quotes about the negative effects of homework

Quote of the Day
Picture Quotes

Homework Quotes

Standart top banner.

quotes about the negative effects of homework

Nothing is more powerful for your future than being a gatherer of good ideas and information. That's called doing your homework.

A genius is a talented person who does his homework.

Homework strongly indicates that the teachers are not doing their jobs well enough during the school day. It's not like they'll let you bring your home stuff to school and work on it there. You can't say, 'I didn't finish sleeping at home, so I have to work on finishing my sleep here.

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. As a result, a genius is often a talented person who has simply done all of his homework.

Homework is a term that means grown up imposed yet self-afflicting torture.

Persistence is important in every endeavor. Whether it's finishing your homework, completing school, working late to finish a project, or "finishing the drill" in sports, winners persist to the point of sacrifice in order to achieve their goals.

I like a teacher who gives you something to take home to think about besides homework.

Homework, I have discovered, involves a sharp pencil and thick books and long sighs.

You will never get anywhere if you do not do your homework.

We're doing our homework to make sure we're prepared.

Do your homework or hire wise experts to help you. Never jump into a business you have no idea about.

When was the last time you used the words 'teach me'? Maybe not since you started first grade? Here's an irony about school: The daily grind of tests, homework, and pressures sometimes blunts rather than stimulates a thirst for knowledge.

The more you do your homework, the more you're free to be intuitive. But you've got to put the work in.

College is about three things: homework, fun, and sleep...but you can only choose two.

The best schools tend to have the best teachers, not to mention parents who supervise homework, so there is less need for self-organised learning. But where a child comes from a less supportive home environment, where there are family tensions perhaps, their schoolwork can suffer. They need to be taught to think and study for themselves.

One of life's most painful moments comes when we must admit that we didn't do our homework, that we are not prepared.

To overcome stress you have to find out something. You've got to do some research and homework. You need to find out who you are today.

My life is a black hole of boredom and despair." "So basically you've been doing homework." "Like I said, black hole.

Do your homework, study the craft, believe in yourself, and out-work everyone.

Do as much homework as you can. Learn everybody's job and don't just settle.

If you want to be lucky, do your homework.

I'm learning skills I will use for the rest of my life by doing homework...procrastinating and negotiation.

You have got to pay attention, you have got to study and you have to do your homework. You have to score higher than everybody else. Otherwise, there is always somebody there waiting to take your place.

You don’t get rich off your day job, you get rich off your homework.

last adds STANDART BOTTOM BANNER

Send report.

The author didn't say that
There is a mistake in the text of this quote
The quote belongs to another author
Other error

Homework quotes by:

Richelle Mead Author
J. K. Rowling Novelist
Becca Fitzpatrick Author
John Green Author
Barack Obama 44th U.S. President

Top Authors

Get Social with AzQuotes

Follow AzQuotes on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Every day we present the best quotes! Improve yourself, find your inspiration, share with friends

SIDE STANDART BANNER

Javascript and RSS feeds
WordPress plugin
ES Version AZQuotes.ES
Submit Quotes
Privacy Policy

Login with your account

Create account, find your account.

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

Student information
Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Education scholar Denise Pope has found that too much homework has negative effects on student well-being and behavioral engagement. (Image credit: L.A. Cicero)

A Stanford researcher found that too much homework can negatively affect kids, especially their lives away from school, where family, friends and activities matter.

“Our findings on the effects of homework challenge the traditional assumption that homework is inherently good,” wrote Denise Pope , a senior lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and a co-author of a study published in the Journal of Experimental Education .

The researchers used survey data to examine perceptions about homework, student well-being and behavioral engagement in a sample of 4,317 students from 10 high-performing high schools in upper-middle-class California communities. Along with the survey data, Pope and her colleagues used open-ended answers to explore the students’ views on homework.

Median household income exceeded $90,000 in these communities, and 93 percent of the students went on to college, either two-year or four-year.

Students in these schools average about 3.1 hours of homework each night.

“The findings address how current homework practices in privileged, high-performing schools sustain students’ advantage in competitive climates yet hinder learning, full engagement and well-being,” Pope wrote.

Pope and her colleagues found that too much homework can diminish its effectiveness and even be counterproductive. They cite prior research indicating that homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night, and that 90 minutes to two and a half hours is optimal for high school.

Their study found that too much homework is associated with:

* Greater stress: 56 percent of the students considered homework a primary source of stress, according to the survey data. Forty-three percent viewed tests as a primary stressor, while 33 percent put the pressure to get good grades in that category. Less than 1 percent of the students said homework was not a stressor.

* Reductions in health: In their open-ended answers, many students said their homework load led to sleep deprivation and other health problems. The researchers asked students whether they experienced health issues such as headaches, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, weight loss and stomach problems.

* Less time for friends, family and extracurricular pursuits: Both the survey data and student responses indicate that spending too much time on homework meant that students were “not meeting their developmental needs or cultivating other critical life skills,” according to the researchers. Students were more likely to drop activities, not see friends or family, and not pursue hobbies they enjoy.

A balancing act

The results offer empirical evidence that many students struggle to find balance between homework, extracurricular activities and social time, the researchers said. Many students felt forced or obligated to choose homework over developing other talents or skills.

Also, there was no relationship between the time spent on homework and how much the student enjoyed it. The research quoted students as saying they often do homework they see as “pointless” or “mindless” in order to keep their grades up.

“This kind of busy work, by its very nature, discourages learning and instead promotes doing homework simply to get points,” Pope said.

She said the research calls into question the value of assigning large amounts of homework in high-performing schools. Homework should not be simply assigned as a routine practice, she said.

“Rather, any homework assigned should have a purpose and benefit, and it should be designed to cultivate learning and development,” wrote Pope.

High-performing paradox

In places where students attend high-performing schools, too much homework can reduce their time to foster skills in the area of personal responsibility, the researchers concluded. “Young people are spending more time alone,” they wrote, “which means less time for family and fewer opportunities to engage in their communities.”

Student perspectives

The researchers say that while their open-ended or “self-reporting” methodology to gauge student concerns about homework may have limitations – some might regard it as an opportunity for “typical adolescent complaining” – it was important to learn firsthand what the students believe.

The paper was co-authored by Mollie Galloway from Lewis and Clark College and Jerusha Conner from Villanova University.

Media Contacts

Denise Pope, Stanford Graduate School of Education: (650) 725-7412, [email protected] Clifton B. Parker, Stanford News Service: (650) 725-0224, [email protected]

Is homework a necessary evil?

After decades of debate, researchers are still sorting out the truth about homework’s pros and cons. One point they can agree on: Quality assignments matter.

By Kirsten Weir

March 2016, Vol 47, No. 3

Print version: page 36

After decades of debate, researchers are still sorting out the truth about homework’s pros and cons. One point they can agree on: Quality assignments matter.

Schools and Classrooms

Homework battles have raged for decades. For as long as kids have been whining about doing their homework, parents and education reformers have complained that homework's benefits are dubious. Meanwhile many teachers argue that take-home lessons are key to helping students learn. Now, as schools are shifting to the new (and hotly debated) Common Core curriculum standards, educators, administrators and researchers are turning a fresh eye toward the question of homework's value.

But when it comes to deciphering the research literature on the subject, homework is anything but an open book.

The 10-minute rule

In many ways, homework seems like common sense. Spend more time practicing multiplication or studying Spanish vocabulary and you should get better at math or Spanish. But it may not be that simple.

Homework can indeed produce academic benefits, such as increased understanding and retention of the material, says Duke University social psychologist Harris Cooper, PhD, one of the nation's leading homework researchers. But not all students benefit. In a review of studies published from 1987 to 2003, Cooper and his colleagues found that homework was linked to better test scores in high school and, to a lesser degree, in middle school. Yet they found only faint evidence that homework provided academic benefit in elementary school ( Review of Educational Research , 2006).

Then again, test scores aren't everything. Homework proponents also cite the nonacademic advantages it might confer, such as the development of personal responsibility, good study habits and time-management skills. But as to hard evidence of those benefits, "the jury is still out," says Mollie Galloway, PhD, associate professor of educational leadership at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon. "I think there's a focus on assigning homework because [teachers] think it has these positive outcomes for study skills and habits. But we don't know for sure that's the case."

Even when homework is helpful, there can be too much of a good thing. "There is a limit to how much kids can benefit from home study," Cooper says. He agrees with an oft-cited rule of thumb that students should do no more than 10 minutes a night per grade level — from about 10 minutes in first grade up to a maximum of about two hours in high school. Both the National Education Association and National Parent Teacher Association support that limit.

Beyond that point, kids don't absorb much useful information, Cooper says. In fact, too much homework can do more harm than good. Researchers have cited drawbacks, including boredom and burnout toward academic material, less time for family and extracurricular activities, lack of sleep and increased stress.

In a recent study of Spanish students, Rubén Fernández-Alonso, PhD, and colleagues found that students who were regularly assigned math and science homework scored higher on standardized tests. But when kids reported having more than 90 to 100 minutes of homework per day, scores declined ( Journal of Educational Psychology , 2015).

"At all grade levels, doing other things after school can have positive effects," Cooper says. "To the extent that homework denies access to other leisure and community activities, it's not serving the child's best interest."

Children of all ages need down time in order to thrive, says Denise Pope, PhD, a professor of education at Stanford University and a co-founder of Challenge Success, a program that partners with secondary schools to implement policies that improve students' academic engagement and well-being.

"Little kids and big kids need unstructured time for play each day," she says. Certainly, time for physical activity is important for kids' health and well-being. But even time spent on social media can help give busy kids' brains a break, she says.

All over the map

But are teachers sticking to the 10-minute rule? Studies attempting to quantify time spent on homework are all over the map, in part because of wide variations in methodology, Pope says.

A 2014 report by the Brookings Institution examined the question of homework, comparing data from a variety of sources. That report cited findings from a 2012 survey of first-year college students in which 38.4 percent reported spending six hours or more per week on homework during their last year of high school. That was down from 49.5 percent in 1986 ( The Brown Center Report on American Education , 2014).

The Brookings report also explored survey data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which asked 9-, 13- and 17-year-old students how much homework they'd done the previous night. They found that between 1984 and 2012, there was a slight increase in homework for 9-year-olds, but homework amounts for 13- and 17-year-olds stayed roughly the same, or even decreased slightly.

Yet other evidence suggests that some kids might be taking home much more work than they can handle. Robert Pressman, PhD, and colleagues recently investigated the 10-minute rule among more than 1,100 students, and found that elementary-school kids were receiving up to three times as much homework as recommended. As homework load increased, so did family stress, the researchers found ( American Journal of Family Therapy , 2015).

Many high school students also seem to be exceeding the recommended amounts of homework. Pope and Galloway recently surveyed more than 4,300 students from 10 high-achieving high schools. Students reported bringing home an average of just over three hours of homework nightly ( Journal of Experiential Education , 2013).

On the positive side, students who spent more time on homework in that study did report being more behaviorally engaged in school — for instance, giving more effort and paying more attention in class, Galloway says. But they were not more invested in the homework itself. They also reported greater academic stress and less time to balance family, friends and extracurricular activities. They experienced more physical health problems as well, such as headaches, stomach troubles and sleep deprivation. "Three hours per night is too much," Galloway says.

In the high-achieving schools Pope and Galloway studied, more than 90 percent of the students go on to college. There's often intense pressure to succeed academically, from both parents and peers. On top of that, kids in these communities are often overloaded with extracurricular activities, including sports and clubs. "They're very busy," Pope says. "Some kids have up to 40 hours a week — a full-time job's worth — of extracurricular activities." And homework is yet one more commitment on top of all the others.

"Homework has perennially acted as a source of stress for students, so that piece of it is not new," Galloway says. "But especially in upper-middle-class communities, where the focus is on getting ahead, I think the pressure on students has been ratcheted up."

Yet homework can be a problem at the other end of the socioeconomic spectrum as well. Kids from wealthier homes are more likely to have resources such as computers, Internet connections, dedicated areas to do schoolwork and parents who tend to be more educated and more available to help them with tricky assignments. Kids from disadvantaged homes are more likely to work at afterschool jobs, or to be home without supervision in the evenings while their parents work multiple jobs, says Lea Theodore, PhD, a professor of school psychology at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. They are less likely to have computers or a quiet place to do homework in peace.

"Homework can highlight those inequities," she says.

Quantity vs. quality

One point researchers agree on is that for all students, homework quality matters. But too many kids are feeling a lack of engagement with their take-home assignments, many experts say. In Pope and Galloway's research, only 20 percent to 30 percent of students said they felt their homework was useful or meaningful.

"Students are assigned a lot of busywork. They're naming it as a primary stressor, but they don't feel it's supporting their learning," Galloway says.

"Homework that's busywork is not good for anyone," Cooper agrees. Still, he says, different subjects call for different kinds of assignments. "Things like vocabulary and spelling are learned through practice. Other kinds of courses require more integration of material and drawing on different skills."

But critics say those skills can be developed with many fewer hours of homework each week. Why assign 50 math problems, Pope asks, when 10 would be just as constructive? One Advanced Placement biology teacher she worked with through Challenge Success experimented with cutting his homework assignments by a third, and then by half. "Test scores didn't go down," she says. "You can have a rigorous course and not have a crazy homework load."

Still, changing the culture of homework won't be easy. Teachers-to-be get little instruction in homework during their training, Pope says. And despite some vocal parents arguing that kids bring home too much homework, many others get nervous if they think their child doesn't have enough. "Teachers feel pressured to give homework because parents expect it to come home," says Galloway. "When it doesn't, there's this idea that the school might not be doing its job."

Galloway argues teachers and school administrators need to set clear goals when it comes to homework — and parents and students should be in on the discussion, too. "It should be a broader conversation within the community, asking what's the purpose of homework? Why are we giving it? Who is it serving? Who is it not serving?"

Until schools and communities agree to take a hard look at those questions, those backpacks full of take-home assignments will probably keep stirring up more feelings than facts.

Letters to the Editor

Send us a letter

Is it time to get rid of homework? Mental health experts weigh in.

It's no secret that kids hate homework. And as students grapple with an ongoing pandemic that has had a wide range of mental health impacts, is it time schools start listening to their pleas about workloads?

Some teachers are turning to social media to take a stand against homework.

Tiktok user @misguided.teacher says he doesn't assign it because the "whole premise of homework is flawed."

For starters, he says, he can't grade work on "even playing fields" when students' home environments can be vastly different.

"Even students who go home to a peaceful house, do they really want to spend their time on busy work? Because typically that's what a lot of homework is, it's busy work," he says in the video that has garnered 1.6 million likes. "You only get one year to be 7, you only got one year to be 10, you only get one year to be 16, 18."

Mental health experts agree heavy workloads have the potential do more harm than good for students, especially when taking into account the impacts of the pandemic. But they also say the answer may not be to eliminate homework altogether.

Emmy Kang, mental health counselor at Humantold , says studies have shown heavy workloads can be "detrimental" for students and cause a "big impact on their mental, physical and emotional health."

"More than half of students say that homework is their primary source of stress, and we know what stress can do on our bodies," she says, adding that staying up late to finish assignments also leads to disrupted sleep and exhaustion.

Cynthia Catchings, a licensed clinical social worker and therapist at Talkspace , says heavy workloads can also cause serious mental health problems in the long run, like anxiety and depression.

And for all the distress homework can cause, it's not as useful as many may think, says Dr. Nicholas Kardaras, a psychologist and CEO of Omega Recovery treatment center.

"The research shows that there's really limited benefit of homework for elementary age students, that really the school work should be contained in the classroom," he says.

For older students, Kang says, homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night.

"Most students, especially at these high achieving schools, they're doing a minimum of three hours, and it's taking away time from their friends, from their families, their extracurricular activities. And these are all very important things for a person's mental and emotional health."

Catchings, who also taught third to 12th graders for 12 years, says she's seen the positive effects of a no-homework policy while working with students abroad.

"Not having homework was something that I always admired from the French students (and) the French schools, because that was helping the students to really have the time off and really disconnect from school," she says.

The answer may not be to eliminate homework completely but to be more mindful of the type of work students take home, suggests Kang, who was a high school teacher for 10 years.

"I don't think (we) should scrap homework; I think we should scrap meaningless, purposeless busy work-type homework. That's something that needs to be scrapped entirely," she says, encouraging teachers to be thoughtful and consider the amount of time it would take for students to complete assignments.

The pandemic made the conversation around homework more crucial

Mindfulness surrounding homework is especially important in the context of the past two years. Many students will be struggling with mental health issues that were brought on or worsened by the pandemic , making heavy workloads even harder to balance.

"COVID was just a disaster in terms of the lack of structure. Everything just deteriorated," Kardaras says, pointing to an increase in cognitive issues and decrease in attention spans among students. "School acts as an anchor for a lot of children, as a stabilizing force, and that disappeared."

But even if students transition back to the structure of in-person classes, Kardaras suspects students may still struggle after two school years of shifted schedules and disrupted sleeping habits.

"We've seen adults struggling to go back to in-person work environments from remote work environments. That effect is amplified with children because children have less resources to be able to cope with those transitions than adults do," he explains.

'Get organized' ahead of back-to-school

In order to make the transition back to in-person school easier, Kang encourages students to "get good sleep, exercise regularly (and) eat a healthy diet."

To help manage workloads, she suggests students "get organized."

"There's so much mental clutter up there when you're disorganized. ... Sitting down and planning out their study schedules can really help manage their time," she says.

Breaking up assignments can also make things easier to tackle.

"I know that heavy workloads can be stressful, but if you sit down and you break down that studying into smaller chunks, they're much more manageable."

If workloads are still too much, Kang encourages students to advocate for themselves.

"They should tell their teachers when a homework assignment just took too much time or if it was too difficult for them to do on their own," she says. "It's good to speak up and ask those questions. Respectfully, of course, because these are your teachers. But still, I think sometimes teachers themselves need this feedback from their students."

More: Some teachers let their students sleep in class. Here's what mental health experts say.

More: Some parents are slipping young kids in for the COVID-19 vaccine, but doctors discourage the move as 'risky'

Choose your language

Books in English
Other languages
Infographics
Hattie Ranking
John Hattie

John Hattie on BBC Radio 4: “Homework in primary school has an effect of zero”

“Homework in primary school has an effect of around zero”, says Professor John Hattie. But what does really work in education, schools and classrooms around the world? Every week Sarah Montague interviews the people whose ideas are challenging the future of education, like Sugata Mitra, Sir Ken Robinson and the headmaster of Eton College Tony Little. In August John Hattie, Professor of Education at the University of Melbourne, was her guest at BBC Radio 4. You can listen to the whole interview with John Hattie following this link (28 mins). Here are some quick takeaways. If you want to read further about what works best in education you can order the books Visible Learning and Visible Learning for Teachers .

Visible Learning: Buy the book VL for Teachers: Buy the book

John Hattie about class size

“Well, the first thing is, reducing class size does enhance achievement. However, the magnitude of that effect is tiny. It’s about a hundred and fifth out of a hundred and thirty odd different effects out there and it’s just one of those enigmas and the only question to ask is why is that effect so small? Because it is small. And the reason, we’ve found out, that it’s so small is because teachers don’t change how they teach when they go from a class of thirty to fifteen and perhaps it’s not surprising.”

John Hattie about public vs private schools

“Here in England, if you take out the prior differences from going to a private school where they tend to get parents who choose, as oppose to them sent to the local school, they tend to get a brighter student, you take that out, there’s not much difference. In many places the government school would be better. So, it’s kind of ironic, in the last twenty years where we’ve pushed this notion that parents have choice, so they can choose the school that may not be in the best interest of their student.”

John Hattie about homework

“Homework in primary school has an effect of around zero. In high school it’s larger. (…) Which is why we need to get it right. Not why we need to get rid of it. It’s one of those lower hanging fruit that we should be looking in our primary schools to say, “Is it really making a difference?” If you try and get rid of homework in primary schools many parents judge the quality of the school by the presence of homework. So, don’t get rid of it. Treat the zero as saying, “It’s probably not making much of a difference but let’s improve it”. Certainly I think we get over obsessed with homework. Five to ten minutes has the same effect of one hour to two hours. The worst thing you can do with homework is give kids projects. The best thing you can do is to reinforce something you’ve already learnt.”

John Hattie about streaming

“It doesn’t make a difference.” Sarah Montague: “But bright kids aren’t held back by less bright and less bright not suffering?” “No. No difference at all. No. Teachers think it’s easier for them and it may be but in terms of the effects of students, no. Now you’ve got to remember that a lot of students gain a tremendous amount of their learning from their other students in the class and variability is the way that you get more of that kind of learning from other students.”

Listen to the whole interview with John Hattie at BBC Radio 4 . If you want to read further you can order the books Visible Learning and Visible Learning for Teachers.

BBC Radio 4: The Educators . Sarah Montague interviews the people whose ideas are challenging the future of education. Episode 2: John Hattie Duration: 28 minutes First broadcast: 20 August 2014 Presenter: Sarah Montague Producer: Joel Moors.

