A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Report to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
by
The E-Rate Implementation Working Group (Working Group)
composed of
U.S. Department of Education
Institute of Museum and Library Services
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Rural Utilities Service
Education and Library Networks Coalition

July 31, 1997

VIII. Approval of Technology Plans

The Working Group recommends that the sole approvers for State plans should be the U.S. Department of Education for education plans and the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences for library plans. As provided in the E-Rate Ruling (¶574), the preferred reviewers for other technology plans should be the State education agency for education plans and the State library agency for library plans. ²⁰ Those State agencies could delegate their responsibility, including establishment of a peer review process to perform the approval function. The State should be required to notify SLC of any such delegation, so that SLC would know what approvals are authorized in that State, and should also retain responsibility for the approvers operating under its jurisdiction. As an alternative approval mechanism for schools and libraries that are not required by applicable State or local law to obtain State approval for technology plans and telecommunications expenditures, SLC should authorize peer reviews administered by other independent entities, including existing peer reviews used by nonpublic schools for accreditation, or in the absence of sufficient third-party peer review processes establish a peer review process of its own. ²¹ The Working Group appreciates the FCC's designation of all technology plans previously approved for participation in Federal or State programs as pre-approved for the purpose of the E-rate application process (¶574). In our view this designation is appropriate, since it would take at least several months to formulate and review new technology plans. We assume that most schools and libraries are already covered by pre-approved plans, and the requirement of an approved technology plan will accordingly not delay the January 1 start of E-rate support. Since these pre-approved plans have been approved for a variety of Federal and State programs, however, the criteria for approval vary widely.

The Working Group believes that after the interim period all technology plans should be reviewed under a common minimum general standard, so that their approval has common significance. The common minimum general standard should be effective immediately for all new technology plans. After the interim period all pre-approved plans should need to be re-approved under this standard before they are used in a new application.

The Working Group has attempted to design a standard that minimizes any burden on applicants and approvers and is as consistent as possible with existing standards of review. The standard that we recommend is as follows:

The technology plan under review consists of a rational strategy for the use of information technology in the activities of the schools and libraries that it covers, including integration of that technology into the library services and curriculum of the schools. In addition to describing all activities eligible for support under the Universal Service provisions, the plan provides for the acquisition and use of hardware, software and staff development necessary for the effective use of the eligible services. The plan is in sufficient detail to enable judgment of the validity of the request for Universal Services in meeting the objectives for use of information technologies in the plan. It also includes an evaluation component. ²²

Under most existing Federal and State programs, approvals of technology plans are limited to five years or less. The Working Group believes that long-range planning is important for the effective use of information technology in schools and libraries. Nevertheless, because of the rapidly changing nature of information technology and the integral role of the technology plan in the E-rate application process, we also believe that a five-year limitation would be appropriate in this case. Thus, the Working Group recommends that all technology plans supporting a particular E-rate application must have been approved within five years of the application.

Since the E-Rate Ruling authorizes USF support for multiyear contracts, subject to the filing of annual funding requests (¶536-37, 544, 579), the Working Group also considered whether an application could include services that would not be rendered until after the expiration of the plan approval. Because of the short life-span of technology generations, we believe that very long-term commitments should be approached with great caution by schools and libraries. There may, however, be situations, such as lease-purchase arrangements or very large capital investments by the applicant or the service provider, in which extended commitments are appropriate. Accordingly, the Working Group is not recommending any arbitrary limit on the terms of contracts supported by the E-rate. On the other hand, however, it would be inconsistent to require a technology plan to support a request for services and then allow the applicant to commit itself for services beyond the time horizon of its own plan. Therefore, the Working Group recommends that the technology plan be required to justify the requested services for the entire duration of the contract, either with respect to actual use of the services or as a desirable payment option.

Schools, libraries and higher-level entities are subject to a variety of requirements for technology plans. There should be no need for a separate E-rate plan. The Working Group recommends that the FCC make clear that even after the interim period an existing technology plan, including those pre-approved for the interim period, may satisfy the E-rate requirement as long as it has been approved in accordance with the above standard.

²⁰ Technology plans for schools under direct Federal jurisdiction, such as Bureau of Indian Affairs and territorial schools, should be reviewed by the appropriate Federal agency.
²¹ See note 5, above, for review by SLC as an alternative to State review. SLC would presumably have authority to treat the cost of peer review under its jurisdiction as an administrative expense or impose a fee to fund the review process on parties seeking peer review under SLC's own system. Since extensive State review of technology plans already takes place, the Working Group is not recommending any expense reimbursement for approvals under State jurisdiction. At least as long as the grand-fathering of previously approved plans remains in effect, the incremental burden on the States should not be substantial. If the situation changes in the future, SLC should review the matter and recommend appropriate action to the FCC.
²² Certain communications services, such as telephone or paging services, should not require a technology plan.

[ VII. Aggregate Discount Rates ]					[ IX. Application Forms ]

This page last updated 8/10/97 (pjh).