- Your educational systems extend for beyond the public
School/Library arena. Day Care, Montesoori Schools, After Care. It
obvious that our 17th Century educational system is in need of an
overhaul. So to place the heap of focus on the status quo (Public
Schools and Libraries) is irresponsive at best. Regional, community
learning consortiums provide the best stop gap measure, while we
creatively reshape the educational systems throughout this nation.
partnerships between businesses, government, public and private sector
are without question necessary. This one truth eclispes all others:
These children are our future and our children! We owe them nothing
less than the best and it is our responsiblity to provide it. Those in
positions of wealth and influence provide for themselves and their
familys, why shouldn't we be so moved.
- The planning process at the local level is key, for ensuring that
options are considered, that community involvment exists from
inception, that ongoing support needs are addressed. Approval of such
plans by peer groups (as suggested in our discussions) is desired over
state or district blessings, to lessen the bureaucratic burden, and
place responsibility closer to the place where use of the subsidy will
happen.
- I am not sure that equity of access can be assured under any
plan.There will always be those who fall through the cracks of any plan
or proposal. I think that any plan that is finally approved should be
easy to understand and implement.
- #3 - This extension should be limited to non-profit organizations,
public or private, which provide direct educational services in support
of the K-12 population.
#4 -The distribution formula used in awarding colleges and universities
student financial aid funds might provide a useful model for designing
an equitable distribution formula.
- Q1 Vouchers plus discounts
Q2 Provision of matching funds (easily administered)
perhaps an approved tech plan for over a $ threshold
Q3 Not sure I understand implications of Q3
Q4 Per Capita plus per public school and per public library
perhaps modified by additional costs imposed by geography
(for example, rugged terrain).
- I know some kind of needs based assessment is important, but I see
districts such as my own reluctant to declare themselves as needy and
another paper producing project is the last thing we need.
- Whatever is setup must deal with the "haves-havenot" quandry.
Should be some determination of available revenue in awarding grants to
communities.
- 1. Mechanisms: What mechanism should be used to provide Universal
Service subsidies to schools and libraries?
"discount for selected" services is closest, but it has the
possibility of being limited to what the telco wants to push. A
more attractive notion would be to have an across the board
method, whether it is a percentage, a cap, or an algorithm. An
example of the latter might be to have the price be exclusieve
of the marginal cost of the local loop, thus encouraging
transmission efficiencies. If an "E-Rate" means 100% discount
(I had not gathered this elsewhere), it is inappropriate, as
there is no backpressure on pointless consumption.
2. Bona Fide Requests: What minimal justifications should a school,
library or school district be required to offer in support of requests
for subsidized telecommunications services?
Definitely from a legitimate officer of the org. The Org should
also be able to demonstrate edcucational accredation (sp?) and
not-for-profit status. A technology plan would be good, but
only as a sign of commitment. Detailed review of such plans
would probably produce an undue burden on the schools and
states. The existence of a CURRICULUM plan for the use of the
technology would also be desirable, but as in the technology
plan, the fact of the plan is probably more important than its
details or approval by bureaucrats.
3. Higher Ed. (Sorry, "Post-Secondary Education" has its own ways of
support, and should probably look elsewhere. Besides, if there is a
collaboaration between a university and a school district, the district
can order the services.
4. Equity: How can the Universal Service Fund insure equity of access
for all schools and libraries?
Oooh. Whose standards? I can't imagine that any blanket policy
would accomplish this end. There would clearly need to be some
evaluation of what is available. One can imagine all sorts of
crazy features and outright abuses for the options given (like
deluxe facililties in the middle of nowhere) Is there such a
thing as "outcomes-based" telecommunication evaulation?
- Rather general questions, and answer choices make it easy to miss
key points. Will the funds be properly leveraged to benefit the
intended beneficiaries? Often not. How can we all assure U.Service
funds are optimally utilized? The evaluative metrics of what happens
after funding is important to tie to possible future funding. If some
non institutional entity can do a better job leveraging the public good
from U.Service funds, perhaps they should be specifically encouraged to
do so. If competition is good for the marketplace, it should increase
the attention toward excellence in educational institutions, too.