38 comments on “ John Hattie on BBC Radio 4: “Homework in primary school has an effect of zero” ”

John Hattie Homework I beg to differ, depends on what type ! E.g. Cook a meal with mum or day, explain today’s Math to a family member, read the last chapter of a book, make a touch cast report of your pet, use time laps photography with your iPad to show the growth of a seed into a plant, find Mars using an iPad app, create a billboard online that promotes one of the current issues ….

And I quote: So, don’t get rid of it. Treat the zero as saying, “It’s probably not making much of a difference but let’s improve it”.

I agree. What can we do to give it a greater effect? “Flipped” classrooms for example have a great effect on student learning as modern research shows.

Spot on.I work in Dubai and that’s how we plan homework. No rote but just enriching linkage to lessons learnt. Our kids enjoy these and are eager to share their experiences and learn tremendously from each other! !

All well and good if the parents can afford an iPad……….

Spot on John. Also, maybe let them chose from several options an activity which is of interest to them.

Why Is no one pointing out the fact of once these kids go to a higher grades the shock of how much of a load of homework will be a complete wreck them. My son was in 4th and he had homework and he hated doing it now he’s in 5th and the no homework rule is in place but once he hits 6th grade he will have it as again and i know sixth grade is always a shock for most kids. So I strongly disagree so we give him reading every night and review with him what he learned in class each day

Good revision routines prepare kids adequately

I use to be an advocate for streaming but I was wrong… kids learn best when there are varied abilities in the room. Class sizes don’t matter… quality instruction … minimal instruction .. maximum participation for students… and yes homework is over rated.

Based on what research? Im not saying you’re wrong, just curious what facts you’re using to support your opinion.

very simple data and anecdotal evidence.

Empirical research from over 800 meta-analysis — hardly “simple data” nor “anecdotal”. Evidence-based.

It’s John Hattie, are you a dinosaur? What current educational research sites don’t draw on his ongoing research?

These comments are reflecting what research the Sutton trust has accumulated. It shows that homework and class size make no difference and the thing that makes the most difference is noticing children’s responses and adjusting immediately according to them. In my head, this is obviously easier to do well with a smaller class. So if you want good teaching and not burn teachers out trying to individually respond to 32 children in each lesson, then reducing class size will make a difference. But class size in itself doesn’t. I also think that we have a large number of children who need nurturing not just teaching facts. So again a smaller class is beneficial to this end.

When a class size goes down to 5 then there are massive differences in learning. I was on a college course and for some reason, which I have forgotten, there were only 5 students on my engineering course. The teacher had a much better understanding of what we knew and on the effect of his teaching. We all got straight A’s.

It’s all about the quality of what is happening in the learning environment not the number students. A good teacher will have a good impact with 14 or 40 kids. You have to change what you do to meet the needs of the students.

I believe class size does make a difference. It certainly did with my daughter. Not from a teaching perspective, but from a learning perspective. The more students in a classroom, the more distractions and behavioral issues there are. My daughter is not a child who is easily distracted, but two years ago, she left public school and switched to online learning with a small amount of students in her class. She said there is a huge difference in the number of times the teacher has to stop the lesson in order to reprimand a student.

If students spent the first 3 years K-2 learning to get along in a classroom-how to work as a group and other social skills, there would be less disruptions in classrooms. Sone children at that you age are not neurologically developed enough to handle all of the reading, writing and math thrown at the lower grade levels. Throw some numbers and letters at them while building on their social skills and they will be much more successful students from 3rd grad and up.

The problem with Hattie’s research is that it is not primary school based but rather based across all schools from preschool to tertiary. Smaller classes make a huge difference especially in the junior school and it is covert teacher bashing to say that the teachers don’t change with smaller classes. They can and they do. They can’t with larger classes no matter how skilled they are. It’s the same with home work. If the homework is being encouraged to work with mum or dad in the kitchen or the garden por encouraging parents to read and act out stories with their children these will make massive differences to achievement.

I agree completely. Last year I was lucky enough to have a class of 18 for the best part of the year. I do believe the spring in my step made me a better teacher. A number of my D students became B’s. I believe in a normal class grouping I would have been lucky to get them to a C. I don’t think Prof. Hattie can measure my stress levels. There was so much joy in teaching my little group of children!

Jules, I completely agree with you. Hattie has, as far as I’m aware, never done research on the effect of larger/smaller class sizes on teacher stress levels and less/more time to think, prepare and spend more time with individual students. Of course, there are methods designed to maximise the learning of larger classes, but there is a huge time saving in marking a class of 18 essays to marking, say, 30. The time saved can be invested in lesson preparation, or even, time to just think! John Hattie was a maths teacher, though, so I guess he didn’t mark too many essays…

Jules you are so right! With the complexities of children’s personal lives having a smaller class enables us to have time to address their individual needs both personally and academically. We can then feel happier in our ability to fulfill each child’s needs which gives another avenue to help reduce our stress levels.

Not a fan of homework, except as a little revision, especially in primary school. My 5 children attended a state primary school, which had multi-age classrooms, which assisted children to learn at their own pace. It worked. It was also a Glasser school, which helped with socialisation. My eldest child is 27, and has Asperger’s Syndrome. The other 4 have all been accepted at tertiary institutions. All but one of those 4 were educated completely at state schools, with 1 attending a private school for her last 3 years of school, at her own request, for social (not academic) reasons. Perhaps children, especially boys, should begin school at a later age.

Having read and used Professor Hattie’s research in order to make positive impacts on student learning and outcomes, and having listened to many interviews, I can honestly say I have never felt that he covertly bashes teachers with his findings. The opposite in fact. I have always found Professor Hattie to speak positively of teachers. As a teacher, I wish more people in the public arena would validate what we do.

hang on. I remember like it was yesterday that when I was put down a group I immediately sank down to the equivalent level in that group. Ie in footballing terms, relegation zone in premiership led to relegation zone in championship. And how come nobody mentions the threat of being beaten up (let’s call it bullied) for doing well in the “second set” group? That was also a very real threat. You certainly didnt want to shine once you were relegated. Why does nobody mention this? Presumably this is a neutral site?

I agree as a parent i believe homework makes a difference….provided parent/s are involved. 1. I know what my child is learning in school. 2. I can pick up what my child needs extra attention to work on, help her with it and bring this to the teacher’s attention. 3. Show an interest in what my child is doing during her day. Only helps build on a stronger family unit.

Why is it, that never is there a word about student behaviour and the huge effect it has on learning, not just for the behaviour problem students, but for all children within that classroom! Unacceptable behaviour can keep a classroom in an upheaval . Also, the undesirable effects of hard drugs while in the womb…also alcohol! Then we have undernourishment and exhausted children. And we must not forget the trauma many are experiencing…separated parents, bickering parents, living in households where adults are smoking inside, eating a diet of processed foods, a parent or parents drinking to extremes on a daily basis, sexual abuse, seeing a parent being abused… and I could go on! All of these things and more are what many children are experiencing on a daily basis. Change will take place in the classroom and learning will take place when things change first in our homes and in our lives. It is the parents responsibility and we need to hand it back to them!

Couldn’t agree more with Elizabeth’s comments – but when you have an inspired and passionate teacher who can see beyond the behaviour and identify the effects of trauma in a youngster – the impact on that child, that class can be huge! Critical skills training can be invaluable – visible learning at worst can lead to children becoming statistics in the forensic analysis of data when actually they will gain more and teachers will have more of an impact with 5 minutes of care and concern and perhaps being the only person that has spent 5 minutes 1:1 with that child! Real relational trust takes time and genuine concern and interest in children developing and progressing – what is an assessment capable learner? Sounds like a robot!

Behavior is a big learning factor for the student with behaviors and those around them. Our son has a diagnoses with multiple co-morbids ADHD/Anxiety/OCD/Depresson/PTSD/Sensory disorder. The depression and PTSD was brought on in his therapist’s opinion by using peers to assist in helping other students, which doesn’t always have a positive impact and bullying at school.

It got to the point where he was taking 3 stimulants, a mood stabilizer and an anxiety med just to make it through the school day. And then he’d come home and have so much homework he never got to go outside to run off his excessive energy and then 3 more pills to bring him down so he could sleep. Not to mention the ill side effects of weight gain (he’s a 7th grader now 5’5 and weighs 200 pounds thats horrifying).

We pulled him out of mainstream school last year, weaned him off all meds and home school now. His self confidence is building, the weight is slowly coming off and he’ll be done early with the program we bought mainly because he can fly thru what interests him and he already has a wealth of information on and he can spend more time working on new information. We APPLY his lessons to his every day life.

All that being said maybe less pressure should be put on the child having homework and more time spent on educating parents about what their child is being taught and how to apply it to their every day life. As a daycare provider I know that not all parents will back a teacher up but I do think that they’d be surprised how many parents would.

Very interesting thoughts. To say it has zero effect seems a bit far fetched for all students. It depends on the quality of the school and quality of life at home. I work with low income students who seem to not have much education at home. The homework the teachers send helps us evaluate where the children are and help increase their education even if the parents are not involved in their education. Children with strong support systems probably benefit by helping around the house more and being a great part of the community.

Hattie’s work should be taken for what it is–superficial with blunders https://ollieorange2.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/half-of-the-statistics-in-visible-learning-are-wrong-part-2/

Yes I agree with Hattie when he says, “a lot of students gain a tremendous amount of their learning from their other students in the class.” Empirical evidence in my class has shown for those who are “not into” a particular subject, their influence (teaching) on others to fall behind, not engage in activities and not do the work is infectious. Make it more interesting people say, how interesting can you make a football game for those wanting to do ballet? Put them on the field and they will learn though, they will learn to avoid playing against the Alphas at all costs so the best solution, get into trouble to avoid having to integrate, cause trouble so the lessons gets dragged out. All of these theories I’m sure work, but it needs a tag line: They work “in the ideal world.” The fact is that we don’t live in one.

I’m not sure what you mean by integrate? Please forgive me if I’m wrong. I take your comment to say that if a child doesn’t itegrate into the classroom setting, they’ll fail at adulthood?

We have two older children with ADHD and they never truly integrated into the school system but outside school in their ongoing education and career’s they’ve chose career’s in fast paced, every changing fields one medical, one education and they’re excelling. Failure to integrate into a classroom setting does not automatically set a child up for failure in their adult life.

It’s parents who drive the homework. They think it’ll make their kids smarter. Teachers are under pressure to give kids extra work. A lot of teachers would rather not give homework. Reading with an adult is the best thing you can do for your child.

Teaching kids to be happy versus give them more work so they dont have time to find out for themselves or worse keeping them miserable

Homework that reinforces the application of skills and knowlegde already taught will prove to be purposeful. The time spent on homework must be in keeping with the concentration span of the child. It should not be an extension of the school day. 6 to 9 year olds learn best through play. Written tasks rob them of that opportunity to explore whilst developing valuable life skills.

When we know better, our moral obligation is to do better. Saying, “Yeah, I see this research. It just doesn’t fit with what I believe” is a profession of non-professionalism.

Hattie is a fraud. Unfortunately, many seem to have been taken in by his profoundly flawed research and his political motives.

11 other websites write about for "John Hattie on BBC Radio 4: “Homework in primary school has an effect of zero”"

[…] What really works in education, schools and classrooms around the world? Every week Sarah Montague interviews the people whose ideas are challenging the future of education, like Sugata Mitra, Sir Ken Robinson and the headmaster of Eton College Tony Little.…Read more › […]

[…] may be interested in John Hattie’s homework interview on the BBC recently. Professor Hattie is a leading and highly regarded educationalist and his […]

[…] What really works in education, schools and classrooms around the world? […]

[…] synest å seie at elevar med mykje lekser får dårlegare karakterar, medan velkjende John Hattie konkluderer med at “homework in primary school has an effect of […]

[…] John Hattie […]

[…] Homework in primary school has an effect of around zero. Which is why we need to get it right. Not why we need to get rid of it. John Hattie BBC interview. […]

[…] John Hattie, Professor of Education at the University of Melbourne, was her guest at BBC Radio 4. Read more or listen to the full […]

[…] educational researcher John Hattie interviewed on a few matters including Homework. Here’s the clip to listen […]

[…] prøver å være må vi ta inn over oss den forskning som er på lekser. Tradisjonelle lekser er verdiløse læringsinstrumenter i småskolen. Forskeren John Hattie (Det er han vi bruker for å fortelle at «forskning viser at […]

[…] First we explore our memories of homework as students, then our experiences as teachers, before introducing an outside source, in this episode,it’s ASCD’s article which quotes the The National PTA and the National Education Association “10-minute rule.” Also, check out John Hattie’s research on homework “effect size” here. […]

Is it time to get rid of homework? Mental health experts weigh in

by Sara M Moniuszko

It's no secret that kids hate homework. And as students grapple with an ongoing pandemic that has had a wide-range of mental health impacts, is it time schools start listening to their pleas over workloads?

Some teachers are turning to social media to take a stand against homework .

Tiktok user @misguided.teacher says he doesn't assign it because the "whole premise of homework is flawed."

For starters, he says he can't grade work on "even playing fields" when students' home environments can be vastly different.

Mental health experts agree heavy work loads have the potential do more harm than good for students, especially when taking into account the impacts of the pandemic. But they also say the answer may not be to eliminate homework altogether.

Emmy Kang, mental health counselor at Humantold, says studies have shown heavy workloads can be "detrimental" for students and cause a "big impact on their mental, physical and emotional health."

Cynthia Catchings, a licensed clinical social worker and therapist at Talkspace, says heavy workloads can also cause serious mental health problems in the long run, like anxiety and depression.

And for all the distress homework causes, it's not as useful as many may think, says Dr. Nicholas Kardaras, a psychologist and CEO of Omega Recovery treatment center.

"The research shows that there's really limited benefit of homework for elementary age students, that really the school work should be contained in the classroom," he says.

For older students, Kang says homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night.

"Most students, especially at these high-achieving schools, they're doing a minimum of three hours, and it's taking away time from their friends from their families, their extracurricular activities. And these are all very important things for a person's mental and emotional health."

Catchings, who also taught third to 12th graders for 12 years, says she's seen the positive effects of a no homework policy while working with students abroad.

The answer may not be to eliminate homework completely, but to be more mindful of the type of work students go home with, suggests Kang, who was a high-school teacher for 10 years.

"I don't think (we) should scrap homework, I think we should scrap meaningless, purposeless busy work-type homework. That's something that needs to be scrapped entirely," she says, encouraging teachers to be thoughtful and consider the amount of time it would take for students to complete assignments.

The pandemic made the conversation around homework more crucial

Mindfulness surrounding homework is especially important in the context of the last two years. Many students will be struggling with mental health issues that were brought on or worsened by the pandemic, making heavy workloads even harder to balance.

But even if students transition back to the structure of in-person classes, Kardaras suspects students may still struggle after two school years of shifted schedules and disrupted sleeping habits.

'Get organized' ahead of back-to-school

In order to make the transition back to in-person school easier, Kang encourages students to "get good sleep, exercise regularly (and) eat a healthy diet."

To help manage workloads, she suggests students "get organized."

"There's so much mental clutter up there when you're disorganized... sitting down and planning out their study schedules can really help manage their time," she says.

Breaking assignments up can also make things easier to tackle.

"I know that heavy workloads can be stressful, but if you sit down and you break down that studying into smaller chunks, they're much more manageable."

If workloads are still too much, Kang encourages students to advocate for themselves.

Explore further

Feedback to editors

New fish species discovered in Mauritanian deep-water coral reefs

1 minute ago

New supramolecular polymer shows spontaneous unfolding and aggregation

'Molecular Compass' points way to reduction of animal testing

Pioneering research discovers PFOS chemical pollution in platypuses

5 minutes ago

New research analyzes 'Finnegans Wake' for novel spacing between punctuation marks

17 minutes ago

Genomic research focuses on medical potential for scorpion venom

36 minutes ago

New forensics technique measures individual DNA shedding to aid criminal investigations

38 minutes ago

Novel ratchet mechanism uses a geometrically symmetric gear driven by asymmetric surface wettability

43 minutes ago

'Amazon' algae shed light on what happens to populations when females switch to asexual reproduction

51 minutes ago

New simulations shed light on stellar destruction by supermassive black holes

54 minutes ago

Relevant PhysicsForums posts

Incandescent bulbs in teaching.

19 hours ago

How to explain Bell's theorem to non-scientists

Aug 18, 2024

Free Abstract Algebra curriculum in Urdu and Hindi

Aug 17, 2024

Sources to study basic logic for precocious 10-year old?

Jul 21, 2024

Kumon Math and Similar Programs

Jul 19, 2024

AAPT 2024 Summer Meeting Boston, MA (July 2024) - are you going?

Jul 4, 2024

Smartphones are lowering student's grades, study finds

Aug 18, 2020

Doing homework is associated with change in students' personality

Oct 6, 2017

Scholar suggests ways to craft more effective homework assignments

Oct 1, 2015

Should parents help their kids with homework?

Aug 29, 2019

How much math, science homework is too much?

Mar 23, 2015

Anxiety, depression, burnout rising as college students prepare to return to campus

Jul 26, 2021

Recommended for you

Statistical analysis can detect when ChatGPT is used to cheat on multiple-choice chemistry exams

Aug 14, 2024

Larger teams in academic research worsen career prospects, study finds

The 'knowledge curse': More isn't necessarily better

Aug 7, 2024

Visiting an art exhibition can make you think more socially and openly—but for how long?

Aug 6, 2024

Autonomy boosts college student attendance and performance

Jul 31, 2024

Study reveals young scientists face career hurdles in interdisciplinary research

Jul 29, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

The New York Times

The Opinion Pages

Homework’s diminishing returns.

Harris Cooper is chairman of the department of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University and author of "The Battle Over Homework."

Updated December 12, 2010, 7:00 PM

The horror stories I hear from parents and students about five or more hours spent on homework a night fly in the face of evidence of what’s best for kids, even what’s best for promoting academic achievement.

After a certain amount of homework the positive effect on achievement disappears, and even might turn negative.

My colleagues and I have conducted a combined analysis of dozens of homework studies to examine whether homework is beneficial and what amount of homework is appropriate for our children.

The homework question is best answered by comparing students who are assigned homework with students assigned no homework but who are similar in other ways. The results of such studies suggest that homework can improve students’ scores on the class tests that come at the end of a topic. This happens regardless of grade level and subject matter.

Yet other studies simply correlate the amount of homework students do and their achievement. These studies don’t attempt to control for student differences. About three-quarters find the link between homework and achievement is positive. But, most interesting, these results also suggest that after a certain amount of homework the positive relationship disappears and might even get negative.

So, research is consistent with the notion that homework can be a good thing if the dose is appropriate to the student’s age or developmental level.

How much homework should students do? The National PTA and the National Education Association have a parent guide that suggests 10-20 minutes of homework in grades K-2, 30 to 60 minutes in grades 3-6. Many school district policies state that high school students should expect about 30 minutes of homework for each academic course they take, a bit more for honors or advanced placement courses. Educators refer to this as “the 10 Minute Rule”: multiply a child’s grade by 10 and that’s the rough guide for minutes of homework a night. That recommendation is consistent with the conclusions reached by our research analysis.

A little amount of homework may help elementary school students build study habits and learn skills developed through practice. Homework for junior high students appears to reach the point of diminishing returns after about 90 minutes a night. For high school students, the positive line continues to climb until between 90 minutes and two and half hours of homework a night, after which returns diminish.

Beyond achievement, proponents of homework argue that it can help students develop good study habits as their cognitive capacities mature, foster independent learning and responsible character traits. And it can give parents opportunity to see what’s going on at school.

Opponents of homework counter that it can also have negative effects, like increasing boredom with schoolwork and reducing the time students have to spend on leisure activities that teach important life skills. Parents can get too involved in homework — pressuring their child and confusing him by using different instructional techniques from those used by the teacher.

My feeling is that the effects of homework depends on how well, or poorly, it is used. In general, teachers should avoid extremes. All children can benefit from homework but it is a very rare child who will benefit from hours and hours of homework. The fact is, too much homework not only crowds out time for other activities and increases stress on kids but there is no evidence that those last three hours of a five hour homework binge accomplishes what it set out to do, improve learning.

Topics: Education , schools , students

What Happened to Childhood?

The Home-School Advantage

Stress and the high school student, reconsider attitudes about success.

It Starts Before High School

Change the Pace of the School Day

Related Discussions

Recent Discussions

Homework: An Hour a Day Is All the Experts Say

Too much homework can be counterproductive..

Posted April 20, 2015

What Is Stress?
Take our Burnout Test
Find a therapist to overcome stress

How much time does your teen spend doing busy school work each night? According to a recent study, if it's more than one hour… then it's too much. A study from Spain published in the Journal of Educational Psychology by the American Psychological Association found that spending more than one hour on math and science homework can be counterproductive. Students seem to gain the most benefit when a small amount of homework is consistently assigned, rather than large portions assigned at once.

