everyone is online.  The difference in daily life will not be appreciable for most districts that receive E-Rate funding for infrastructure upgrades.  On the other hand, if the money could be used for better software, improved hardware, or more licenses of a given program the technological proficiency of school age children could actually improve as a result of the Common Core.

To be fair, the burden is not being placed on districts by the Common Core itself.  The states who have adopted it have the power to ease the burden to a certain degree.  The testing structure, developed by Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium  in some cases and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (EdInformatics 2012), is the portion of this equation that requires online access to the test.  Alleviating this burden could be as simple as providing a paper option in addition to the cyber option and allowing districts to choose; which might free up funds to upgrade other parts of their computer systems.  However, all indications are that states and districts will continue to push forward with a technological solution rather than perhaps accept the fact that they simply might not be ready to go that route yet.  If students have access to the internet but no reliable means to make use of it the Common Core could cause school districts to put money towards paying companies for services rather than increasing computer power that could be used to innovate in the classroom.

References

Cavanagh, Sean. 2013. “With Common Core in Mind, Schools Turn to E-rate.” Education Week, 16(January), Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/16/17e–ate.h32.html?tkn=TMMFHNeIsTImVdDt213ney8vFD2HcDDGWrK+&intc=es

EdInformatics. 2012, August 26. Common Core Standards Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.edinformatics.com/curriculum/common_core_standards.htm

Murphy, Patrick, Elliot Regenstein, and Keith McNamara. 2012. “Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost?”  Published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/20120530-Putting-A-Price-Tag-on-the-Common-Core/20120530-Putting-a-Price-Tag-on-the-Common-Core-FINAL.pdf

Universal Service Administrative Company. 2012. USAC: E-rate eligible services overview. Retrieved from http://www.universalservice.org/sl/applicants/beforeyoubegin/eligible-services/default.aspx