Otherwise this is all just another turn at the trough/pork barrelism.
- 1. Universal fund subsidies should be allocated using the mechanism
of a contract agency.This agency which should be directed by a group
within each jurisdiction should use the subsidy to realize discounts
through a competitive bidding process which stress innovation and
efficiency. The fund should not be used to provide incumbent telcos
with a revenue stream by subsidizing school discountsw on a dollar for
dollar basis. Subsidies should be used to stimulate an RFP process
where the broad range of services required by schools will be offered
by a broad range of competitors.
2. There should be two criteria to evaluate a "bona fide" reequest.
First,th e request should be submitted by an educational institution
certified as a k12 school in the state in which it operates. Second,
the request should be for services based upon the total school
principle. This principle is base upon the fact that the entire school
or school district is dedicated to providing a genuine learning
environment and there are no units within the school or the school
district which is unessential to this effort.
3. The issue of equity is tied to the overall question of whho should
administer the fund. The current administrator, NECA, has served this
function well in the past. Before all that was necessary was for the
fund to be fairly allocated among the various carriers. Thus the
carrier association was the appropriate administrator. Under the Act,
the universal fund will serve other purposes. It would be inappropriate
and a conflict of interest to allow the carriers to determine policies
regarding fund allocations. The carriers want to retain as much of the
fund as possible.There really is little choice other than establishing
a neutral fund administrator which can balance the various claims made
on the fund. The administrator should be guided by a broad based policy
group which represents all interests concerned with the fund's
administration.The principles for administering the fund must focused
away from creating the fundamentals of a regulated monopoly towards
implementing the principles of a competitive telecommmunications
industry.
- To have equitable universal service, each educational entity must
be supplied with access.
- Per capita subsidies come closest to funding for all the "other"
technology to make universal service a possible outcome.
- 3. Universities, Community Colleges & State or County Library
systems could serve important roles as trainers and disseminators of
technology practices for the elementary and secondary school systems.
Additionally, on-line resources of a University or County library
system could facilitate student research at the elementary and
secondary levels. One technology, the "jukebox" contains
journals/periodicals on CD-Roms. A small charge ($.25) for printing
covers the royalties for the publishers, while the library is spared
the costs involved w/maintaining periodical "stacks." Secondly, if a
universal student record could be agreed upon, any school system could
have instant access to important information about new students, rather
than wait for the time-consuming process of mailing from district to
district. An electronic record system, if it were interchangeable
throughout our country, could speed the process of college applications
and reduce the volume of paper records that need to be stored by
colleges and universities.
4. The remote, expensive to serve areas,
must be addressed separately by the entire universal service industry.
No one provider can afford to serve them.
- Equity must look at equal
access regardless of traditional measures of wealth or capability. All
learners must have equal opportunity.
Equity may require using a compination of all 4 equity funding ideas
above and more.
Wealthy and populated areas with strong information systems will add to
the Universal fund as more users purchase lines and all to access it.
Their community should not be excluded inour thinking as they will add
more funds than they use. Rural areas may need a little more as
infrastructure may need to be added.
- I am reviewing state telcom grants as I write. Part of the
problem with equity occurs because rural America is less
populated AND it costs more to wire large distances. Neither
of these are surprising. Yet, none of the equity choices
above address this (unless Pop density is meant to help
rural America).
We are without ISDN capabilities. It is not even scheduled
for our area (GTE). A grant I just reviewed can only
receive 56k connections and it will cost them $7,000 per year.
(Not GTE)
They would be smarter to use 28.8 modems but it effectively
limits the speed and access potential.
These issues are important and must be addressed.
- Equity:
Provide connectivity and e-rate (100% discount) to all schools and libraries.