The study examined the performance of 7,725 public and private school students (mean age 13.78 years). Students answered questions about the frequency of homework assigned and how long it took them to complete assignments. Researchers looked at standardized tests to examine academic performance in math and science. They found that students in Spain spent approximately one to two hours per day doing homework. Compare that to studies that indicate American students spent more than three hours a day doing homework!

Researchers found that teachers who assigned 90-100 minutes of homework per day had students who performed poorer on standardized tests than those with less homework. However when teachers consistently assigned small amounts of homework students scored nearly 50 points higher on standardized test than those who had daunting amounts of homework. Another interesting finding from this study was students who were assigned about 70 minutes of homework, of which they needed help from someone else to complete, scored in the 50th percentile on standardized tests. Whereas those who were assigned the same amount of homework, but could do it independently, scored in the 70th percentile. So clearly, not only is the amount of homework assigned of importance, but so is the ability to master it independently.

There are several possible explanations for these findings. First, teachers may be using homework as a means to cover what was not completed in class. So rather than practicing concepts taught in class, students are left to self-teach material not covered in class. Homework should supplement learning, and not be used as a tool to keep up with a curriculum pacing guide. Another explanation for testing gains is those who work to master material independently experience more academic success.

The study out of Spain supports findings from another study published a year ago published in the Journal of Experimental Education which found that too much homework can have a negative impact on teens’ lives outside of the academic setting. In this study, researchers surveyed 4,317 American high school students’ perceptions about homework, in relation to their well-being and behavioral engagement in school work. On average, these students reported spending approximately 3.1 hours of homework each night—a far reach from the hour per night recommendation by the first study.

This second study found that too much homework can be counterproductive and diminish the effectiveness of learning. The negative effects of lots of homework can far outweigh the positive ones. Researchers found that a lot of homework can result in:

Students reported high levels of stress associated with school work. Below is the breakdown of student responses.

56% of students in this study reported that homework was a primary source of stress 43% of students in this study reported that tests were another source of stress 33% of students in this study reported that pressure to get good grades was a source of stress

• Physical Problems:

Students reported that homework led to:

poor sleep frequent headaches gastro intestinal problems weight loss/gain.

• Social life problems.

How can students expect to spend time with others when they are too busy completing homework? Students reported that having too much school work keeps them from spending time with friends and family.

Plus too much school work keep them from participating in extra-curricular activities and engaging in activities they enjoy doing. Interestingly, many students reported that homework was a “pointless” or “mindless” way to keep their grades up. In other words… it was "busy" work.

When is homework beneficial? If homework is used as a tool to facilitate learning and reinforce concepts taught in the classroom then it enriches students academic experience. While homework does serve a purpose, so does having a life outside of school. Sometimes social development can be just as important as academic development. So the answer may be helping youth find a balance between school and social life.

Journal Reference:

Rubén Fernández-Alonso, Javier Suárez-Álvarez, José Muñiz. Adolescents’ Homework Performance in Mathematics and Science: Personal Factors and Teaching Practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2015; DOI:10.1037/edu0000032

Raychelle Cassada Lohman n , M.S., LPC, is the author of The Anger Workbook for Teens .

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Does Homework Really Help Students Learn?

A conversation with a Wheelock researcher, a BU student, and a fourth-grade teacher

“Quality homework is engaging and relevant to kids’ lives,” says Wheelock’s Janine Bempechat. “It gives them autonomy and engages them in the community and with their families. In some subjects, like math, worksheets can be very helpful. It has to do with the value of practicing over and over.” Photo by iStock/Glenn Cook Photography

Do your homework.

If only it were that simple.

Educators have debated the merits of homework since the late 19th century. In recent years, amid concerns of some parents and teachers that children are being stressed out by too much homework, things have only gotten more fraught.

“Homework is complicated,” says developmental psychologist Janine Bempechat, a Wheelock College of Education & Human Development clinical professor. The author of the essay “ The Case for (Quality) Homework—Why It Improves Learning and How Parents Can Help ” in the winter 2019 issue of Education Next , Bempechat has studied how the debate about homework is influencing teacher preparation, parent and student beliefs about learning, and school policies.

She worries especially about socioeconomically disadvantaged students from low-performing schools who, according to research by Bempechat and others, get little or no homework.

BU Today sat down with Bempechat and Erin Bruce (Wheelock’17,’18), a new fourth-grade teacher at a suburban Boston school, and future teacher freshman Emma Ardizzone (Wheelock) to talk about what quality homework looks like, how it can help children learn, and how schools can equip teachers to design it, evaluate it, and facilitate parents’ role in it.

BU Today: Parents and educators who are against homework in elementary school say there is no research definitively linking it to academic performance for kids in the early grades. You’ve said that they’re missing the point.

Bempechat : I think teachers assign homework in elementary school as a way to help kids develop skills they’ll need when they’re older—to begin to instill a sense of responsibility and to learn planning and organizational skills. That’s what I think is the greatest value of homework—in cultivating beliefs about learning and skills associated with academic success. If we greatly reduce or eliminate homework in elementary school, we deprive kids and parents of opportunities to instill these important learning habits and skills.

We do know that beginning in late middle school, and continuing through high school, there is a strong and positive correlation between homework completion and academic success.

That’s what I think is the greatest value of homework—in cultivating beliefs about learning and skills associated with academic success.

You talk about the importance of quality homework. What is that?

Quality homework is engaging and relevant to kids’ lives. It gives them autonomy and engages them in the community and with their families. In some subjects, like math, worksheets can be very helpful. It has to do with the value of practicing over and over.

What are your concerns about homework and low-income children?

The argument that some people make—that homework “punishes the poor” because lower-income parents may not be as well-equipped as affluent parents to help their children with homework—is very troubling to me. There are no parents who don’t care about their children’s learning. Parents don’t actually have to help with homework completion in order for kids to do well. They can help in other ways—by helping children organize a study space, providing snacks, being there as a support, helping children work in groups with siblings or friends.

Isn’t the discussion about getting rid of homework happening mostly in affluent communities?

Yes, and the stories we hear of kids being stressed out from too much homework—four or five hours of homework a night—are real. That’s problematic for physical and mental health and overall well-being. But the research shows that higher-income students get a lot more homework than lower-income kids.

Teachers may not have as high expectations for lower-income children. Schools should bear responsibility for providing supports for kids to be able to get their homework done—after-school clubs, community support, peer group support. It does kids a disservice when our expectations are lower for them.

The conversation around homework is to some extent a social class and social justice issue. If we eliminate homework for all children because affluent children have too much, we’re really doing a disservice to low-income children. They need the challenge, and every student can rise to the challenge with enough supports in place.

What did you learn by studying how education schools are preparing future teachers to handle homework?

My colleague, Margarita Jimenez-Silva, at the University of California, Davis, School of Education, and I interviewed faculty members at education schools, as well as supervising teachers, to find out how students are being prepared. And it seemed that they weren’t. There didn’t seem to be any readings on the research, or conversations on what high-quality homework is and how to design it.

Erin, what kind of training did you get in handling homework?

Bruce : I had phenomenal professors at Wheelock, but homework just didn’t come up. I did lots of student teaching. I’ve been in classrooms where the teachers didn’t assign any homework, and I’ve been in rooms where they assigned hours of homework a night. But I never even considered homework as something that was my decision. I just thought it was something I’d pull out of a book and it’d be done.

I started giving homework on the first night of school this year. My first assignment was to go home and draw a picture of the room where you do your homework. I want to know if it’s at a table and if there are chairs around it and if mom’s cooking dinner while you’re doing homework.

The second night I asked them to talk to a grown-up about how are you going to be able to get your homework done during the week. The kids really enjoyed it. There’s a running joke that I’m teaching life skills.

Friday nights, I read all my kids’ responses to me on their homework from the week and it’s wonderful. They pour their hearts out. It’s like we’re having a conversation on my couch Friday night.

It matters to know that the teacher cares about you and that what you think matters to the teacher. Homework is a vehicle to connect home and school…for parents to know teachers are welcoming to them and their families.

Bempechat : I can’t imagine that most new teachers would have the intuition Erin had in designing homework the way she did.

Ardizzone : Conversations with kids about homework, feeling you’re being listened to—that’s such a big part of wanting to do homework….I grew up in Westchester County. It was a pretty demanding school district. My junior year English teacher—I loved her—she would give us feedback, have meetings with all of us. She’d say, “If you have any questions, if you have anything you want to talk about, you can talk to me, here are my office hours.” It felt like she actually cared.

Bempechat : It matters to know that the teacher cares about you and that what you think matters to the teacher. Homework is a vehicle to connect home and school…for parents to know teachers are welcoming to them and their families.

Ardizzone : But can’t it lead to parents being overbearing and too involved in their children’s lives as students?

Bempechat : There’s good help and there’s bad help. The bad help is what you’re describing—when parents hover inappropriately, when they micromanage, when they see their children confused and struggling and tell them what to do.

Good help is when parents recognize there’s a struggle going on and instead ask informative questions: “Where do you think you went wrong?” They give hints, or pointers, rather than saying, “You missed this,” or “You didn’t read that.”

Bruce : I hope something comes of this. I hope BU or Wheelock can think of some way to make this a more pressing issue. As a first-year teacher, it was not something I even thought about on the first day of school—until a kid raised his hand and said, “Do we have homework?” It would have been wonderful if I’d had a plan from day one.

Explore Related Topics:

Share this story

Senior Contributing Editor

Sara Rimer A journalist for more than three decades, Sara Rimer worked at the Miami Herald , Washington Post and, for 26 years, the New York Times , where she was the New England bureau chief, and a national reporter covering education, aging, immigration, and other social justice issues. Her stories on the death penalty’s inequities were nominated for a Pulitzer Prize and cited in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision outlawing the execution of people with intellectual disabilities. Her journalism honors include Columbia University’s Meyer Berger award for in-depth human interest reporting. She holds a BA degree in American Studies from the University of Michigan. Profile

She can be reached at [email protected] .

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 81 comments on Does Homework Really Help Students Learn?

Insightful! The values about homework in elementary schools are well aligned with my intuition as a parent.

when i finish my work i do my homework and i sometimes forget what to do because i did not get enough sleep

same omg it does not help me it is stressful and if I have it in more than one class I hate it.

Same I think my parent wants to help me but, she doesn’t care if I get bad grades so I just try my best and my grades are great.

I think that last question about Good help from parents is not know to all parents, we do as our parents did or how we best think it can be done, so maybe coaching parents or giving them resources on how to help with homework would be very beneficial for the parent on how to help and for the teacher to have consistency and improve homework results, and of course for the child. I do see how homework helps reaffirm the knowledge obtained in the classroom, I also have the ability to see progress and it is a time I share with my kids

The answer to the headline question is a no-brainer – a more pressing problem is why there is a difference in how students from different cultures succeed. Perfect example is the student population at BU – why is there a majority population of Asian students and only about 3% black students at BU? In fact at some universities there are law suits by Asians to stop discrimination and quotas against admitting Asian students because the real truth is that as a group they are demonstrating better qualifications for admittance, while at the same time there are quotas and reduced requirements for black students to boost their portion of the student population because as a group they do more poorly in meeting admissions standards – and it is not about the Benjamins. The real problem is that in our PC society no one has the gazuntas to explore this issue as it may reveal that all people are not created equal after all. Or is it just environmental cultural differences??????

I get you have a concern about the issue but that is not even what the point of this article is about. If you have an issue please take this to the site we have and only post your opinion about the actual topic

This is not at all what the article is talking about.

This literally has nothing to do with the article brought up. You should really take your opinions somewhere else before you speak about something that doesn’t make sense.

we have the same name

so they have the same name what of it?

lol you tell her

totally agree

What does that have to do with homework, that is not what the article talks about AT ALL.

Yes, I think homework plays an important role in the development of student life. Through homework, students have to face challenges on a daily basis and they try to solve them quickly.I am an intense online tutor at 24x7homeworkhelp and I give homework to my students at that level in which they handle it easily.

More than two-thirds of students said they used alcohol and drugs, primarily marijuana, to cope with stress.

You know what’s funny? I got this assignment to write an argument for homework about homework and this article was really helpful and understandable, and I also agree with this article’s point of view.

I also got the same task as you! I was looking for some good resources and I found this! I really found this article useful and easy to understand, just like you! ^^

i think that homework is the best thing that a child can have on the school because it help them with their thinking and memory.

I am a child myself and i think homework is a terrific pass time because i can’t play video games during the week. It also helps me set goals.

Homework is not harmful ,but it will if there is too much

I feel like, from a minors point of view that we shouldn’t get homework. Not only is the homework stressful, but it takes us away from relaxing and being social. For example, me and my friends was supposed to hang at the mall last week but we had to postpone it since we all had some sort of work to do. Our minds shouldn’t be focused on finishing an assignment that in realty, doesn’t matter. I completely understand that we should have homework. I have to write a paper on the unimportance of homework so thanks.

homework isn’t that bad

Are you a student? if not then i don’t really think you know how much and how severe todays homework really is

i am a student and i do not enjoy homework because i practice my sport 4 out of the five days we have school for 4 hours and that’s not even counting the commute time or the fact i still have to shower and eat dinner when i get home. its draining!

i totally agree with you. these people are such boomers

why just why

they do make a really good point, i think that there should be a limit though. hours and hours of homework can be really stressful, and the extra work isn’t making a difference to our learning, but i do believe homework should be optional and extra credit. that would make it for students to not have the leaning stress of a assignment and if you have a low grade you you can catch up.

Studies show that homework improves student achievement in terms of improved grades, test results, and the likelihood to attend college. Research published in the High School Journal indicates that students who spent between 31 and 90 minutes each day on homework “scored about 40 points higher on the SAT-Mathematics subtest than their peers, who reported spending no time on homework each day, on average.” On both standardized tests and grades, students in classes that were assigned homework outperformed 69% of students who didn’t have homework. A majority of studies on homework’s impact – 64% in one meta-study and 72% in another – showed that take home assignments were effective at improving academic achievement. Research by the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) concluded that increased homework led to better GPAs and higher probability of college attendance for high school boys. In fact, boys who attended college did more than three hours of additional homework per week in high school.

So how are your measuring student achievement? That’s the real question. The argument that doing homework is simply a tool for teaching responsibility isn’t enough for me. We can teach responsibility in a number of ways. Also the poor argument that parents don’t need to help with homework, and that students can do it on their own, is wishful thinking at best. It completely ignores neurodiverse students. Students in poverty aren’t magically going to find a space to do homework, a friend’s or siblings to help them do it, and snacks to eat. I feel like the author of this piece has never set foot in a classroom of students.

THIS. This article is pathetic coming from a university. So intellectually dishonest, refusing to address the havoc of capitalism and poverty plays on academic success in life. How can they in one sentence use poor kids in an argument and never once address that poor children have access to damn near 0 of the resources affluent kids have? Draw me a picture and let’s talk about feelings lmao what a joke is that gonna put food in their belly so they can have the calories to burn in order to use their brain to study? What about quiet their 7 other siblings that they share a single bedroom with for hours? Is it gonna force the single mom to magically be at home and at work at the same time to cook food while you study and be there to throw an encouraging word?

Also the “parents don’t need to be a parent and be able to guide their kid at all academically they just need to exist in the next room” is wild. Its one thing if a parent straight up is not equipped but to say kids can just figured it out is…. wow coming from an educator What’s next the teacher doesn’t need to teach cause the kid can just follow the packet and figure it out?

Well then get a tutor right? Oh wait you are poor only affluent kids can afford a tutor for their hours of homework a day were they on average have none of the worries a poor child does. Does this address that poor children are more likely to also suffer abuse and mental illness? Like mentioned what about kids that can’t learn or comprehend the forced standardized way? Just let em fail? These children regularly are not in “special education”(some of those are a joke in their own and full of neglect and abuse) programs cause most aren’t even acknowledged as having disabilities or disorders.

But yes all and all those pesky poor kids just aren’t being worked hard enough lol pretty sure poor children’s existence just in childhood is more work, stress, and responsibility alone than an affluent child’s entire life cycle. Love they never once talked about the quality of education in the classroom being so bad between the poor and affluent it can qualify as segregation, just basically blamed poor people for being lazy, good job capitalism for failing us once again!

why the hell?

you should feel bad for saying this, this article can be helpful for people who has to write a essay about it

This is more of a political rant than it is about homework

I know a teacher who has told his students their homework is to find something they are interested in, pursue it and then come share what they learn. The student responses are quite compelling. One girl taught herself German so she could talk to her grandfather. One boy did a research project on Nelson Mandela because the teacher had mentioned him in class. Another boy, a both on the autism spectrum, fixed his family’s computer. The list goes on. This is fourth grade. I think students are highly motivated to learn, when we step aside and encourage them.

The whole point of homework is to give the students a chance to use the material that they have been presented with in class. If they never have the opportunity to use that information, and discover that it is actually useful, it will be in one ear and out the other. As a science teacher, it is critical that the students are challenged to use the material they have been presented with, which gives them the opportunity to actually think about it rather than regurgitate “facts”. Well designed homework forces the student to think conceptually, as opposed to regurgitation, which is never a pretty sight

Wonderful discussion. and yes, homework helps in learning and building skills in students.

not true it just causes kids to stress

Homework can be both beneficial and unuseful, if you will. There are students who are gifted in all subjects in school and ones with disabilities. Why should the students who are gifted get the lucky break, whereas the people who have disabilities suffer? The people who were born with this “gift” go through school with ease whereas people with disabilities struggle with the work given to them. I speak from experience because I am one of those students: the ones with disabilities. Homework doesn’t benefit “us”, it only tears us down and put us in an abyss of confusion and stress and hopelessness because we can’t learn as fast as others. Or we can’t handle the amount of work given whereas the gifted students go through it with ease. It just brings us down and makes us feel lost; because no mater what, it feels like we are destined to fail. It feels like we weren’t “cut out” for success.

homework does help

here is the thing though, if a child is shoved in the face with a whole ton of homework that isn’t really even considered homework it is assignments, it’s not helpful. the teacher should make homework more of a fun learning experience rather than something that is dreaded

This article was wonderful, I am going to ask my teachers about extra, or at all giving homework.

I agree. Especially when you have homework before an exam. Which is distasteful as you’ll need that time to study. It doesn’t make any sense, nor does us doing homework really matters as It’s just facts thrown at us.

Homework is too severe and is just too much for students, schools need to decrease the amount of homework. When teachers assign homework they forget that the students have other classes that give them the same amount of homework each day. Students need to work on social skills and life skills.

I disagree.

Beyond achievement, proponents of homework argue that it can have many other beneficial effects. They claim it can help students develop good study habits so they are ready to grow as their cognitive capacities mature. It can help students recognize that learning can occur at home as well as at school. Homework can foster independent learning and responsible character traits. And it can give parents an opportunity to see what’s going on at school and let them express positive attitudes toward achievement.

Homework is helpful because homework helps us by teaching us how to learn a specific topic.

As a student myself, I can say that I have almost never gotten the full 9 hours of recommended sleep time, because of homework. (Now I’m writing an essay on it in the middle of the night D=)

I am a 10 year old kid doing a report about “Is homework good or bad” for homework before i was going to do homework is bad but the sources from this site changed my mind!

Homeowkr is god for stusenrs

I agree with hunter because homework can be so stressful especially with this whole covid thing no one has time for homework and every one just wants to get back to there normal lives it is especially stressful when you go on a 2 week vaca 3 weeks into the new school year and and then less then a week after you come back from the vaca you are out for over a month because of covid and you have no way to get the assignment done and turned in

As great as homework is said to be in the is article, I feel like the viewpoint of the students was left out. Every where I go on the internet researching about this topic it almost always has interviews from teachers, professors, and the like. However isn’t that a little biased? Of course teachers are going to be for homework, they’re not the ones that have to stay up past midnight completing the homework from not just one class, but all of them. I just feel like this site is one-sided and you should include what the students of today think of spending four hours every night completing 6-8 classes worth of work.

Are we talking about homework or practice? Those are two very different things and can result in different outcomes.

Homework is a graded assignment. I do not know of research showing the benefits of graded assignments going home.

Practice; however, can be extremely beneficial, especially if there is some sort of feedback (not a grade but feedback). That feedback can come from the teacher, another student or even an automated grading program.

As a former band director, I assigned daily practice. I never once thought it would be appropriate for me to require the students to turn in a recording of their practice for me to grade. Instead, I had in-class assignments/assessments that were graded and directly related to the practice assigned.

I would really like to read articles on “homework” that truly distinguish between the two.

oof i feel bad good luck!

thank you guys for the artical because I have to finish an assingment. yes i did cite it but just thanks

thx for the article guys.

Homework is good

I think homework is helpful AND harmful. Sometimes u can’t get sleep bc of homework but it helps u practice for school too so idk.

I agree with this Article. And does anyone know when this was published. I would like to know.

It was published FEb 19, 2019.

