WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission opened a formal review on June 25, 2026, into how federally supported internet services are used in schools and libraries. Chairman Brendan Carr backed the inquiry, which could eventually link E-Rate funding to student screen-time limits.
The commission adopted the proceeding in Washington amid concerns about classroom devices, student distraction, and declining test scores. No national screen limit has taken effect, and the agency has not ordered schools to remove laptops or tablets.
FCC targets classroom screen use
The review asks whether E-Rate-supported networks improve learning and remain focused on educational purposes. The federal school connectivity program helps eligible schools and libraries obtain broadband and internal network services.
Commissioners requested public input on online safety, parental involvement, and existing internet protections. They also want to know whether current rules sufficiently restrict harmful content on school and library computers.
The agency could consider age-based safeguards and distinctions between educational and recreational use. It may also examine whether funding should depend on school policies that limit screen exposure.
Carr has argued that subsidized connectivity should support instruction without encouraging distraction. Commissioner Anna Gomez approved parts of the inquiry but dissented from other sections of the commission’s action.
Any binding restriction would require further regulatory steps. Schools will continue operating under existing E-Rate requirements while the commission reviews public submissions.
Devices dominate American classrooms.
Digital tools now sit at the center of public education. About 88% of public schools operated one-to-one computing programs nationwide during the 2024-25 academic year.
Those programs provide each student with a school-issued device. Among participating schools, 89% made laptops available, while 27% provided tablets.
About 46% allowed students to take devices home during weekdays and weekends. The percentage increased to 80% among high schools and 86% among schools enrolling at least 1,000 students.
The United States recorded approximately $30 billion in estimated 2024 education technology spending. That broad estimate covers hardware, software, digital curricula, cybersecurity, and technical support.
The figure does not represent one federal laptop purchase. It also does not prove that every district eliminated printed textbooks.
The transformation began long before pandemic closures. Maine’s statewide laptop initiative began in 2002 and initially distributed more than 17,000 devices to middle-school students and educators.
Remote learning accelerated adoption nationwide. Districts needed computers for virtual classes, assignments, and family communication, and then retained many digital systems after students returned.
National scores remain weak.
The expansion has not produced a clear nationwide academic gain. The average fourth-grade reading score fell by two points between 2022 and 2024 and remained five points below 2019 levels.
Only 31% of fourth-graders reached or exceeded the NAEP Proficient level in 2024. That benchmark measures performance on challenging material and does not equal state-defined grade-level proficiency.
Eighth-grade reading also dropped two points from 2022 and five points from 2019. Declines affected many lower- and middle-performing students.
Average eighth-grade mathematics performance remained eight points below its 2019 level. Fourth-grade mathematics improved by two points from 2022 but remained three points below 2019.
Those results do not establish that laptops caused the decline. Pandemic disruption, chronic absenteeism, staffing shortages, and unequal academic support also affected performance.
They show that widespread device distribution did not prevent a national learning crisis. Officials must now determine whether schools use digital tools with sufficient structure and evidence in place.
Researchers challenge the broad benefits.
Neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath submitted written Senate testimony in January questioning the broad use of classroom technology. He linked frequent in-class computer use with weaker performance across several international assessments.
Horvath argued that many technology programs deliver smaller benefits than targeted tools built for narrow tasks. Adaptive exercises may help students practice basic skills, while unrestricted devices can divide attention.
His analysis does not prove that Gen Z is less intelligent than earlier generations. Standardized assessments measure reading, mathematics, and reasoning, but they do not capture every ability.
International findings present a less absolute pattern. Moderate academic device use can support performance, whereas excessive use and recreational activity during school are associated with poorer outcomes.
Purpose remains central. A student completing a guided science simulation has a different experience from one switching among schoolwork, messages, games, and videos.
Schools tighten phone policies.
Many districts are restricting personal phones while retaining school-issued laptops. About 77% of public schools prohibit phones during every class, while 30% ban them throughout the school day.
More than half of school leaders said phone use had harmed academic performance. Larger shares identified negative effects on attention spans and student mental health.
Phone rules address one source of distraction. They do not settle on whether schools should use printed materials, handwriting, teacher-led instruction, or connected devices.
Public comments will guide policy.
The FCC is not proposing to remove broadband from schools. Its review asks whether E-Rate rules should change now that classroom connectivity is widespread.
The initial public comment period will remain open for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Reply comments will be accepted for 90 days after publication.
Existing E-Rate rules remain in force during the review. Any final action will depend on public evidence, the commission’s legal authority, and research linking federally supported networks to student outcomes.
