This commentary is by Jock Gill of Peacham, an internet communications consultant who served in President Bill Clinton’s Office of Media Affairs. He is town energy coordinator in Peacham.
Background
Samuel McLeod, the principal of the Peacham School, writes: “There has been a much-needed and significant shift in education over the past few years which emphasizes a prioritization of the unique and individualized learning needs of each student, student competency in core skills, and increased student agency through greater voice and access to their own learning pathway. …
“One significant advantage and disadvantage with personalized learning is that students under this framework are not as tied to specific physical classrooms, and require higher levels of connectivity in order to access their teachers, learning progression, and resources. …
“What we do not have is equal access to the minimum levels of internet connectivity required to fully realize the implementation of this vision. Our rural communities across Vermont struggle to provide even the most basic levels of connectivity through lack of infrastructure and lack of funding. …
“If we truly want to give each and every child in Vermont an equal access to education, and consequently, an equal opportunity to pursue success and happiness, we must come together as educators and as communities to find more effective ways to connect our kids to the resources they need to thrive regardless of where they live or family socioeconomic circumstances.”
Issues to consider
All of this makes it even more important that Vermont find innovative solutions such that all students have equitable and just access to connectivity this year.
Now, with respect to broadband and education, I’m not arguing for one technology over another. Rather, I’m asking, how do we create educational fairness and equality of opportunity as soon as possible with respect to online education?
It’s simply neither fair nor equitable if some children have connectivity today and some do not. Talk to any teacher in the Northeast Kingdom. Nor is it fair or equitable to tell some children they have to wait some unknown time as they fall further behind.
Hence my goal to solve the educational equality and fairness problem by Sept. 1, 2021. Some technologies, or mix of technologies, could possibly meet this goal, others not.
Let me also point out a major difference between FTTH (Fiber to the Home) and Starlink (low Earth-orbit satellites providing connectivity). In Starlink’s case, Vermont has no say as to how or where Starlink gets and applies its resources. Vermont has no choice whatsoever in the matter. That is, Starlink is an externality with respect to Vermont’s budget. I note that Starlink has already started to roll out its beta program in the NEK. Initial reports are very favorable. See: https://blog.tomevslin.com.
On the other hand, Vermont has a substantial amount of money allocated to the connectivity issue, which it controls and can determine how and where that’s applied. What obligations does Vermont have with respect to discretionary funds in its control when it comes to the connectivity issue? Should public funds only be directed to the public commons? Should state-funded connectivity be treated as infrastructure, as we do for roads and sidewalks? How will the state ensure that its regulatory regime will deliver the best benefits to the citizens of Vermont?
Will the homeowner have to pay for connectivity to the home? Or will the state? If the state has to pay, as well as subsidize the installation and recurring costs for some, then all technologies should be treated the same. If the state pays for FTTH, then the state is obligated to also pay for the same costs for other solutions to the connectivity issue.
Of course, costs will vary with the technology; i.e., the state has at least some fiduciary responsibility for how wisely the funds are spent. How much is reasonable to spend per connection? Thousands of dollars or hundreds of dollars? The state should not, however, be in the business of picking winners and losers.
As much as possible, the end user should have and make the technology choice, not some technology committee making decisions for the end user. This is how the internet works. Internet service providers do not get to tell you what equipment you use.
Perhaps the state should simply offer each location, home, business, health care center, educational unit, etc., a “grant,” and then let the location make the choice of technology to use. This gives the end user some direct power and control: agency. Let the end user make their own choice, based on their needs, interests and time requirements, of what technology to use among the competing offerings. Isn’t this how our economic model is supposed to work?
That is, imposing a single solution, even a solution preferred by some elites, in a top-down fashion is hardly a democratic process that respects the citizen. We are, after all, working in service to the citizens, not any one particular solution. This requires a much more bottom-up approach. One that will help strengthen Vermont’s communities and help them thrive.