Studies have shown that homework improved student achievement in terms of improved grades, test results, and the likelihood to attend college.

i think homework can help kids but at the same time not help kids

This article is so out of touch with majority of homes it would be laughable if it wasn’t so incredibly sad.

There is no value to homework all it does is add stress to already stressed homes. Parents or adults magically having the time or energy to shepherd kids through homework is dome sort of 1950’s fantasy.

What lala land do these teachers live in?

Homework gives noting to the kid

Homework is Bad

homework is bad.

why do kids even have homework?

Comments are closed.

Latest from Bostonia

Bu alum chompon boonnak runs mahaniyom, one of greater boston’s hottest thai restaurants, champion of indie films, china scholar merle goldman dies, cfa alum jonathan knight is head of games for the new york times, reading list: alum bonnie hammer publishes 15 lies women are told at work —plus fiction, poetry, and short stories, one good deed: jason hurdich (cas’97) is uniting the deaf community, one cup at a time, is our democracy at risk americans think so. bu experts talk about why—and the way forward, a commitment to early childhood education, space force general b. chance saltzman is a bu alum, pups wearing custom-designed veterinary collars get star treatment in alum’s new coffee-table book, using glamour for good: alum’s nonprofit organization brings clothes and beauty products to those in need, gallery: shea justice (cfa’93), oscar-nominated actor hong chau (com’01) stars in new action-comedy the instigators, alum’s new book recounts the battle for inclusion in boy scouts, feedback: readers weigh in on a bu superager, the passing of otto lerbinger, and alum’s book fat church, law alum steven m. wise, who fought for animal rights, dies, opening doors: ellice patterson (questrom’17), an alum’s new memoir recounts six decades of beatlemania, bu alum in paris keeping olympians’ minds sharp and healthy, erika jordan departs bu alumni engagement office to return to california.

Is Homework Good for Kids? Here’s What the Research Says

A s kids return to school, debate is heating up once again over how they should spend their time after they leave the classroom for the day.

The no-homework policy of a second-grade teacher in Texas went viral last week , earning praise from parents across the country who lament the heavy workload often assigned to young students. Brandy Young told parents she would not formally assign any homework this year, asking students instead to eat dinner with their families, play outside and go to bed early.

But the question of how much work children should be doing outside of school remains controversial, and plenty of parents take issue with no-homework policies, worried their kids are losing a potential academic advantage. Here’s what you need to know:

For decades, the homework standard has been a “10-minute rule,” which recommends a daily maximum of 10 minutes of homework per grade level. Second graders, for example, should do about 20 minutes of homework each night. High school seniors should complete about two hours of homework each night. The National PTA and the National Education Association both support that guideline.

But some schools have begun to give their youngest students a break. A Massachusetts elementary school has announced a no-homework pilot program for the coming school year, lengthening the school day by two hours to provide more in-class instruction. “We really want kids to go home at 4 o’clock, tired. We want their brain to be tired,” Kelly Elementary School Principal Jackie Glasheen said in an interview with a local TV station . “We want them to enjoy their families. We want them to go to soccer practice or football practice, and we want them to go to bed. And that’s it.”

A New York City public elementary school implemented a similar policy last year, eliminating traditional homework assignments in favor of family time. The change was quickly met with outrage from some parents, though it earned support from other education leaders.

New solutions and approaches to homework differ by community, and these local debates are complicated by the fact that even education experts disagree about what’s best for kids.

The research

The most comprehensive research on homework to date comes from a 2006 meta-analysis by Duke University psychology professor Harris Cooper, who found evidence of a positive correlation between homework and student achievement, meaning students who did homework performed better in school. The correlation was stronger for older students—in seventh through 12th grade—than for those in younger grades, for whom there was a weak relationship between homework and performance.

Cooper’s analysis focused on how homework impacts academic achievement—test scores, for example. His report noted that homework is also thought to improve study habits, attitudes toward school, self-discipline, inquisitiveness and independent problem solving skills. On the other hand, some studies he examined showed that homework can cause physical and emotional fatigue, fuel negative attitudes about learning and limit leisure time for children. At the end of his analysis, Cooper recommended further study of such potential effects of homework.

Despite the weak correlation between homework and performance for young children, Cooper argues that a small amount of homework is useful for all students. Second-graders should not be doing two hours of homework each night, he said, but they also shouldn’t be doing no homework.

Not all education experts agree entirely with Cooper’s assessment.

Cathy Vatterott, an education professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, supports the “10-minute rule” as a maximum, but she thinks there is not sufficient proof that homework is helpful for students in elementary school.

“Correlation is not causation,” she said. “Does homework cause achievement, or do high achievers do more homework?”

Vatterott, the author of Rethinking Homework: Best Practices That Support Diverse Needs , thinks there should be more emphasis on improving the quality of homework tasks, and she supports efforts to eliminate homework for younger kids.

“I have no concerns about students not starting homework until fourth grade or fifth grade,” she said, noting that while the debate over homework will undoubtedly continue, she has noticed a trend toward limiting, if not eliminating, homework in elementary school.

The issue has been debated for decades. A TIME cover in 1999 read: “Too much homework! How it’s hurting our kids, and what parents should do about it.” The accompanying story noted that the launch of Sputnik in 1957 led to a push for better math and science education in the U.S. The ensuing pressure to be competitive on a global scale, plus the increasingly demanding college admissions process, fueled the practice of assigning homework.

“The complaints are cyclical, and we’re in the part of the cycle now where the concern is for too much,” Cooper said. “You can go back to the 1970s, when you’ll find there were concerns that there was too little, when we were concerned about our global competitiveness.”

Cooper acknowledged that some students really are bringing home too much homework, and their parents are right to be concerned.

“A good way to think about homework is the way you think about medications or dietary supplements,” he said. “If you take too little, they’ll have no effect. If you take too much, they can kill you. If you take the right amount, you’ll get better.”

More Must-Reads from TIME

Breaking Down the 2024 Election Calendar
Heman Bekele Is TIME’s 2024 Kid of the Year
The Reintroduction of Kamala Harris
A Battle Over Fertility Law in China
For the Love of Savoring Sandwiches : Column
The 1 Heart-Health Habit You Should Start When You’re Young
Cuddling Might Help You Get Better Sleep
The 50 Best Romance Novels to Read Right Now

Write to Katie Reilly at [email protected]

Join Our Discord Community!

daily dose of research

Meyer et. al.

An analysis of various free and paid apps for young learners, finding that the vast majority of apps are not meeting the "pillars of learning" and must be reviewed.

featured contributor

This is why we should stop giving homework

At Human Restoration Project, one of the core systemic changes we suggest is the elimination of homework. Throughout this piece, I will outline several research studies and reports that demonstrate how the negative impact of homework is so evident that any mandated homework, outside of some minor catching up or for incredibly niche cases, simply does more harm than good.

I’ll summarize four main reasons why homework just flat out doesn’t make sense.

Achievement, whether that be measured through standardized tests or general academic knowledge, isn’t correlated to assigning or completing homework.
Homework is an inequitable practice that harms certain individuals more than others, to the detriment of those with less resources and to minor, if any, improvement for those with resources.
It contributes to negative impacts at home with one’s family, peer relationships, and just general school-life balance, which causes far more problems than homework is meant to solve.
And finally, it highlights and exacerbates our obsession with ultra-competitive college admissions and job opportunities, and other detrimental faults of making everything about getting ahead .

Does Homework Make Us Learn More?

Homework is such a ubiquitous part of school that it’s considered radical to even suggest that lessening it could be good teaching. It’s completely normal for families to spend extra hours each night, even on weekends, completing projects, reports, and worksheets. On average, teenagers spend about an hour a day completing homework, which is up 30-45 minutes from decades past. Kindergartners, who are usually saved from completing a lot of after school work, average about 25 minutes of homework a night (which to note, is 25 minutes too much than is recommended by child development experts).

The “10-minute rule”, endorsed by the National Parent Teacher Association and National Education Association, is incorporated into most school policies: there’s 10 minutes of homework per day per grade level – as in 20 minutes a day in second grade or 2 hours a day in 12th grade.

It’s so normalized that it was odd, when seemingly out of nowhere the President of Ireland recently suggested that homework should be banned . (And many experts were shocked at this suggestion.)

Numerous studies on homework reflect inconsistent results on what it exactly achieves. Homework is rarely shown to have any impact on achievement, whether that be measured through standardized testing or otherwise. As I’ll talk about later, the amount of marginal gains homework may lead to aren’t worth its negative trade-offs.

Let’s look at a quick summary of various studies:

‍ First off, the book National Differences, Global Similarities: World Culture and the Future of Schooling by David P. Baker and Gerald K. LeTendre draws on a 4 year investigation of schools in 47 countries. It’s the largest study of its type: looking at how schools operate, their pedagogy, their procedures, and the like. They made a shocking discovery: countries that assigned the least amount of homework: Denmark and the Czech Republic, had much higher test scores than those who assigned the most amount of homework: Iran and Thailand. The same work indicated that there was no correlation between academic achievement and homework with elementary students, and any moderate positive correlation in middle or high school diminished as more and more homework was assigned. ‍
A study in Contemporary Educational Psychology of 28,051 high school seniors concluded that quality of instruction, motivation, and ability are all correlated to a student’s academic success. However, homework’s effectiveness was marginal or perhaps even counterproductive: leading to more academic problems than it hoped to solve. ‍
The Teachers College Record published that homework added academic pressure and societal stress to those already experiencing pressures from other forces at home. This caused a further divide in academic performance from those with more privileged backgrounds. We’ll talk about this more later. ‍
A study in the Journal of Educational Psychology examined 2,342 student attitudes toward homework in foreign language classes. They found that time spent on homework had a significant negative impact on grades and standardized test scores. The researchers concluded that this may be because participants had to spend their time completing worksheets rather than spend time practicing skills on their own time.
Some studies are more positive. In fact, a meta-analysis of 32 homework studies in the Review of Educational Research found that most studies indicated a positive correlation between achievement and doing homework. However, the researchers noted that generally these studies made it hard to draw causal conclusions due to how they were set up and conducted. There was so much variance that it was difficult to make a claim one way or another, even though the net result seemed positive. This often cited report led by Dr. Harris Cooper at Duke University is the most commonly used by proponents of the practice. But popular education critic Alfie Kohn believes that this study fails to establish, ironically, causation among other factors. ‍
And that said in a later published study in The High School Journal , researchers concluded that in all homework assigned, there were only modest linkages to improved math and science standardized test scores, with no difference in other subjects between those who were assigned homework and those who were not. None of the homework assigned had any bearing on grades. The only difference was for a few points on those particular subject’s standardized test scores.

All in all, the data is relatively inconclusive. Some educational experts suggest that there should be hours of homework in high school, some homework in middle school, and none in elementary school. Some call for the 10-minute rule. Others say that homework doesn’t work at all. It’s still fairly unstudied how achievement is impacted as a result of homework. But as Alfie Kohn says , “The better the research, the less likely one is to find any benefits from homework.” That said, when we couple this data with the other negative impacts of assigning homework: how it impacts those at the margins, leads to anxiety and stress, and takes away from important family time – it really makes us question why this is such a ubiquitous practice.

Or as Etta Kralovec and John Buell write in The End of Homework: How Homework Disrupts Families, Overburdens Children, and Limits Learning,

‘Extensive classroom research of ‘time on task’ and international comparisons of year-round time for study suggest that additional homework might promote U.S. students’ achievement.’ This written statement by some of the top professionals in the field of homework research raises some difficult questions. More homework might promote student achievement? Are all our blood, sweat, and tears at the kitchen table over homework based on something that merely might be true? Our belief in the value of homework is akin to faith. We assume that it fosters a love of learning, better study habits, improved attitudes toward school, and greater self-discipline; we believe that better teachers assign more homework and that one sign of a good school is a good, enforced homework policy.

Our obsession with homework is likely rooted in select studies that imply it leads to higher test scores. The authors continue by deciphering this phenomena:

“[this is] a problem that routinely bedevils all the sciences: the relationship between correlation and causality. If A and B happen simultaneously, we do not know whether A causes B or B causes A, or whether both phenomena occur casually together or are individually determined by another set of variables…Thus far, most studies in this area have amounted to little more than crude correlations that cannot justify the sweeping conclusions some have derived from them.”

Alfie Kohn adds that even the correlation between achievement and homework doesn’t really matter. Saying,

“If all you want is to cram kids’ heads with facts for tomorrow’s tests that they’re going to forget by next week, yeah, if you give them more time and make them do the cramming at night, that could raise the scores…But if you’re interested in kids who know how to think or enjoy learning, then homework isn’t merely ineffective, but counterproductive… The practice of homework assumes that only academic growth matters, to the point that having kids work on that most of the school day isn’t enough…”

Ramping Up Inequity

Many justify the practice of assigning homework with the well-intentioned belief that we’ll make a more equitable society through high standards. However, it seems to be that these practices actually add to inequity. “Rigorous” private and preparatory schools – whether they be “no excuses” charters in marginalized communities or “college ready” elite suburban institutions, are notorious for extreme levels of homework assignment. Yet, many progressive schools who focus on holistic learning and self-actualization assign no homework and achieve the same levels of college and career success.

Perhaps this is because the largest predictor of college success has nothing to do with rigorous preparation, and everything to do with family income levels. 77% of students from high income families graduated from a highly competitive college, whereas 9% of students from low income families did the same .

It seems like by loading students up with mountains of homework each night in an attempt to get them into these colleges, we actually make their chances of success worse .

When assigning homework, it is common practice to recommend that families provide a quiet, well-lit place for the child to study. After all, it’s often difficult to complete assignments after a long day. Having this space, time, and energy must always be considered in the context of the family’s education, income, available time, and job security. For many people, jobs have become less secure and less well paid over the course of the last two decades.

In a United States context, we work the longest hours of any nation . Individuals in 2006 worked 11 hours longer than their counterparts in 1979. In 2020, 70% of children lived in households where both parents work. We are the only country in the industrial world without guaranteed family leave. And the results are staggering: 90% of women and 95% of men report work-family conflict . According to the Center for American Progress , “the United States today has the most family-hostile public policy in the developed world due to a long-standing political impasse.”

As a result, parents have much less time to connect with their children. This is not a call to a return to traditional family roles or to have stay-at-home parents – rather, our occupation-oriented society is structured inadequately which causes problems with how homework is meant to function.

For those who work in entry level positions, such as customer service and cashiers, there is an average 240% turnover per year due to lack of pay, poor conditions, work-life balance, and mismanagement. Family incomes continue to decline for lower- and middle-class Americans, leaving more families to work increased hours or multiple jobs. In other words, families, especially poor families, have less opportunities to spend time with their children, let alone foster academic “gains” via homework.

Even for students with ample resources who attend “elite schools”, the amount of homework is stressful. In a 2013 study in The Journal of Experiential Education, researchers conducted a survey of 4,317 students in 10 high-performing upper middle class high schools. These students had an average of more than 3 hours of homework a night. In comparison to their peers, they had more academic stress, notable physical health problems, and spent a worrying amount of time focused entirely on school and nothing else. Competitive advantage came at the cost of well-being and just being a kid.

A similar study in Frontiers of Psychology found that students pressured in the competitive college admissions process , who attended schools assigning hours of homework each night and promoting college-level courses and resume building extracurriculars, felt extreme stress. Two-thirds of the surveyed students reported turning to alcohol and drugs to cope.

In fact, a paper published by Dr. Suniya Luthar and her colleagues concluded that upper middle-class youth are actually more likely to be troubled than their middle class peers . There is an extreme problem with academic stress, where young people are engaging in a rat race toward the best possible educational future as determined by Ivy League colleges and scholarships. To add fuel to the fire, schools continue to add more and more homework to have students get ahead – which has a massively negative impact on both ends of the economic spectrum.

A 2012 study by Dr. Jonathan Daw indicated that their results,

“...imply that increases in the amount of homework assigned may increase the socioeconomic achievement gap in math, science, and reading in secondary school.”

In an effort to increase engagement with homework, teachers have been encouraged to create interesting, creative assignments. In fact, most researchers seem to agree that the quality of assignments matters a whole lot . After all, maybe assigning all of this homework won’t matter as long as it’s interesting and relevant to students? Although this has good intentions, rigorous homework with increased complexity places more impetus on parents. As researcher and author Gary Natrillo, an initial proponent of creative homework , stated later:

…not only was homework being assigned as suggested by all the ‘experts,’ but the teacher was obviously taking the homework seriously, making it challenging instead of routine and checking it each day and giving feedback. We were enveloped by the nightmare of near total implementation of the reform recommendations pertaining to homework…More creative homework tasks are a mixed blessing on the receiving end. On the one hand, they, of course, lead to higher engagement and interest for children and their parents. On the other hand, they require one to be well rested, a special condition of mind not often available to working parents…

Time is a luxury to most people. With increased working hours, in conjunction with extreme levels of stress, many people don’t have the necessary mindset to adequately supply children with the attention to detail for complex homework. As Kralovec and Buell state,

To put it plainly, I have discovered that after a day at work, the commute home, dinner preparations, and the prospect of baths, goodnight stories, and my own work ahead, there comes a time beyond which I cannot sustain my enthusiasm for the math brain teaser or the creative story task.

Americans are some of the most stressed people in the world. Mass shootings, health care affordability, discrimination, racism, sexual harassment, climate change, the presidential elections, and literally: staying informed on current events have caused roughly 70% of people to report moderate or extreme stress , with increased rates for people of color, LGBTQIA Americans, and other discriminated groups. 90% of high schoolers and college students report moderate or higher stress, with half reporting depression and a lack of energy and motivation .

In 2015, 1,100 parents were surveyed on the impact of homework on family life. Fights over homework were 200% more likely in families where parents didn’t have a college degree. Generally, these families believed that if their children didn’t understand a homework assignment then they must have been not paying attention at school. This led to young people feeling dumb or upset, and parents feeling like their child was lying or goofing off. The lead researcher noted,

All of our results indicate that homework as it is now being assigned discriminates against children whose parents don’t have a college degree, against parents who have English as a second language, against, essentially, parents who are poor.

Schooling is so integrated into family life that a group of researchers noted that “...homework tended to recreate the problems of school, such as status degradation.” An online survey of over 2,000 students and families found that 90% of students reported additional stress from homework, and 40% of families saw it as nothing more than busy work. Authors Sara Bennett and Nancy Kalish wrote the aptly titled The Case Against Homework which conducted interviews across the mid-2000s with families and children, citing just how many people are burdened with overscheduling homework featuring over-the-top assignments and constant work. One parent remarked,

I sit on Amy's bed until 11 p.m. quizzing her, knowing she's never going to use this later, and it feels like abuse," says Nina of Menlo Park, California, whose eleven-year-old goes to a Blue Ribbon public school and does at least three-and-a-half hours of homework each night. Nina also questions the amount of time spent on "creative" projects. "Amy had to visit the Mission in San Francisco and then make a model of it out of cardboard, penne pasta, and paint. But what was she supposed to be learning from this? All my daughter will remember is how tense we were in the garage making this thing. Then when she handed it in, the teacher dropped it and all the penne pasta flew off." These days, says Nina, "Amy's attitude about school has really soured." Nina's has, too. "Everything is an emergency and you feel like you're always at battle stations."

1/3rd of the families interviewed felt “crushed by the workload.” It didn’t matter if they lived in rural or suburban areas, or if they were rich or poor.

Learning this way is also simply ineffective because well, that’s just not how kids learn! Young people build upon prior knowledge. They use what they know to make what they’re currently doing easier. Adding more and more content to a student’s plate – having to connect the dots and build upon more information – especially with the distractions of home life is unrealistic. Plus, simply put…it’s just not fun! Why would I want to spend all of my free time on homework rather than hanging out with my friends or playing video games?

Even with all that said – if other countries demonstrate educational success on standardized testing with little to no assigned homework and limited school hours (nevermind the fact that this is measured through the questionable method of standardized testing), shouldn’t we take a step back and analyze the system as a whole, rather than figure out better homework policies? If other countries do this with limited to no homework , why can’t everyone else?

Investigating Systemic Problems

Perhaps the solution to academic achievement in America isn’t doubling down on increasing the work students do at home, but solving the underlying systemic inequities: the economic and discriminatory problems that plague our society. Yes, the United States tends to fall behind other countries on math and reading scores. Many countries impose increased workloads on students because they are afraid that they will fall behind economically with the standard of living to the rest of the world. But perhaps the problem with education doesn’t lie in not having enough “rigorous” methods, but with how easy it is for a family to simply live and be content.

Finland, frequently cited as a model education system which grew to prominence during the 2000s through popular scholars like Pasi Sahlberg, enjoys some of the highest standards of living in the world:

Finland’s life expectancy is 81.8 years, compared to the US’ 78.7 years . Unlike Finland, there’s a notable difference between the richest and poorest Americans . The richest Americans are expected to live, on average, nearly 15 years longer than the poorest. Further, America’s life expectancy is declining, the only industrialized country with this statistic .
Finland’s health care is rated best in the world and only spends $3,078 per capita, compared to $8,047 in the US.
Finland has virtually no homelessness , compared to the 500,000 (and growing) homeless population in the United States .
Finland has the lowest inequality levels in the EU , compared to the United States with one of the highest inequality levels in the world . Research has demonstrated that countries with lower inequality levels are happier and healthier .

