The Internet’s Quiet Crisis: Why Cutting School Funding Could Leave Us All Behind
There’s a storm brewing in the world of education, and it’s not about standardized tests or teacher shortages. It’s about something far more fundamental: the internet. Specifically, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) recent decision to review the E-Rate program—a lifeline that connects schools and libraries to the internet at discounted rates—has sent shockwaves through communities that rely on it. But what makes this particularly fascinating is how the debate has morphed into a conversation about screen time, budget cuts, and the very future of education.
The E-Rate Program: A Quiet Success Story
Let’s start with the basics. The E-Rate program, established in the 1990s, has been a quiet hero in the digital revolution. When it began, only 14% of schools and libraries had internet access. Today, that number is nearly 100%. From my perspective, this is one of those rare government initiatives that actually worked—and worked well. It’s bipartisan, effective, and, by all accounts, healthy. So, why is it under the microscope now?
One thing that immediately stands out is the timing. The FCC’s review comes on the heels of Project 2025, a conservative blueprint that targets federal broadband policy for spending cuts. Current FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who helped write that chapter, has framed the review as a way to address excessive screen time among kids. Personally, I think this is a red herring. While screen time is a legitimate concern, gutting a program that ensures internet access for millions of students feels like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The Screen Time Distraction
What many people don’t realize is that the screen time debate, while important, is a separate issue from internet access. Schools aren’t just using the internet for TikTok or gaming—they’re using it to track attendance, monitor bus routes, and administer state-mandated tests. In fact, 48 states now include an online component in their exams. If you take a step back and think about it, cutting E-Rate funding wouldn’t reduce screen time; it would just make it harder for schools to function.
This raises a deeper question: Are we conflating the tool with the problem? Josh Golin of Fairplay, a nonprofit focused on digital safety for kids, puts it well: “There are ways of strengthening school policies to promote more limited and privacy-protecting use of EdTech without taking away critical E-Rate funding.” In other words, we can address screen time without dismantling the infrastructure that keeps schools connected.
The Rural Reality
Here’s a detail that I find especially interesting: the impact of E-Rate cuts wouldn’t be felt equally. Urban schools might have more options, but rural and remote areas? Not so much. Take Patrick Mayer, superintendent of the Alaska Gateway School District, who says his district has just one internet provider. They spend over half a million dollars a year to keep their six schools online. What this really suggests is that cutting E-Rate funding would disproportionately hurt the communities that need it most.
For these districts, the internet isn’t a luxury—it’s a lifeline. It allows students to take dual-enrollment courses, access virtual therapy, and stay connected to the rest of the world. Without E-Rate, Mayer says, they’d have to cut staff and services just to pay the internet bill. If you ask me, that’s a trade-off no school should have to make.
The Bigger Picture: Competition and Connectivity
What this debate also highlights is the failure of the free market to deliver on its promise of affordable internet. Back in the ’90s, many assumed competition among internet service providers (ISPs) would drive down prices. But in rural areas, competition is virtually nonexistent. Bob Bocher, a senior fellow with the American Library Association, calls it “death by a thousand cuts”—a system so burdened by rules and regulations that it becomes unusable by design.
This isn’t just about schools and libraries; it’s about the future of connectivity itself. If we can’t ensure affordable internet access for our educational institutions, what does that say about our ability to bridge the digital divide for everyone? Personally, I think this is a canary in the coal mine for a much larger issue: the failure to treat the internet as the essential utility it has become.
The Road Ahead
The FCC’s review process is just beginning, with a 60-day public comment period followed by a 30-day reply period. Advocates like Mayer are already mobilizing, but the outcome is far from certain. What’s clear, though, is that this isn’t just a bureaucratic skirmish—it’s a battle for the future of education and equality.
In my opinion, the E-Rate program isn’t just about internet access; it’s about opportunity. It’s about ensuring that no matter where you live, you have the tools to learn, grow, and compete in the 21st century. Cutting it wouldn’t just hurt schools—it would leave us all behind.
So, as we watch this debate unfold, let’s not get distracted by the screen time rhetoric. Let’s focus on what’s really at stake: the quiet, essential work of keeping our schools connected. Because in a world where the internet is the backbone of modern life, disconnecting our schools isn’t just shortsighted—it’s reckless.