These statistics reflect that potentially — instead of investing hundreds of millions of dollars in initiatives to increase national test scores , such as homework strategies, curriculum changes, and nationwide “raising the bar” initiatives — that we should invest in programs that improve our standard of living, such as universal healthcare and housing. The solution to test scores is rooted in solving underlying inequities in our societies — shining a light on our core issues — rather than making teachers solve all of our community’s problems.

This doesn’t mean that there’s no space for improving pedagogy, schooling, or curriculums, but at the end of the day the solution cannot solely be by improving education.

‍ Creating Future Workers

Education often equates learning with work. As a teacher, I had to stop myself from behaving like an economics analyst: telling students to quit “wasting time”, stating that the purpose of the lesson is useful for securing a high salary career, seeing everything as prep for college and career (and college’s purpose as just for more earnings in a career), and making blanket assumptions that those who aren’t motivated will ultimately never contribute to society, taking on “low levels” of work that “aren’t as important” as other positions.

A common argument exists that the pressure of homework mirrors the real world – that we should assign homework because that’s “just the way things are.” If we want kids to succeed in the “real world”, they need to have this pressure.

But this mentality is unhealthy and unjust. The purpose of education should be to develop purpose. People live happier and healthier lives as a result of pursuing and developing a core purpose. Some people’s purpose is related to their line of work, but there is not necessarily a connection. However, the primary goal for education stated by districts, states, and the national government is to make “productive members of society” – those who are “prepared for the future” through “college and career readiness.” When we double down on economic principles, rather than look to developmental psychology and holistic care, to raise young people, it’s no wonder we’re seeing such horrific statistics related to childhood .

Further, the consistent pressure to solely learn for future economic gain raises generations of young people to believe that wealth is a measurement of success, and that specific lines of work create happiness. Teachers and parents are told to make their children “work hard” for future success and develop “grit.” Although grit is an important indicator of overcoming obstacles , it is not developed by enforcing grit through authoritarian classrooms or meaningless, long tasks like homework. In fact, an argument could be made that many Americans accept their dramatically poor work-life balance and lack of access to needs such as affordable health care by being brought up in a society that rewards tasks of “working through it” to “eventually achieve happiness.”

Many families have shifted from having children participate in common household chores and activities to have them exclusively focus on their school work. Americans have more difficulty than ever raising children, with increasing demands of time and rising childcare costs . When teachers provide more and more homework, they take away from the parents’ ability to structure their household according to their needs. In fact, children with chores show completely positive universal growth across the board , from time management skills to responsibility to managing a healthy work-life balance.

Of course, this is not to say that it is all the teacher’s fault. Educators face immense pressure to carry out governmental/school policies that place test scores at the forefront. Plus, most families had homework themselves – so continuing the practice only makes sense. Many of these policies require homework, and an educator’s employment is centered on enacting these changes. Barbara Stengel , an education professor, noted that the reason why so much homework isn’t necessarily interesting or applicable to a student’s lived experience is because “some of the people who would really have pushed the limits of that are no longer in teaching.” The constant pressure on teachers to raise test scores while simultaneously being overworked and underpaid is making many leave the profession. Etta Kralovec and John Buell add:

As more academic demands are placed on teachers, homework can help lengthen the school day and thus ensure ‘coverage’ — that is, the completion of the full curriculum that each teacher is supposed to cover during the school year…This in itself places pressure on teachers to create meaningful homework and often to assign large amounts of it so that the students’ parents will think the teacher is rigorous and the school has high academic standards. Extensive homework is frequently linked in our minds to high standards.

Therefore, there’s a connection to be made between the school- or work-life balance of children and the people who are tasked with teaching them. 8% of the teacher workforce leaves every year , with one of the primary reasons being poor work-life balance . Perhaps teachers see an increased desire to “work” students in their class and at home due to the pressures they face in their own occupation?

The more we equate work with learning, and the more we accept that a school’s primary purpose is to prepare workers, the less we actually succeed at promoting academics. Instead, we bolster the neoliberal tendencies of the United States (and others like it) to work hard, yet comparably to other countries’ lifestyle gains, achieve little.

This is why so many families demand that their children have ample amounts of homework. In fact, the majority of parents believe their students have just the right amount. They’re afraid that their kids are going to fall behind, doomed to a life within an increasingly hostile and inequitable society. They want the best for their children, and taking the risk of not assigning homework means that someone else may take that top slot. The same could be said for many parts of the “tracks toward college and career readiness” that professor William Deresiewicz refers to as “zombication” – lurching through each stage of the rat race in competitive admissions: a lot of assignments, difficult courses, sports, clubs, forced volunteerism, internships, and other things to pack our schedules.

The United States must examine the underlying inequities of peoples’ lives, rather than focus on increasing schools’ workloads and lessening children’s free time for mythical academic gains that lead to little change. Teacher preparation programs and popular authors need to stop promoting “interesting and fun ways to teach ‘x’!” and propose systemic changes that radically change the way education is done, including systemic changes to society at large. Only then will the United States actually see improved livelihoods and a better education system for all.

And what could be done instead? Much of the research and writing on homework tends to conclude that we should find a “happy middle ground” to continue the practice of homework, just in case it does indeed work. However, based on the decades of studies we have on this issue…I’m not really sure. It seems the best practice, by far, is to eliminate homework altogether outside of incredibly niche and rare scenarios. If a student asks for more things to do at home because they want to explore something that interests them, great! But that doesn’t need to be mandated homework.

Human Restoration Project believes that the four recommendations of the late educator and scholar Ken Robinson allows young people to learn for themselves and make the most of their lives:

Let children spend time with their families. The single strongest predictor of academic success and fewer behavioral problems for a child, 3-12 years old, is eating as a family. Make planned time during the day to catch up with children, talking to them about what they’re learning, and encouraging them to achieve.
Give children time to play outside or create something, preferably not always with a screen. Let them dive into their passions and plan a trip to a library, park, or museum. Explore free online resources to discover new skills and interests.
Give children opportunities to read by themselves or with their family. One of the best ways to learn about the world is developing a lifelong love of reading. Children who prioritize reading are more motivated to learn and see drastically improved academic outcomes.
Let children sleep! Elementary students should sleep at least 10 hours each night and adolescents, 9 hours. Being awake and ready to tackle each day keeps us energized and healthy.

If you’re interested in learning more, see The Case Against Homework by Nancy Kalish and Sara Bennett, The Homework Myth by Alfie Kohn, The End of Homework by Etta Kralovec and John Muelle, or one of the many citations linked in the show notes.

You can also watch a modified video version of this piece on our YouTube channel:

Anderson, J. (2019, December 3). Finland has the most efficient education system in the world. Quartz . https://qz.com/1759598/finland-has-the-most-efficient-education-system-in-the-world

APA. (2019a). Stress in America . https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2019/stress-america-2019.pdf

APA. (2019b). Stress in America TM 2019: Interactive Graphics . https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2019/interactive-graphics

Baker, D., & LeTendre, G. K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling . Stanford University Press.

Balingit, M. (2022, September 13). Wanted: Teachers. No training necessary. The Washington Post . https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/09/13/teacher-requirements-shortage-jobs/

Bennett, S., & Kalish, N. (2007). The Case Against Homework: How homework is hurting children and what parents can do about it . Harmony.

Byrnes, H. (2019a, April 11). U.S. leads among countries that spend the most on public health care. WLST . https://www.coloradoan.com/story/money/2019/04/11/countries-that-spend-the-most-on-public-health/39307147/

CDC. (2022, June 3). Data and statistics on children’s mental health . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/childrensmentalhealth/data.html

Chang, C. B., Wall, D., Tare, M., Golonka, E., & Vatz, K. (2014). Relationships of attitudes toward homework and time spent on homework to course outcomes: The case of foreign language learning. Journal of Educational Psychology , 106 (4), 1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036497

Chetty, R., Stepner, M., Abraham, S., Lin, S., Scuderi, B., Turner, N., Bergeron, A., & Cutler, D. (2016). The Association Between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001–2014: Association Between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States. JAMA , 315 (16). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.4226

Chores and children . (2018). https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Chores_and_Children-125.aspx

Cool, V. A., & Keith, T. Z. (1991). Testing a model of school learning: Direct and indirect effects on academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 16 (1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476x(91)90004-5

Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research , 76 (1), 1–62. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001001

Costa, P. N. da. (2019, May 29). America’s humongous wealth gap is widening further. Forbes . https://www.forbes.com/sites/pedrodacosta/2019/05/29/americas-humungous-wealth-gap-is-widening-further/?sh=327f1ac342ee

Costley, K. (2013). Does Homework Really Improve Achievement? Arkansas Tech University .

Covington, N. (2020, January 31). A progressive response to “Ed. Reform’s Lost Decade.” Human Restoration Project . https://medium.com/human-restoration-project/a-progressive-response-to-ed-reforms-lost-decade-fb640c16d893

Daniels, E., & Steres, M. (2011). Examining the effects of a school-wide reading culture on the engagement of middle school students. RMLE Online , 35 (2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2011.11462085

Deresiewicz, W. (2015). Excellent sheep: The miseducation of the American elite and the way to a meaningful life . Simon and Schuster.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success . Random House.

Esdal, L. Teacher turnover: An overview of the problem and why it matters . (2019, February 28). Education Evolving. https://www.educationevolving.org/blog/2019/02/teacher-turnover-overview-of-problem-and-why-it-matters

Finland - WID - World inequality database . (2016, June 23). WID - Wealth and Income Database. https://wid.world/country/finland/

Galloway, M., Conner, J., & Pope, D. (2013). Nonacademic effects of homework in privileged, high-performing high schools. The Journal of Experimental Education , 81 (4), 490–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.745469

Henly, J. R., Shaefer, H. L., & Waxman, E. (2006). Nonstandard work schedules: Employer‐ and employee‐driven flexibility in retail jobs. Social Service Review , 80 (4), 609–634. https://doi.org/10.1086/508478

Hofferth, S. L., & Sandberg, J. F. (2001). How American children spend their time. Journal of Marriage and Family , 63 (2), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00295.x

Human Restoration Project. (n.d.). Research . Retrieved January 24, 2023, from https://www.humanrestorationproject.org/research

Indicators of Higher Education: Equity in the US . (2018). http://pellinstitute.org/downloads/publications-Indicators_of_Higher_Education_Equity_in_the_US_2018_Historical_Trend_Report.pdf&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1674598544982744&usg=AOvVaw3EdEhMRi9luOuJm0IKhMSF

Ken Robinson, TED. (2007). Do schools kill creativity? [Video]. In YouTube . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY

Kohn, A. (2007). The homework myth: Why our kids get too much of a bad thing . Da Capo Lifelong Books.

Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2001). The End of Homework: How homework disrupts families, overburdens children, and limits learning . Beacon Press.

Leonard, N. R., Gwadz, M. V., Ritchie, A., Linick, J. L., Cleland, C. M., Elliott, L., & Grethel, M. (2015). A multi-method exploratory study of stress, coping, and substance use among high school youth in private schools. Frontiers in Psychology , 6 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01028

Livingston, G. (2019, February 20). The way U.S. teens spend their time is changing, but differences between boys and girls persist. Pew Research Center . https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/20/the-way-u-s-teens-spend-their-time-is-changing-but-differences-between-boys-and-girls-persist/

Luthar, S. S., Barkin, S. H., & Crossman, E. J. (2013). “I can, therefore I must”: Fragility in the upper-middle classes. Development and Psychopathology , 25 (4pt2), 1529–1549. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579413000758

Lynch, R. The economic and fiscal consequences of improving U.S. educational outcomes - Equitable growth . (2015, February 2). Washington Center for Equitable Growth. https://equitablegrowth.org/achievement-gap/

Mcdermott, R. P., Goldman, S. V., & Varenne, H. (1984a). When school goes home: Some problems in the organization of homework. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education , 85 (3), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146818408500310

McGuire, J. (2023). The President Of Ireland Wants To Get Rid Of Homework & Honestly, He's Onto Something. Romper. https://www.romper.com/life/president-of-ireland-michael-d-higgins-homework

Miller, C. C. (2018, December 25). The relentlessness of modern parenting. The New York Times . https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/25/upshot/the-relentlessness-of-modern-parenting.html

Natriello, G., & McDill, E. L. (1986). Performance standards, student effort on homework, and academic achievement. Sociology of Education , 59 (1), 18. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112483

PBS NewsHour : Biggest Predictor of College Success is Family Income . (2015). America’s Promise. https://web.archive.org/web/20220807230624/americaspromise.org/news/pbs-newshour-biggest-predictor-college-success-family-income

Plante, T. (2018, December 3). Americans are stressed out, and it is getting worse . Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201812/americans-are-stressed-out-and-it-is-getting-worse

Pinsker, J. (2019, March 28). Does homework work? The Atlantic . https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/03/homework-research-how-much/585889/

Pressman, R. M., Sugarman, D. B., Nemon, M. L., Desjarlais, J., Owens, J. A., & Schettini-Evans, A. (2015). Homework and family stress: With consideration of parents’ self confidence, educational level, and cultural background. The American Journal of Family Therapy , 43 (4), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2015.1061407

Sander, G. F. (2018). Finland’s homeless crisis nearly solved. How? By giving homes to all who need. The Christian Science Monitor . https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2018/0321/Finland-s-homeless-crisis-nearly-solved.-How-By-giving-homes-to-all-who-need

Smurthwaite, D. (2018, April 27). Why Overworking is Made in America and Work-Life Balance Lives in Europe . https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-overworking-made-america-work-life-balance-lives-dave-smurthwaite/

Taras, H., & Potts-Datema, W. (2005). Sleep and student performance at school. Journal of School Health , 75 (7), 248–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2005.00033.x

The State of Homelessness in America . (2019). https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/The-State-of-Homelessness-in-America.pdf

The three faces of work-family conflict . (2010, January 25). Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-three-faces-of-work-family-conflict/

Walker, T. (2015). The great homework debate: What’s getting lost in the hype . NEA. https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/great-homework-debate-whats-getting-lost-hype

Wallace, K. (2015, August 12). Kids have three times too much homework, study finds; what’s the cost? CNN . https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/12/health/homework-elementary-school-study/index.html

Weir, K. (2016). Is homework a necessary evil? https://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/03/homework

Wilkinson, R. G. (2002). Unhealthy societies: The afflictions of inequality . Routledge.

Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2020). The inner level: How more equal societies reduce stress, restore sanity and improve everyone’s well-being . Penguin.

Woolf, S. H. (2019). Life expectancy and mortality rates in the United States, 1959-2017. JAMA , 322 (20), 1996–2016. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.16932

read this next

take a listen

Join the Movement

Stay informed.

I've read a lot about it being called a zero-sum game, right? This idea that we cannot both win. It's just not possible. I'm like, who said? There are all kinds of games and activities you play where you think someone has to lose, and then you realize, did you have to? The sharing of the orange. You all have seen these activities, but wow. I don't want to talk about where it came from, but I am curious. It's so ingrained in this country, and probably other countries, but I don't know.

Where's this from?

Future Students
Current Students
Faculty/Staff

News and Media

News & Media Home
Research Stories
School’s In
In the Media

A Stanford education researcher found that too much homework can negatively affect kids, especially their lives away from school, where family, friends and activities matter. "Our findings on the effects of homework challenge the traditional assumption that homework is inherently good," wrote Denise Pope , a senior lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and a co-author of a study published in the Journal of Experimental Education . The researchers used survey data to examine perceptions about homework, student well-being and behavioral engagement in a sample of 4,317 students from 10 high-performing high schools in upper-middle-class California communities. Along with the survey data, Pope and her colleagues used open-ended answers to explore the students' views on homework. Median household income exceeded $90,000 in these communities, and 93 percent of the students went on to college, either two-year or four-year. Students in these schools average about 3.1 hours of homework each night. "The findings address how current homework practices in privileged, high-performing schools sustain students' advantage in competitive climates yet hinder learning, full engagement and well-being," Pope wrote. Pope and her colleagues found that too much homework can diminish its effectiveness and even be counterproductive. They cite prior research indicating that homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night, and that 90 minutes to two and a half hours is optimal for high school. Their study found that too much homework is associated with: • Greater stress : 56 percent of the students considered homework a primary source of stress, according to the survey data. Forty-three percent viewed tests as a primary stressor, while 33 percent put the pressure to get good grades in that category. Less than 1 percent of the students said homework was not a stressor. • Reductions in health : In their open-ended answers, many students said their homework load led to sleep deprivation and other health problems. The researchers asked students whether they experienced health issues such as headaches, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, weight loss and stomach problems. • Less time for friends, family and extracurricular pursuits : Both the survey data and student responses indicate that spending too much time on homework meant that students were "not meeting their developmental needs or cultivating other critical life skills," according to the researchers. Students were more likely to drop activities, not see friends or family, and not pursue hobbies they enjoy. A balancing act The results offer empirical evidence that many students struggle to find balance between homework, extracurricular activities and social time, the researchers said. Many students felt forced or obligated to choose homework over developing other talents or skills. Also, there was no relationship between the time spent on homework and how much the student enjoyed it. The research quoted students as saying they often do homework they see as "pointless" or "mindless" in order to keep their grades up. "This kind of busy work, by its very nature, discourages learning and instead promotes doing homework simply to get points," said Pope, who is also a co-founder of Challenge Success , a nonprofit organization affiliated with the GSE that conducts research and works with schools and parents to improve students' educational experiences.. Pope said the research calls into question the value of assigning large amounts of homework in high-performing schools. Homework should not be simply assigned as a routine practice, she said. "Rather, any homework assigned should have a purpose and benefit, and it should be designed to cultivate learning and development," wrote Pope. High-performing paradox In places where students attend high-performing schools, too much homework can reduce their time to foster skills in the area of personal responsibility, the researchers concluded. "Young people are spending more time alone," they wrote, "which means less time for family and fewer opportunities to engage in their communities." Student perspectives The researchers say that while their open-ended or "self-reporting" methodology to gauge student concerns about homework may have limitations – some might regard it as an opportunity for "typical adolescent complaining" – it was important to learn firsthand what the students believe. The paper was co-authored by Mollie Galloway from Lewis and Clark College and Jerusha Conner from Villanova University.

Clifton B. Parker is a writer at the Stanford News Service .

Get the Educator

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter.

Stanford Graduate School of Education

482 Galvez Mall Stanford, CA 94305-3096 Tel: (650) 723-2109

Contact Admissions
GSE Leadership
Site Feedback
Web Accessibility
Career Resources
Faculty Open Positions
Explore Courses
Academic Calendar
Office of the Registrar
Cubberley Library
StanfordWho
StanfordYou

Improving lives through learning

Stanford Home
Maps & Directions
Search Stanford
Emergency Info
Terms of Use
Non-Discrimination
Accessibility

Subscribe to BBC Science Focus Magazine
Previous Issues
Future tech
Everyday science
Planet Earth
Newsletters

Should homework be banned?

Social media has sparked into life about whether children should be given homework - should students be freed from this daily chore? Dr Gerald Letendre, a professor of education at Pennsylvania State University, investigates.

We’ve all done it: pretended to leave an essay at home, or stayed up until 2am to finish a piece of coursework we’ve been ignoring for weeks. Homework, for some people, is seen as a chore that’s ‘wrecking kids’ or ‘killing parents’, while others think it is an essential part of a well-rounded education. The problem is far from new: public debates about homework have been raging since at least the early-1900s, and recently spilled over into a Twitter feud between Gary Lineker and Piers Morgan.

Ironically, the conversation surrounding homework often ignores the scientific ‘homework’ that researchers have carried out. Many detailed studies have been conducted, and can guide parents, teachers and administrators to make sensible decisions about how much work should be completed by students outside of the classroom.

So why does homework stir up such strong emotions? One reason is that, by its very nature, it is an intrusion of schoolwork into family life. I carried out a study in 2005, and found that the amount of time that children and adolescents spend in school, from nursery right up to the end of compulsory education, has greatly increased over the last century . This means that more of a child’s time is taken up with education, so family time is reduced. This increases pressure on the boundary between the family and the school.

Plus, the amount of homework that students receive appears to be increasing, especially in the early years when parents are keen for their children to play with friends and spend time with the family.

Finally, success in school has become increasingly important to success in life. Parents can use homework to promote, or exercise control over, their child’s academic trajectory, and hopefully ensure their future educational success. But this often leaves parents conflicted – they want their children to be successful in school, but they don’t want them to be stressed or upset because of an unmanageable workload.

François Hollande says homework is unfair, as it penalises children who have a difficult home environment © Getty Images

However, the issue isn’t simply down to the opinions of parents, children and their teachers – governments also like to get involved. In the autumn of 2012, French president François Hollande hit world headlines after making a comment about banning homework, ostensibly because it promoted inequality. The Chinese government has also toyed with a ban, because of concerns about excessive academic pressure being put on children.

The problem is, some politicians and national administrators regard regulatory policy in education as a solution for a wide array of social, economic and political issues, perhaps without considering the consequences for students and parents.

Does homework work?

Homework seems to generally have a positive effect for high school students, according to an extensive range of empirical literature. For example, Duke University’s Prof Harris Cooper carried out a meta-analysis using data from US schools, covering a period from 1987 to 2003. He found that homework offered a general beneficial impact on test scores and improvements in attitude, with a greater effect seen in older students. But dig deeper into the issue and a complex set of factors quickly emerges, related to how much homework students do, and exactly how they feel about it.

In 2009, Prof Ulrich Trautwein and his team at the University of Tübingen found that in order to establish whether homework is having any effect, researchers must take into account the differences both between and within classes . For example, a teacher may assign a good deal of homework to a lower-level class, producing an association between more homework and lower levels of achievement. Yet, within the same class, individual students may vary significantly in how much homework improves their baseline performance. Plus, there is the fact that some students are simply more efficient at completing their homework than others, and it becomes quite difficult to pinpoint just what type of homework, and how much of it, will affect overall academic performance.

Over the last century, the amount of time that children and adolescents spend in school has greatly increased

Gender is also a major factor. For example, a study of US high school students carried out by Prof Gary Natriello in the 1980s revealed that girls devote more time to homework than boys, while a follow-up study found that US girls tend to spend more time on mathematics homework than boys. Another study, this time of African-American students in the US, found that eighth grade (ages 13-14) girls were more likely to successfully manage both their tasks and emotions around schoolwork, and were more likely to finish homework.

So why do girls seem to respond more positively to homework? One possible answer proposed by Eunsook Hong of the University of Nevada in 2011 is that teachers tend to rate girls’ habits and attitudes towards work more favourably than boys’. This perception could potentially set up a positive feedback loop between teacher expectations and the children’s capacity for academic work based on gender, resulting in girls outperforming boys. All of this makes it particularly difficult to determine the extent to which homework is helping, though it is clear that simply increasing the time spent on assignments does not directly correspond to a universal increase in learning.

Can homework cause damage?

The lack of empirical data supporting homework in the early years of education, along with an emerging trend to assign more work to this age range, appears to be fuelling parental concerns about potential negative effects. But, aside from anecdotes of increased tension in the household, is there any evidence of this? Can doing too much homework actually damage children?

Evidence suggests extreme amounts of homework can indeed have serious effects on students’ health and well-being. A Chinese study carried out in 2010 found a link between excessive homework and sleep disruption: children who had less homework had better routines and more stable sleep schedules. A Canadian study carried out in 2015 by Isabelle Michaud found that high levels of homework were associated with a greater risk of obesity among boys, if they were already feeling stressed about school in general.

For useful revision guides and video clips to assist with learning, visit BBC Bitesize . This is a free online study resource for UK students from early years up to GCSEs and Scottish Highers.

It is also worth noting that too much homework can create negative effects that may undermine any positives. These negative consequences may not only affect the child, but also could also pile on the stress for the whole family, according to a recent study by Robert Pressman of the New England Centre for Pediatric Psychology. Parents were particularly affected when their perception of their own capacity to assist their children decreased.

What then, is the tipping point, and when does homework simply become too much for parents and children? Guidelines typically suggest that children in the first grade (six years old) should have no more that 10 minutes per night, and that this amount should increase by 10 minutes per school year. However, cultural norms may greatly affect what constitutes too much.

A study of children aged between 8 and 10 in Quebec defined high levels of homework as more than 30 minutes a night, but a study in China of children aged 5 to 11 deemed that two or more hours per night was excessive. It is therefore difficult to create a clear standard for what constitutes as too much homework, because cultural differences, school-related stress, and negative emotions within the family all appear to interact with how homework affects children.

Should we stop setting homework?

In my opinion, even though there are potential risks of negative effects, homework should not be banned. Small amounts, assigned with specific learning goals in mind and with proper parental support, can help to improve students’ performance. While some studies have generally found little evidence that homework has a positive effect on young children overall, a 2008 study by Norwegian researcher Marte Rønning found that even some very young children do receive some benefit. So simply banning homework would mean that any particularly gifted or motivated pupils would not be able to benefit from increased study. However, at the earliest ages, very little homework should be assigned. The decisions about how much and what type are best left to teachers and parents.

As a parent, it is important to clarify what goals your child’s teacher has for homework assignments. Teachers can assign work for different reasons – as an academic drill to foster better study habits, and unfortunately, as a punishment. The goals for each assignment should be made clear, and should encourage positive engagement with academic routines.

Parents who play an active role in homework routines can help give their kids a more positive experience of learning © Getty Images

Parents should inform the teachers of how long the homework is taking, as teachers often incorrectly estimate the amount of time needed to complete an assignment, and how it is affecting household routines. For young children, positive teacher support and feedback is critical in establishing a student’s positive perception of homework and other academic routines. Teachers and parents need to be vigilant and ensure that homework routines do not start to generate patterns of negative interaction that erode students’ motivation.

Likewise, any positive effects of homework are dependent on several complex interactive factors, including the child’s personal motivation, the type of assignment, parental support and teacher goals. Creating an overarching policy to address every single situation is not realistic, and so homework policies tend to be fixated on the time the homework takes to complete. But rather than focusing on this, everyone would be better off if schools worked on fostering stronger communication between parents, teachers and students, allowing them to respond more sensitively to the child’s emotional and academic needs.

Five brilliant science books for kids
Will e-learning replace teachers?

Follow Science Focus on Twitter , Facebook , Instagram and Flipboard

Share this article

Terms & Conditions
Privacy policy
Cookies policy
Code of conduct
Magazine subscriptions
Manage preferences

25 Reasons Homework Should Be Banned (Busywork Arguments)

As students across the globe plow through heaps of homework each night, one question lingers in the minds of educators, parents, and students alike: should homework be banned?

This question is not new, yet it continues to spark lively debate as research findings, anecdotal evidence, and personal experiences paint a complex picture of the pros and cons of homework.

On one hand, proponents of homework argue that it reinforces classroom learning, encourages a disciplined work ethic, and provides teachers with valuable insight into student comprehension. They see homework as an extension of classroom instruction that solidifies and enriches learning while fostering important skills like time management and self-discipline. It also offers an opportunity for parents to be involved in their children's education.

However, some people say there are a lot of downsides. They argue that excessive homework can lead to stress and burnout, reduce time for extracurricular activities and family interactions, exacerbate educational inequalities, and even negatively impact students' mental health.

This article presents 25 reasons why we might need to seriously consider this radical shift in our educational approach. But first, lets share some examples of what homework actually is.

Examples of Homework

These examples cover a wide range of subjects and complexity levels, reflecting the variety of homework assignments students might encounter throughout their educational journey.

Spelling lists to memorize for a test
Math worksheets for practicing basic arithmetic operations
Reading assignments from children's books
Simple science projects like growing a plant
Basic geography assignments like labeling a map
Art projects like drawing a family portrait
Writing book reports or essays
Advanced math problems
Research projects on various topics
Lab reports for science experiments
Reading and responding to literature
Preparing presentations on various topics
Advanced math problems involving calculus or algebra
Reading classic literature and writing analytical essays
Research papers on historical events
Lab reports for advanced science experiments
Foreign language exercises
Preparing for standardized tests
College application essays
Extensive research papers
In-depth case studies
Advanced problem-solving in subjects like physics, engineering, etc.
Thesis or dissertation writing
Extensive reading and literature reviews
Internship or practicum experiences

Lack of proven benefits

Homework has long been a staple of traditional education, dating back centuries. However, the actual efficacy of homework in enhancing learning outcomes remains disputed. A number of studies indicate that there's no conclusive evidence supporting the notion that homework improves academic performance, especially in primary education . In fact, research suggests that for younger students, the correlation between homework and academic achievement is weak or even negative .

Too much homework can often lead to increased stress and decreased enthusiasm for learning. This issue becomes particularly pressing when considering the common 'more is better' approach to homework, where the quantity of work given to students often outweighs the quality and effectiveness of the tasks. For instance, spending countless hours memorizing facts for a history test may not necessarily translate to better understanding or long-term retention of the subject matter.

However, it's worth noting that homework isn't completely devoid of benefits. It can help foster self-discipline, time management skills, and the ability to work independently. But, these positive outcomes are usually more pronounced in older students and when homework assignments are thoughtfully designed and not excessive in volume.

When discussing the merits and drawbacks of homework, it's critical to consider the nature of the assignments. Routine, repetitive tasks often associated with 'drill-and-practice' homework, such as completing rows of arithmetic problems or copying definitions from a textbook, rarely lead to meaningful learning. On the other hand, assignments that encourage students to apply what they've learned in class, solve problems, or engage creatively with the material can be more beneficial.

Increased stress

Homework can often lead to a significant increase in stress levels among students. This is especially true when students are burdened with large volumes of homework, leaving them with little time to relax or pursue other activities. The feeling of constantly racing against the clock to meet deadlines can contribute to anxiety, frustration, and even burnout.

Contrary to popular belief, stress does not necessarily improve performance or productivity. In fact, high levels of stress can negatively impact memory, concentration, and overall cognitive function. This counteracts the very purpose of homework, which is intended to reinforce learning and improve academic outcomes.

However, one might argue that homework can teach students about time management, organization, and how to handle pressure. These are important life skills that could potentially prepare them for future responsibilities. But it's essential to strike a balance. The pressure to complete homework should not come at the cost of a student's mental wellbeing.

Limited family time

Homework often infringes upon the time students can spend with their families. After spending the entire day in school, children come home to yet more academic work, leaving little room for quality family interactions. This limited family time can hinder the development of important interpersonal skills and familial bonds.

Moreover, family time isn't just about fun and relaxation. It also plays a crucial role in the social and emotional development of children. Opportunities for unstructured play, family conversations, and shared activities can contribute to children's well-being and character building.

Nonetheless, advocates of homework might argue that it can be a platform for parental involvement in a child's education. While this may be true, the involvement should not transform into parental control or cause friction due to differing expectations and pressures.

Reduced physical activity

Homework can often lead to reduced physical activity by eating into the time students have for sports, recreation, and simply being outdoors. Physical activity is essential for children's health, well-being, and even their academic performance. Research suggests that physical activity can enhance cognitive abilities, improve concentration, and reduce symptoms of ADHD .

Homework, especially when it's boring and repetitive, can deter students from engaging in physical activities, leading to a sedentary lifestyle. This lack of balance between work and play can contribute to physical health problems such as obesity, poor posture, and related health concerns.

Homework proponents might point out that disciplined time management could allow students to balance both work and play. However, given the demanding nature of many homework assignments, achieving this balance is often easier said than done.

Negative impact on sleep

A significant concern about homework is its impact on students' sleep patterns. Numerous studies have linked excessive homework to sleep deprivation in students. Children often stay up late to complete assignments, reducing the amount of sleep they get. Lack of sleep can result in a host of issues, from poor academic performance and difficulty concentrating to physical health problems like weakened immunity.

Even the quality of sleep can be affected. The stress and anxiety from a heavy workload can lead to difficulty falling asleep or restless nights. And let's not forget that students often need to wake up early for school, compounding the negative effects of late-night homework sessions.

On the other hand, some argue that homework can teach children time management skills, suggesting that effective organization could help prevent late-night work. However, when schools assign excessive amounts of homework, even the best time management might not prevent encroachment on sleep time.

Homework can exacerbate existing educational inequalities. Not all students have access to a conducive learning environment at home, necessary resources, or support from educated family members. For these students, homework can become a source of stress and disadvantage rather than an opportunity to reinforce learning.

Children from lower socio-economic backgrounds might need to contribute to household chores or part-time work, limiting the time they have for homework. This can create a gap in academic performance and grades, reflecting not on the students' abilities but their circumstances.

While homework is meant to level the playing field by providing additional learning time outside school, it often does the opposite. It's worth noting that students from privileged backgrounds can often access additional help like tutoring, further widening the gap.

Reduced creativity and independent thinking

Homework, particularly when it involves rote learning or repetitive tasks, can stifle creativity and independent thinking. Students often focus on getting the "right" answers to please teachers rather than exploring different ideas and solutions. This can hinder their ability to think creatively and solve problems independently, skills that are increasingly in demand in the modern world.

Homework defenders might claim that it can also promote independent learning. True, when thoughtfully designed, homework can encourage this. But, voluminous or repetitive tasks tend to promote compliance over creativity.

Diminished interest in learning

Overburdening students with homework can diminish their interest in learning. After long hours in school followed by more academic tasks at home, learning can begin to feel like a chore. This can lead to a decline in intrinsic motivation and an unhealthy association of learning with stress and exhaustion.

In theory, homework can deepen interest in a subject, especially when it involves projects or research. Yet, an excess of homework, particularly routine tasks, might achieve the opposite, turning learning into a source of stress rather than enjoyment.

Inability to pursue personal interests

Homework can limit students' ability to pursue personal interests. Hobbies, personal projects, and leisure activities are crucial for personal development and well-being. With heavy homework loads, students may struggle to find time for these activities, missing out on opportunities to discover new interests and talents.

Supporters of homework might argue that it teaches students to manage their time effectively. However, even with good time management, an overload of homework can crowd out time for personal interests.

Excessive workload

The issue of excessive workload is a common complaint among students. Spending several hours on homework after a full school day can be mentally and physically draining. This workload can lead to burnout, decreased motivation, and negative attitudes toward school and learning.

While homework can help consolidate classroom learning, too much can be counterproductive. It's important to consider the overall workload of students, including school, extracurricular activities, and personal time, when assigning homework.

Limited time for reflection

Homework can limit the time students have for reflection. Reflection is a critical part of learning, allowing students to digest and integrate new information. With the constant flow of assignments, there's often little time left for this crucial process. Consequently, the learning becomes superficial, and the true understanding of subjects can be compromised.

Although homework is meant to reinforce what's taught in class, the lack of downtime for reflection might hinder deep learning. It's important to remember that learning is not just about doing, but also about thinking.

Increased pressure on young children

Young children are particularly vulnerable to the pressures of homework. At an age where play and exploration are vital for cognitive and emotional development, too much homework can create undue pressure and stress. This pressure can instigate a negative relationship with learning from an early age, potentially impacting their future attitude towards education.

Advocates of homework often argue that it prepares children for the rigors of their future academic journey. However, placing too much academic pressure on young children might overshadow the importance of learning through play and exploration.

Lack of alignment with real-world skills

Traditional homework often lacks alignment with real-world skills. Assignments typically focus on academic abilities at the expense of skills like creativity, problem-solving, and emotional intelligence. These are crucial for success in the modern workplace and are often under-emphasized in homework tasks.

Homework can be an opportunity to develop these skills when properly structured. However, tasks often focus on memorization and repetition, rather than cultivating skills relevant to the real world.

Loss of motivation

Excessive homework can lead to a loss of motivation. The constant pressure to complete assignments and meet deadlines can diminish a student's intrinsic motivation to learn. This loss of motivation might not only affect their academic performance but also their love of learning, potentially having long-term effects on their educational journey.

Some believe homework instills discipline and responsibility. But, it's important to balance these benefits against the potential for homework to undermine motivation and engagement.

Disruption of work-life balance

Maintaining a healthy work-life balance is as important for students as it is for adults. Overloading students with homework can disrupt this balance, leaving little time for relaxation, socializing, and extracurricular activities. All of these are vital for a student's overall development and well-being.

Homework supporters might argue that it prepares students for the workloads they'll face in college and beyond. But it's also crucial to ensure students have time to relax, recharge, and engage in non-academic activities for a well-rounded development.

Impact on mental health

There's a growing body of evidence showing the negative impact of excessive homework on students' mental health. The stress and anxiety from heavy homework loads can contribute to issues like depression, anxiety, and even thoughts of suicide. Student well-being should be a top priority in education, and the impact of homework on mental health cannot be ignored.

While some might argue that homework helps students develop resilience and coping skills, it's important to ensure these potential benefits don't come at the expense of students' mental health.

Limited time for self-care

With excessive homework, students often find little time for essential self-care activities. These can include physical exercise, proper rest, healthy eating, mindfulness, or even simple leisure activities. These activities are critical for maintaining physical health, emotional well-being, and cognitive function.

Some might argue that managing homework alongside self-care responsibilities teaches students valuable life skills. However, it's important that these skills don't come at the cost of students' health and well-being.

Decreased family involvement

Homework can inadvertently lead to decreased family involvement in a child's learning. Parents often feel unqualified or too busy to help with homework, leading to missed opportunities for family learning interactions. This can also create stress and conflict within the family, especially when parents have high expectations or are unable to assist.

Some believe homework can facilitate parental involvement in education. But, when it becomes a source of stress or conflict, it can discourage parents from engaging in their child's learning.

Reinforcement of inequalities

Homework can unintentionally reinforce inequalities. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds might lack access to resources like private tutors or a quiet study space, placing them at a disadvantage compared to their more privileged peers. Additionally, these students might have additional responsibilities at home, further limiting their time to complete homework.

While the purpose of homework is often to provide additional learning opportunities, it can inadvertently reinforce existing disparities. Therefore, it's essential to ensure that homework doesn't favor students who have more resources at home.

Reduced time for play and creativity

Homework can take away from time for play and creative activities. These activities are not only enjoyable but also crucial for the cognitive, social, and emotional development of children. Play allows children to explore, imagine, and create, fostering innovative thinking and problem-solving skills.

Some may argue that homework teaches discipline and responsibility. Yet, it's vital to remember that play also has significant learning benefits and should be a part of every child's daily routine.

Increased cheating and academic dishonesty

The pressure to complete homework can sometimes lead to increased cheating and academic dishonesty. When faced with a large volume of homework, students might resort to copying from friends or searching for answers online. This undermines the educational value of homework and fosters unhealthy academic practices.

While homework is intended to consolidate learning, the risk of promoting dishonest behaviors is a concern that needs to be addressed.

Strained teacher-student relationships

Excessive homework can strain teacher-student relationships. If students begin to associate teachers with stress or anxiety from homework, it can hinder the development of a positive learning relationship. Furthermore, if teachers are perceived as being unfair or insensitive with their homework demands, it can impact the overall classroom dynamic.

While homework can provide an opportunity for teachers to monitor student progress, it's important to ensure that it doesn't negatively affect the teacher-student relationship.

Negative impact on family dynamics

Homework can impact family dynamics. Parents might feel compelled to enforce homework completion, leading to potential conflict, stress, and tension within the family. These situations can disrupt the harmony in the household and strain relationships.

Homework is sometimes seen as a tool to engage parents in their child's education. However, it's crucial to ensure that this involvement doesn't turn into a source of conflict or pressure.

Cultural and individual differences

Homework might not take into account cultural and individual differences. Education is not a one-size-fits-all process, and what works for one student might not work for another. Some students might thrive on hands-on learning, while others prefer auditory or visual learning methods. By standardizing homework, we might ignore these individual learning styles and preferences.

Homework can also overlook cultural differences. For students from diverse cultural backgrounds, certain types of homework might seem irrelevant or difficult to relate to, leading to disengagement or confusion.

Encouragement of surface-level learning

Homework often encourages surface-level learning instead of deep understanding. When students are swamped with homework, they're likely to rush through assignments to get them done, rather than taking the time to understand the concepts. This can result in superficial learning where students memorize information to regurgitate it on assignments and tests, instead of truly understanding and internalizing the knowledge.

While homework is meant to reinforce classroom learning, the quality of learning is more important than the quantity. It's important to design homework in a way that encourages deep, meaningful learning instead of mere rote memorization.

Diathesis-Stress Model (Definition + Examples)
HPA Axis (Hypothalamic Pituitary Adrenal Axis)
General Adaptation Syndrome Theory
Careers in Psychology
The Stress Response (General Adaptation Syndome)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Free Personality Test

Free Memory Test

Free IQ Test

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

August 20, 2024

Student Opinion and Resources Newspaper

The Negative Effects of Homework

Last updated on July 27, 2022

It’s easy to villainize homework, a common stress factor in our daily lives. Numerous teachers assign a simple ten minutes of homework a day, usually more. However, entering middle and high school, the six to seven classes quickly add up. Soon, drowning in hours of endless work becomes routine. This cuts into extracurriculars, and personal free time, and dictates how we spend our day. Homework is not necessary because of the negative impacts on mental health it helps develop, such as burn-out, and only benefits the non-disadvantaged families.

Homework was originally invented by an Italian teacher in 1905 and used to punish misbehaving students. The version of homework we complete every day is far from that. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that the typical high schooler spends 6.8 hours of homework per week, perhaps longer. What used to be discipline has now become a plethora of pressure. “That means that by asking our children to put in an hour or more per day of dedicated homework time, we are not only not helping them, but according to the aforementioned studies — we are hurting them, both physically and emotionally.” Being an eighth-grader with non-academic commitments and a touch of insomnia, homework is a huge anxiety factor in my daily life. Although I’m still thriving in the school environment, it is an unnecessary distraction when I could be preparing for a final or different commitment. One of the leading causes of sleep deprivation in teens is homework, which [in middle and high school at least], can easily be limited to a small subset.

With a lack of relaxation and an abundance of work, the body shuts down, physically and mentally. Burnout, depression, and anxiety are all present when the anticipated overload occurs. What is burnout? “A stressful lifestyle can put people under extreme pressure, to the point that they feel exhausted, empty, burned out, and unable to cope.” The term “burnout” was coined by American psychologist Herbert Freudenberger in the 1970s. For students with a competitive sport, other activity-filled schedules, or AP/honor classes, this has been proven true. It has been proven that areas of work cause this, not to be confused with exhaustion or depression, which can be life-threatening negative thoughts, low self-esteem, and hopelessness. It’s important to understand balance. If homework cannot be completely eliminated from the curriculum, it should at least be ensured a cut in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

In addition to unkept stress, many students do not have the proper access to technology and homework help. Less affluent families have children that may work jobs, take care of family members when the parents are working multiple shifts, and generally don’t have internet connections/technology. “It highlights Inequalities” is the term the University of Sandiego uses. In addition, the American Psychological Association also observes, “Adding homework into the mix is one more thing to deal with — and if the student is struggling, the task of completing homework can be too much to consider at the end of an already long school day”. Although most students simply whine and complain about the extra work, it can be a true disadvantage for children in struggling home environments.

Many would argue, “Homework is essential to the school’s curriculum. How else would the students polish up the learning material, get extra practice, and teach time management?”. While these are all fair points, extended school hours could solve this problem. Accessibility to help after school, as mentioned previously, is difficult for many students. Extending the school session by even an hour or less, which will also benefit parents’ working schedules, lets the teacher have more time to grade assignments done in class and deliver help to the students. Teachers should ensure that students understand the material while in class. When the extra practice is then supplied, the teacher has an opportunity to work with the pupil. A study hall would be advantageous as well, as opposed to leaving students to fend for themselves after school.

Although homework has both positives and negatives, the strain it places on students is not healthy and outweighs the benefits. Learners already spend six to seven hours five days a week in a tense environment, and as the name implies, work after school shouldn’t be standard. Many workplaces are experimenting with five-hour workdays, such as Tower Paddle Boards because a study by the APA showed Americans can only be fully productive for two to three hours in a row. In the future, I hope that schools will be able to do the same in order to prevent mental and physical overworking, level the playing field for unequipped families, and allow students to spend more time with friends, and family, and pursue non-academic activities.

Be First to Comment

Leave a reply cancel reply, discover more from the outspoken.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Amazon cleaning products you didn't know you needed, from $7

Share this —

Watch Full Episodes
Read With Jenna
Inspirational
Relationships
TODAY Table
Newsletters
Start TODAY
Shop TODAY Awards
Citi Concert Series
Listen All Day

Follow today

More Brands

On The Show
TODAY Plaza

Is homework robbing your family of joy? You're not alone

Children are not the only ones who dread their homework these days. In a 2019 survey of 1,049 parents with children in elementary, middle, or high school, Office Depot found that parents spend an average of 21 minutes a day helping their children with their homework. Those 21 minutes are often apparently very unpleasant.

Parents reported their children struggle to complete homework. One in five believed their children "always or often feel overwhelmed by homework," and half of them reported their children had cried over homework stress.

Parents are struggling to help. Four out of five parents reported that they have had difficulty understanding their children's homework.

This probably comes as no surprise to any parent who has come up against a third grade math homework sheet with the word "array" printed on it. If you have not yet had the pleasure, for the purposes of Common Core math, an array is defined as a set of objects arranged in rows and columns and used to help kids learn about multiplication. For their parents, though, it's defined as a "What? Come again? Huh?"

It's just as hard on the students. "My high school junior says homework is the most stressful part of high school...maybe that’s why he never does any," said Mandy Burkhart, of Lake Mary, Florida, who is a mother of five children ranging in age from college to preschool.

In fact, Florida high school teacher and mother of three Katie Tomlinson no longer assigns homework in her classroom. "Being a parent absolutely changed the way I assign homework to my students," she told TODAY Parents .

"Excessive homework can quickly change a student’s mind about a subject they previously enjoyed," she noted. "While I agree a check and balance is necessary for students to understand their own ability prior to a test, I believe it can be done in 10 questions versus 30."

But homework is a necessary evil for most students, so what is a parent to do to ensure everyone in the house survives? Parents and professionals weigh in on the essentials:

Understand the true purpose of homework

"Unless otherwise specified, homework is designed to be done by the child independently, and it's most often being used as a form of formative assessment by the teacher to gauge how the kids are applying — independently — what they are learning in class," said Oona Hanson , a Los Angeles-area educator and parent coach.

"If an adult at home is doing the heavy lifting, then the teacher never knows that the child isn't ready to do this work alone, and the cycle continues because the teacher charges ahead thinking they did a great job the day before!" Hanson said. "It's essential that teachers know when their students are struggling for whatever reason."

Hanson noted the anxiety both parents and children have about academic achievement, and she understands the parental impulse to jump in and help, but she suggested resisting that urge. "We can help our kids more in the long run if we can let them know it's OK to struggle a little bit and that they can be honest with their teacher about what they don't understand," she said.

Never miss a parenting story with the TODAY Parenting newsletter! Sign up here.

Help kids develop time management skills

Some children like to finish their homework the minute they get home. Others need time to eat a snack and decompress. Either is a valid approach, but no matter when students decide to tackle their homework, they might need some guidance from parents about how to manage their time .

One tip: "Set the oven timer for age appropriate intervals of work, and then let them take a break for a few minutes," Maura Olvey, an elementary school math specialist in Central Florida, told TODAY Parents. "The oven timer is visible to them — they know when a break is coming — and they are visible to you, so you can encourage focus and perseverance." The stopwatch function on a smartphone would work for this method as well.

But one size does not fit all when it comes to managing homework, said Cleveland, Ohio, clinical psychologist Dr. Sarah Cain Spannagel . "If their child has accommodations as a learner, parents know they need them at home as well as at school: quiet space, extended time, audio books, etcetera," she said. "Think through long assignments, and put those in planners in advance so the kid knows it is expected to take some time."

Know when to walk away

"I always want my parents to know when to call it a night," said Amanda Feroglia, a central Florida elementary teacher and mother of two. "The children's day at school is so rigorous; some nights it’s not going to all get done, and that’s OK! It’s not worth the meltdown or the fight if they are tired or you are frustrated...or both!"

Parents also need to accept their own limits. Don't be afraid to find support from YouTube videos, websites like Khan Academy, or even tutors. And in the end, said Spannagel, "If you find yourself yelling or frustrated, just walk away!" It's fine just to let a teacher know your child attempted but did not understand the homework and leave it at that.

Ideally, teachers will understand when parents don't know how to help with Common Core math, and they will assign an appropriate amount of homework that will not leave both children and their parents at wits' ends. If worst comes to worst, a few parents offered an alternative tip for their fellow homework warriors.

"If Brittany leaves Boston for New York at 3:00 pm traveling by train at 80 MPH, and Taylor leaves Boston for New York at 1:00 pm traveling by car at 65 MPH, and Brittany makes two half hour stops, and Taylor makes one that is ten minutes longer, how many glasses of wine does mommy need?" quipped one mom of two.

Also recommended: "Chocolate, in copious amounts."

Allison Slater Tate is a freelance writer and editor in Florida specializing in parenting and college admissions. She is a proud Gen Xer, ENFP, Leo, Diet Coke enthusiast, and champion of the Oxford Comma. She mortifies her four children by knowing all the trending songs on TikTok. Follow her on Twitter and Instagram .

This mom of 9 wanted her kids to eat healthy — so she installed a salad bar in her kitchen

Joe Biden’s kids: All about Beau, Hunter, Naomi and Ashley

Kamala Harris does have kids: Meet her two stepchildren, Cole and Ella

Tim Walz and wife Gwen's kids: All about Hope and Gus

Mom shares adorable video of giggling triplet babies who refuse to sleep

Phil Donahue as a father: Who are the legendary talk show host's 5 kids?

240 baby names that start with 'Q'

250 baby names that start with ‘R’

Robert De Niro’s daughter shares never-before-seen moments of her dad in birthday tribute

Chris Pratt shares photo of son Jack having fun at a farm on his birthday: 'I thank God everyday for you'

Investigating the Effects of Homework on Student Learning and Academic Performance

The Journal of Experimental Education

Department of Education

Discover the world's research

25+ million members
160+ million publication pages
2.3+ billion citations

Jorgianne Civey Robinson

Joyce L. Epstein
Frances L. Van Voorhis

Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Environment
Science & Technology
Business & Industry
Health & Public Welfare
Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
Public Inspection
Presidential Documents
Document Search
Advanced Document Search
Public Inspection Search
Reader Aids Home
Office of the Federal Register Announcements
Using FederalRegister.Gov
Understanding the Federal Register
Recent Site Updates
Federal Register & CFR Statistics
Videos & Tutorials
Developer Resources
Government Policy and OFR Procedures
Congressional Review
My Clipboard
My Comments
My Subscriptions
Sign In / Sign Up
Site Feedback
Search the Federal Register

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Design Updates: As part of our ongoing effort to make FederalRegister.gov more accessible and easier to use we've enlarged the space available to the document content and moved all document related data into the utility bar on the left of the document. Read more in our feature announcement .

Addressing the Homework Gap Through the E-Rate Program

A Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 08/20/2024

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Document Details Published Content - Document Details Agency Federal Communications Commission Agency/Docket Numbers WC Docket No. 21-31 FCC 24-76 FR ID 237079 CFR 47 CFR 54 Document Citation 89 FR 67303 Document Number 2024-18122 Document Type Rule Pages 67303-67326 (24 pages) Publication Date 08/20/2024 Published Content - Document Details
View printed version (PDF)
Document Dates Published Content - Document Dates Effective Date 09/19/2024 Dates Text Effective September 19, 2024, except for the amendments to Sec. Sec. 54.504 and 54.516, at amendatory instructions 4 and 9, respectively, which are delayed indefinitely. The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for those sections. Published Content - Document Dates

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Supplementary information:, introduction, severability, procedural matters, ordering clauses, list of subjects in 47 cfr part 54, final rules, part 54-universal service.

This feature is not available for this document.

Additional information is not currently available for this document.

Sharing Enhanced Content - Sharing Shorter Document URL https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-18122 Email Email this document to a friend Enhanced Content - Sharing
Print this document

This document is also available in the following formats:

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 08/19/2024 at 8:45 am.

It was viewed 15 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

Document headings vary by document type but may contain the following:

the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details.

Federal Communications Commission

47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 21-31; FCC 24-76; FR ID 237079]

Federal Communications Commission.

Final rule.

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) takes steps to modernize the E-Rate program to meet the evolving needs of schools and libraries around the country by allowing for the distribution of Wi-Fi hotspots and services to students, school staff, and library patrons for off-premises use.

Effective September 19, 2024, except for the amendments to §§ 54.504 and 54.516, at amendatory instructions 4 and 9, respectively, which are delayed indefinitely. The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for those sections.

For further information, please contact, Molly O'Conor, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, wireline competition Bureau, at [email protected] or (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484. Requests for accommodations should be made as soon as possible in order to allow the agency to satisfy such requests whenever possible. Send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order ( Order ) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( FNPRM ) in WC Docket No. 21-31; FCC 24-76, adopted on July 18, 2024 and released on July 29, 2024. The full text of this document is available at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-76A1.pdf .

Technology has become an integral part of the modern classroom and receiving an education, especially in the recent past, and the barrier to accessing such technology puts individuals at a significant disadvantage to their peers and often prevents educators from being able to teach. In the Report and Order ( Order ), the Commission take steps to modernize the E-Rate program to meet the evolving needs of schools and libraries around the country by allowing for the distribution of Wi-Fi hotspots and services to students, school staff, and library patrons for off-premises use.

Since its inception more than 25 years ago, the Commission's E-Rate program has supported high-speed, affordable internet services to and within school and library buildings, and has been instrumental in providing students, school staff, and library patrons with access to the essential broadband services that are required for next-generation learning. Recognizing the Commission's responsibility to ensure the E-Rate program evolves with the educational needs of students and library patrons, the Commission has frequently modernized the program to reflect the changes in education and technology, including by providing more equitable access to funding for Wi-Fi networks in schools and libraries. Recently the Commission has seen significant advances in technology that have changed not only the way schools and libraries provide educational resources, but also the way students, school staff, and library patrons access such resources. In particular, an internet connection has become an essential requirement for learners to access tasks that are vital to obtaining an education, including homework assignments, online classes, library materials, continuing education, and career and government applications.

The need for internet connectivity beyond the campus boundaries was further underscored by nationwide school and library closures beginning in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, when most educational activities were unexpectedly forced to shift online overnight. During this time, thanks to the creativity and resourcefulness of schools and libraries around the country, many students, school staff, and library patrons that would have been caught on the wrong side of the digital divide or the “Homework Gap”— i.e., students unable to fully participate in educational opportunities because they lack broadband connectivity in their homes—were able to obtain a broadband connection provided by their local school or library. Many schools and libraries used funding provided through the congressionally-appropriated Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF) program to purchase connected devices, Wi-Fi hotspot devices, broadband connections, and other eligible equipment and services for students, school staff, and library patrons in need, to use at a variety of locations, including locations other than schools and libraries, during the pandemic. Notably, schools and libraries found success in establishing ECF-funded Wi-Fi hotspot lending programs to provide the hotspot equipment and monthly mobile wireless broadband services needed to connect individuals who otherwise lacked the internet access needed to fully participate in remote learning.

Even with schools and libraries reopening and returning to in-person instruction, the need for internet connections outside of the school or library buildings to fully engage in education remains, and schools and libraries are seeking to continue funding these valuable lending programs to keep their students, school staff, and library patrons connected. That is why the Commission adapts the E-Rate program to recognize these needs. Building on its experiences in the ECF program and the comments the Commission received in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ), 88 FR 85157 , December 7, 2023, the Commission adopts a budget mechanism to allow for the equitable distribution of Wi-Fi hotspots and services to students, school staff, and library patrons. These rules are intended to be another step in updating the E-Rate program to reflect the realities of many schools and libraries by lending Wi-Fi hotspots and services through community and school libraries across the country so that students, school staff, and library patrons with the greatest need can be connected and learn without limits.

In the Order, the Commission takes steps to modernize the E-Rate program to ensure that schools and libraries across the nation have the tools necessary to connect their students, school staff, or library patrons who have fallen onto the wrong side of the digital divide or the Homework Gap. First, the Commission permits schools and libraries to purchase Wi-Fi hotspots and services that they can lend to students, school staff, and library patrons for off-premises use and direct the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) to make the services and equipment eligible as part of the funding year 2025 eligible services list proceeding. Second, relying on the successes of and lessons learned from the ECF program, as well as the Wi-Fi hotspot lending programs established by schools and libraries with ECF support, the Commission establishes a budget mechanism to set a limit on the amount of support that an eligible school or library can request for Wi-Fi hotspots and services that can be loaned to their students, school staff, and library patrons, thereby allowing schools and libraries the flexibility to target those with the greatest need in their respective populations. Next, the Commission also remains committed to supporting the connectivity needs of school and library buildings by prioritizing funding for these off-premises services after on-premises-related funding requests. Mindful of its duty to be a responsible steward of limited universal service resources, the Commission also adopts safeguards to ensure the E-Rate funds are used for their intended purpose. Finally, the Commission reaffirms its conclusions that the obligations of the Children's internet Protection Act (CIPA) apply if the school or library receives E-Rate support for internet service, internet access, or network connection services or related equipment, including Wi-Fi hotspots.

Based on the record and consistent with its authority pursuant to section 254(h) of the Communications Act, the Commission adopts its proposal to permit schools and libraries to receive E-Rate support for Wi-Fi hotspots and services to be used off-premises by students, school staff, and library patrons. Although the E-Rate program has not historically provided support for most off-premises uses of E-Rate- ( print page 67305) supported services, the Commission agrees with commenters that today's educational environment has substantially changed since the advent of the E-Rate program in 1997. Namely, the increasing shift to digital learning due to evolving technologies as well as pandemic-related changes has resulted in internet connectivity becoming a necessity to being able to fully participate in modern education for students, school staff, and library patrons alike.

For schools, the pandemic highlighted the digital divide, leaving those students without access to reliable home internet unable to access educational resources, participate in remote learning, or connect with teachers. Smith Bagley, Inc. (SBi) described how emergency funding during the pandemic increased educational opportunities for Tribal students by focusing on digital inclusion and introducing digital learning tools that have been available to urban and suburban communities for years, allowing them to connect to schools on days they would otherwise miss and allowing teachers to reach students that would otherwise be left disconnected. The digital divide between students with access to broadband at home and those without exacerbates existing inequalities, particularly for certain communities—such as those in rural or economically-disadvantaged areas. Commenters note that stable internet connectivity at home is essential to “educational opportunity, equity, and achievement” with digital learning tools enabling “more expansive, up-to-date content, the inclusion of educational videos, and effective online collaboration.” Others explain the reliance on online digital resources allows learners “to engage with supplemental educational materials, complete homework assignments, and connect with one another,” which leaves “[s]tudents and staff that are unable to access the connected classroom . . . at a significant disadvantage.” A 2021 report observed that “[h]istorically students caught in the digital divide have lower academic achievement with a significant impact on lifetime earnings.”

Likewise, for libraries, providing free, high-speed access to the internet is critical to many of the services libraries provide, particularly for disadvantaged communities. Library services increasingly include virtual offerings. For example, libraries allow patrons to access digital resources remotely, including reserving or renewing books, accessing digital collections and e-materials, providing community support resources, and even offering support to library patrons who are educators or students, making these digital resources available to library patrons at the moment they need them. Additionally, Wi-Fi hotspot lending programs that provide remote access to the internet for library patrons are both successful and in high demand. For instance, one commenter explains that at the Chicopee Public Library, Wi-Fi hotspots are checked out “every day to people who have no other way of accessing this service without putting themselves in danger of being unable to afford basic necessities.”

The Commission modernizes the E-Rate program to address this digital inequity that leaves some students, school staff, and library patrons unable to fully participate in schoolwork or access library resources. The Commission further recognizes how learning is no longer confined to the physical school or library building during regular operating hours, and how libraries and schools often serve to fill the educational and connectivity gap for their students, school staff, and library patrons who lack access to the internet. Additionally, based on its experiences through the ECF program, the Commission further seeks to recognize the utility of Wi-Fi hotspots as an easily sourced and affordable means of providing connectivity for schools and libraries and acknowledge the commenters' countless examples of how Wi-Fi hotspot lending programs established with ECF funding have benefitted communities and students around the nation. Now, numerous libraries and schools are faced with the difficult decision to reduce the number of Wi-Fi hotspots available for circulation or start charging fees, not because of lack of demand, but because of lack of available funding. This has only been further exacerbated by the recent loss of Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) benefits by many low-income households across the country. As such, the Commission extends eligibility to provide eligible schools and libraries with much-needed assistance in getting the students, school staff, and library patrons with the greatest need connected via Wi-Fi hotspots and services that can be used off-premises.

Eligible Equipment & Services. The Commission adopts the proposed definitions to permit Wi-Fi hotspots and mobile wireless internet services as eligible for E-Rate support. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on what specific equipment and services should be deemed eligible for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and mobile wireless internet services. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on adopting the ECF program's definition of a Wi-Fi hotspot ( i.e., “a device that is capable of (a) receiving advanced telecommunications and information services; and (b) sharing such services with a connected device through the use of Wi-Fi”) and limiting service eligibility to commercially available mobile wireless internet services that can be supported by and delivered with such Wi-Fi hotspots. Commenters are largely supportive of making off-premises uses eligible for E-Rate funding and, despite also requesting additional equipment and services be made eligible, were supportive of the proposed definitions of Wi-Fi hotspots and mobile wireless internet services that can be used off-premises. Based on the record, the Commission adopts the proposed definitions for the equipment and services eligible for support in the E-Rate program and direct the Bureau to add Wi-Fi hotspots and mobile wireless internet services that can be used off-premises as eligible services as part of the funding year 2025 eligible services list proceeding.

With respect to eligible equipment, the Commission adopts definitions of “Wi-Fi” and “Wi-Fi hotspot” in its rules that are based on the definitions adopted by it in the ECF program. Specifically, the Commission defines “Wi-Fi” as “wireless networking protocol based on Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers standard 802.11” and the Commission defines “Wi-Fi hotspot” as “a device that is capable of receiving advanced telecommunications and information services, and sharing such services with another connected device through the use of Wi-Fi.” The Commission finds that this decision is both supported by the record and by its own experiences successfully providing connectivity to students, school staff, and library patrons delivered by Wi-Fi hotspots through the ECF program. However, the Commission also wishes to acknowledge that these terms may have other accepted meanings within the communications industry. For example, Intel defines “Wi-Fi hotspot” to mean “a physical location where individuals can access the internet wirelessly through a wireless local area network (WLAN) using Wi-Fi technology.” The Commission concludes that this definition would be overly broad for these purposes, as the function described can be provided by many different types of devices and may permit unintended scenarios such as funding public Wi-Fi hubs in a public ( print page 67306) park or a community center, which is beyond the scope of its goal to provide connectivity to individual students, school staff, or library patrons caught in the Homework Gap or digital divide. Therefore, for the purposes of the E-Rate program, the definition the Commission adopts for “Wi-Fi hotspot” means a device (sometimes referred to as a “mobile hotspot” or “portable hotspot device”) that is intended to provide Wi-Fi connectivity to a hotspot user as its sole function. Additionally, the Commission limits the capability of a sole purpose Wi-Fi hotspot to devices that: (1) are portable; and (2) are a single device ( i.e., not a set of linked devices). Finally, these Wi-Fi hotspots must be for use with a commercially available mobile wireless internet service, rather than for use with Citizens Band Radio Service (CBRS) or other private network services.

The Commission declines to make other multi-functional devices that can support Wi-Fi eligible for E-Rate support. Thus, the Commission finds such multi-functional devices, e.g., smartphones, PCs, notebooks, tablets, customer premises equipment, routers or switches, and wireless access points, etc., are not eligible. In the ECF Order, 86 FR 29136 , May 28, 2021, the Commission also found it unnecessary to support costly smartphones used as Wi-Fi hotspots, when much less expensive hotspot devices can serve the same purpose. The Commission finds this determination remains true today; and therefore, the Commission limits E-Rate support to sole function Wi-Fi hotspot devices. Additionally, with respect to the requests to support end-user devices like laptops or tablets, the Commission concludes that this equipment remains ineligible for E-Rate support, consistent with its previous decisions to decline support for “computers and other peripheral equipment” based on its finding that only equipment that is an essential element in the transmission of information is eligible ( e.g., internal connections) for E-Rate support. Similar to its reasoning for making smartphones ineligible, the Commission also finds it unnecessary to take on the costly expenses of laptops or tablets with built-in wireless connections, when less expensive, sole purpose Wi-Fi hotspots are capable of delivering the same service. The Commission also declines to permit applicants to request the mobile wireless services delivered to broadband-enabled end user devices ( e.g., laptops, tablets). While the Commission recognizes that there are some benefits to students using these devices, the Commission is concerned that it adds unneeded complexity in its review of the services eligibility, particularly in trying to ensure these E-Rate-supported services are targeted to students with need, rather than just to students who need a school-assigned tablet or laptop.

With respect to mobile wireless internet services, the Commission limits the use of services to those that can be supported by and delivered with Wi-Fi hotspots provided to an individual user. The Commission appreciates the suggestions of several commenters who urge it to also expand eligibility beyond just Wi-Fi hotspots and mobile wireless services. Citing concerns that limiting eligibility to Wi-Fi hotspots and mobile wireless services would be contrary to the statutory requirement in section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act to establish “competitively neutral” rules, these commenters argue that the Commission should also permit E-Rate support for other off-premises technologies, including: fixed wireless connections and the related equipment, private 5G/LTE networks, CBRS and television white space (TVWS), fiber, and network expansion or construction. The Commission acknowledges these commenters' concerns and recognize that connectivity provided by Wi-Fi hotspots is not a one-size-fits-all solution. However, in taking this action, the Commission remains focused on the statutory obligation to establish rules that enhance access to the extent it is “economically reasonable.” At this time, the Commission does not possess the information necessary to make a broader determination, nor did any commenters sufficiently analyze the feasibility of broadening the scope of eligibility. In particular, the Commission does not have sufficient data to rely on to establish funding caps on the equipment or service costs associated with other solutions or to establish an overall budget like the one adopted for Wi-Fi hotspots herein. At this time, the Commission establishes caps in this program on both services and equipment in order to simplify review, aid administration, and constrain costs. Commenters provided examples of costs for existing network builds, but not in a way that would allow the Commission to establish caps or assess cost-effectiveness on costs of access points, antennas, switches, radios, customer premises equipment, backhaul, installation, RF design and planning, engineering, licenses, maintenance, software updates, and other miscellaneous charges. For example, while some stakeholders urge the Commission to permit E-Rate support for applicant-enabled off-campus networks, and provide some analysis for the potential cost efficiency of such solutions, they also acknowledge that these alternatives that would require much higher up-front deployment costs and rely on reaching a large number of students, school staff, and library patrons. Even if constrained by the overall budgets adopted, the Commission is concerned that these alternative solutions would be challenging to review for cost-effectiveness by applicants and the Administrator without additional data and analysis. In contrast, the Commission's experiences funding Wi-Fi hotspots and mobile wireless internet services through the ECF program have demonstrated that this particular solution can reasonably be supported. The Commission therefore finds that taking this incremental step toward supporting the off-premises educational needs of its nation's students, school staff, and library patrons is not only in the public interest, but it is also within its legal authority. As such, the Commission limits eligibility to commercially available mobile wireless internet services and the Wi-Fi hotspots needed to deliver such services to an individual user.

Per-User Limits. Mindful of the importance of maximizing the use of limited funds, and consistent with the limitation adopted in the ECF program, the Commission adopts a rule to prohibit an eligible school or library from applying for more than one Wi-Fi hotspot provided for use by each student, school staff member, or library patron in the E-Rate program. The NPRM sought comment on whether the Commission should impose per-user limitations on eligible Wi-Fi hotspots and services. The ECF program limited support to one Wi-Fi hotspot device per student, school staff, or library patron. Many commenters expressed support for this approach. In adopting a per-user limitation on these equipment and services, the Commission seeks to equitably distribute and maximize the use of limited funds and the number of students, school staff, and library patrons served.

Minimum Service Standards. The Commission declines to adopt minimum service standards for Wi-Fi hotspots and services used off-premises at this time. While the Commission understands commenters' requests to establish limits related to data and quality of service, it finds that adopting minimum service standards runs the risk of penalizing the students, school staff, and library patrons in places ( print page 67307) where slower speed, data capped, and/or high latency services are currently the only affordable options. Furthermore, the Commission agrees with commenters' views that schools and libraries are in the best position to know what is available and sufficient for their students', school staff members', and library patrons' remote learning needs. The Commission expects that schools and libraries will make the best decisions to meet the remote learning needs of their students, school staff, and library patrons.

Demonstrating Cost-Effective Purchases of Wireless Services. In making the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and mobile wireless services eligible, the Commission concludes that the E-Rate program's current requirement that applicants demonstrate that mobile wireless services are more cost-effective than internal broadband services is not applicable to off-premises use. The Commission adopted that requirement because schools and libraries often require substantial bandwidth connections to meet their on-premises connectivity needs, which in turn would require them to seek E-Rate support for large numbers of data plans to meet those needs that may be more expensive than other methods of providing internal broadband access for mobile devices at the school or library. Here, the Commission solely makes the off-premises use of mobile wireless services eligible at this time; and thus, it finds no need to impose any such requirements for applicants seeking support for the off-premises use of wireless internet service and the Wi-Fi hotspots needed to deliver the services. In the event that the off-premises use of additional services and equipment becomes eligible in the future, the Commission will reconsider this approach and whether other requirements may be necessary. The Commission also reminds applicants seeking support for the off-premises use of wireless internet services and Wi-Fi hotspots that they remain subject to the E-Rate program's competitive bidding rules when seeking support for these services and equipment, including the requirement that they select the most cost-effective service offering, using price of the eligible equipment and services as the primary factor considered.

Implementation. The Commission directs the Bureau to make Wi-Fi hotspots and internet services eligible for E-Rate funding as part of the funding year 2025 eligible services list proceeding. Additionally, in implementing these changes, the Commission reaffirms the delegation of authority to the Bureau to interpret its rules and otherwise provide clarification and guidance regarding any ambiguity that may arise to ensure that support for these services provided to schools and libraries further the goals it has adopted for the E-Rate program. The Commission also directs the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), the Administrator of the E-Rate program, in coordination with and under the oversight of the Bureau, to issue further guidance and training on administrative and related processes for requesting support for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services.

Wi-Fi Hotspot Lending Program Mechanism. The Commission now adopts a budget mechanism to allow for the equitable distribution of Wi-Fi hotspots and services to students, school staff, and library patrons. In doing so, the budget mechanism will allow eligible schools and libraries to develop hotspot lending programs, while setting a limit on the amount of support that an applicant can request for Wi-Fi hotspots and services. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on how to establish a Wi-Fi hotspot program, recognizing that there are insufficient E-Rate funds to support a Wi-Fi hotspot and recurring service for every student, school staff member, and library patron across the nation. The NPRM also asked whether a per-student limit, like the one used for category two funding budgets, could help ensure support was distributed equitably to schools and libraries. The NPRM sought administratively feasible ways to prioritize support to students and library patrons without sufficient internet access. In response, several commenters described the challenges to the approaches used in the ECF program and sought greater flexibility for schools and libraries. The Commission also looks to lessons learned from its administration of the ECF program in addressing these challenges, with particular focus on program integrity. With these considerations in mind, the Commission adopts a budgeted approach based on a mechanism provided in the comments to create a targeted lending program that allows eligible schools and libraries to be able to request a limited number of Wi-Fi hotspot devices and services, if they have need for them, within a pre-discount budget similar to the E-Rate program's category two budgets. This approach takes into account the applicant size, using information that is already collected as part of the category two budget process, and also relies on the E-Rate program's historic focus on poverty and rurality by using the applicants' discount rates to calculate a Wi-Fi hotspot budget. Schools and libraries at higher discount rate levels will be eligible to request and receive a greater amount of E-Rate support for Wi-Fi hotspot devices and services than schools and libraries at lower discount rate levels.

In establishing a budgeted approach to the lending program mechanism, the Commission expects that the limited number of available Wi-Fi hotspots will more naturally be targeted to students, school staff, or library patrons with the most need. The budget mechanism will allow schools and libraries to target the appropriate individuals that lack broadband access; therefore, the Commission finds it does not need to adopt a survey requirement or other document collection requirement. Specifically, except in the one occasion discussed in this document, this limited lending approach will not require applicants to document whether a particular student, school staff member, or library patron has “unmet need” as the Commission defined that term in the ECF program, relying instead on establishing a hotspot budget to prevent applicants from over-purchasing Wi-Fi hotspots and services and permitting applicants to use their judgment to determine the need in their own localities within those limits. Instead, to ensure that use of the hotspot lending program is consistent with its objectives, the Commission will require schools and libraries to adopt and provide notice to the Wi-Fi hotspot recipients of an acceptable use policy (AUP) that highlights that the goal of the hotspot lending program is to provide broadband access to students and library patrons who need it. In combination with the applicant's requirement to pay its non-discounted share of costs, schools and libraries will be incented to right-size their Wi-Fi hotspot and service requests. However, the details of such a hotspot lending program—such as length of lending periods and how to target the appropriate students and library patrons—will be left to the applicant to determine and tailor the hotspot lending program to their local needs. For these reasons, the Commission can streamline the procedures that caused applicants the most challenges in the ECF program, benefiting applicants, service providers, and the Administrator.

The Commission finds adopting this approach to be a reasonable mechanism for limiting how many Wi-Fi hotspots and connections can be requested by an applicant. Specifically, applicants will be limited to a budget based on their ( print page 67308) full-time student count or library square footage, and their category one discount rate. In doing so, the Commission establishes bright line limits that are fair and equitable—allowing eligible schools and libraries to request Wi-Fi hotspots and service, but limiting the pool of Wi-Fi hotspots and service lines an applicant can request based on its discount rate and school or library size. This will allow schools and libraries to request funding for a Wi-Fi hotspot lending program that can provide wireless internet service to its students, school staff, and library patrons when it is needed most. The Commission prohibits one situation based on its experience in the ECF program—using Wi-Fi hotspots as part of a one to one (1:1) hotspot initiative, where every student receives a Wi-Fi hotspot. The Commission recognizes that even under the limiting mechanism, applicants might have a sufficient Wi-Fi hotspot budget that they could try to focus them all to a 1:1 initiative at a single low-income school in a district or a particular grade ( e.g., all juniors). Generally, applicants are prohibited from seeking E-Rate support for a 1:1 hotspot initiative like this and will be required to certify on the FCC Form 471 application that the hotspots and service will not be used for a 1:1 hotspot initiative. If E-Rate-funded Wi-Fi hotspots are used as part of a 1:1 initiative—either in practice by providing all of the devices to a single school in the district or in conjunction with Wi-Fi hotspots funded via other sources, applicants must document clearly ( i.e., individual survey results or attestations) that each individual student needed a Wi-Fi hotspot, in accordance with the AUPs, and may not rely on general or estimated findings about income levels. Funding disbursements for applicants without specific documentation to support a 1:1 Wi-Fi hotspot initiative will be subject to denial and/or recovery.

Wi-Fi Hotspot and Services Funding Caps. The Commission first adopts pre-discount funding caps on the amounts that can be requested for services and hotspot equipment in the E-Rate program. Specifically, the Commission adopts a pre-discount $15 per month limit on recurring mobile wireless internet service and a pre-discount $90 per Wi-Fi hotspot limit, based on the median cost of monthly services and Wi-Fi hotspots purchased in the ECF program. Taxes and State electronic waste fees are not included in the cap, while other reasonable costs such as delivery fees, activation, and configuration costs are included in the capped amounts. All taxes and fees should be separately identified on invoices and requested on a separate funding line. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on cost control mechanisms, including funding caps on Wi-Fi hotspots or services. Some commenters support a cap on the Wi-Fi hotspots and services, with some suggesting that the averages from the ECF program would be an appropriate place to start. Others disagreed, suggesting that competitive bidding and the applicants' non-discounted share of costs requirement would be sufficient, with some cost-effectiveness checks during the Program Integrity Assurance (PIA) review process.

On balance, the Commission agrees with commenters suggesting that funding caps will more effectively ensure equitable distribution of Wi-Fi hotspots, drive more cost-effective purchasing within the E-Rate program, and reduce the likelihood that these costs become unsustainable. The Commission also expects that clear funding caps will lead to a more streamlined review of these funding requests, simplifying administration of these requests. For example, the Commission disagrees with commenters that unreasonable costs are easily taken up in the PIA reviews, when the data the Commission have from the ECF program and the record in this proceeding shows a large variation in costs depending on service provider, technology type, and how contracts are structured. Setting funding caps will also reduce concerns about applicants selecting multiple service offerings in instances where a single service provider will not be able to cover the entire coverage area. In these instances, the program's competitive bidding rules would otherwise be less effective in ensuring cost-effective purchasing when applicants may need multiple service providers in order to provide coverage options in various geographic parts of the student or library patron community. By using a funding cap, applicants that select multiple service providers will still be capped at a cost-effective price, even if they require selection of service offerings that may be more expensive.

Consistent with the ECF program, applicants are permitted to select a Wi-Fi hotspot or service that costs more than the funding caps, but E-Rate commitments will not exceed the funding caps. The Commission expects the E-Rate program's competitive bidding rules to aid applicants in selecting the most cost-effective service offerings, but it also directs USAC to examine costs that do not appear to be cost-effective, based upon other costs within the program or other commercially available offerings. Although the Commission is adopting funding caps for recurring services and Wi-Fi hotspots to help control overall costs to the E-Rate program, the Commission expects applicants to request E-Rate support based on actual, commercial-based costs. For example, an applicant cannot request funding at the cap levels, but purchase Wi-Fi hotspots and recurring services at lower costs and allow service providers to keep the difference in costs as their profit or windfall. The Commission will also require service providers to certify that the costs of the Wi-Fi hotspots do not exceed commercial value. USAC is permitted to modify or reduce such funding requests, as appropriate, to reflect the actual, market-based price of commercially-available Wi-Fi hotspots and to seek recovery in the event of a later determination that the E-Rate funded costs were higher than the actual costs of the requested Wi-Fi hotspots and/or recurring services.

Calculating Budgets. Next, the Commission establishes a formula to calculate a three-year pre-discount Wi-Fi hotspot and service budget, limiting the amount of E-Rate support that can be requested by an applicant for Wi-Fi hotspots and recurring service over three funding years. E-Rate Central suggests adopting a formula modeled after the category two budgets that limits applicants to 20 hotspots per 100 students and 5.5 hotspots per 1,000 library square feet, adjusted by discount rate. Using this proposed formula and multiplying the result by the three-year cost of the funding caps ($630), applicants will calculate a three-year Wi-Fi hotspots and service budget. This is the maximum amount of pre-discount funding permitted for Wi-Fi hotspots and/or service over three funding years. E-Rate Central proposed limiting the quantity of Wi-Fi hotspots and services, but there are important benefits to calculating a maximum Wi-Fi hotspot budget for several reasons. One, a budget will allow schools and libraries greater flexibility in spending by allowing applicants to request funding for the most appropriate mix of Wi-Fi hotspots and service, depending on their needs. Two, a budget will provide applicants better incentives to make cost-effective purchases by permitting them to purchase higher quantities if there are lower costs. Three, budgets will also facilitate use of existing Wi-Fi hotspots purchased through the ECF program or with other Federal funds that are still functional by permitting ( print page 67309) applicants to purchase higher quantities of service requests, if needed. Applicants that select lower-cost Wi-Fi hotspots, or that find ways to maintain Wi-Fi hotspots for longer, will be able to request a larger quantity of E-Rate supported hotspots or lines of service depending on their individual needs and budget.

Calculating Independent School and School District Hotspot Budgets. Independent schools and school district applicants will calculate their Wi-Fi hotspot and service budgets by multiplying their student counts by 20% ( i.e., 20 hotspots per 100 students), and adjusting by their category one discount rates. This number is rounded up to the nearest ten. The applicant then multiplies that rounded number by $630 to determine the three-year budget. For example, an independent school with 500 students and a 90% discount rate would have a three-year, pre-discount budget of $56,700, while a school district with 500 students and a 40% discount rate would have pre-discount budget of $25,200. Unlike the ECF program, these limits will reduce the number of hotspots that could be requested from the start, requiring schools and districts to make choices about how to distribute and prioritize access for students with the greatest need or set lending terms that allow students to access devices at times when need is high. To the extent that the formula needs adjustments, the Commission provides a means for future changes as discussed, but expect that the benefits of a single formula applicable to all school applicants will be simpler and more administrable than attempting to find a precise number for different types of applicants and will greatly decrease burdens on applicants and the Administrator than if different formulas were adopted dependent upon type of school applicant.

Calculating Independent Libraries and Library System Hotspot Budgets. Likewise, independent libraries and library systems would calculate their Wi-Fi hotspots and service budgets using their square footage, allowing 5.5 devices per 1,000 square feet, adjusted by their category one discount rates. This number is rounded up to the nearest ten. The applicant then multiplies that rounded number by $630 to determine the three-year pre-discount budget. For example, an independent library of 10,000 square feet at the 90% discount rate would have a three-year pre-discount budget of $31,500, while a library system with 100,000 square feet and a 90% discount rate would have a three-year pre-discount budget of $315,000. Smaller libraries would thus be eligible for at least 10 devices and services lines, while larger library systems would be eligible for more. Like schools, the Commission adopts this formula in order to allow libraries to plan for and determine how and whether to request E-Rate support for a library hotspot lending program. The Commission adopts the factor suggested in the comments, which is roughly based on the ratios developed in the category two budgets for schools and libraries, but also adopt a means to adjust the formula in the future should the library factor be insufficient for library patron access, particularly in areas of the country where there may be higher need, but small libraries, such as rural-remote areas.

For purposes of the calculation, full-time student count and square footage figures will be calculated at the district-wide or library system level in order to make use of existing information collections and procedures. Independent schools may apply using entity-level student counts. In doing this, the Commission seeks to use data that is already collected on the FCC Form 471 application for the applicants' category two budgets. Similarly, the Commission will allow an applicant to rely on a validated category two student count or square footage figure for purposes of the Wi-Fi hotspot limiting mechanism. Relying on information already collected and validated for category two purposes will reduce burdens on applicants and the Administrator. For funding year (FY) 2025 through FY 2027, schools and school districts with a validated category two student count could rely on that number (and similarly, libraries with a validated square footage), but would need to revalidate student counts in the next three-year Wi-Fi hotspot funding cycle ( i.e., FY 2028 through FY 2030).

The Commission also will use fixed three-year budget cycles, after which the budgets will reset, beginning with funding years 2025 through 2027. Based on the experience with category two budgets, the Commission believes a fixed cycle will reduce applicant confusion and simplify administration. Entities are allowed to spread out their requests for Wi-Fi hotspots and services over the three-year timeframe, as long as the total pre-discount amount does not exceed the budget over the three funding years. Entities may request support for Wi-Fi hotspot service even if the associated Wi-Fi hotspots were not directly funded under the new E-Rate rules. However, applicants may not request more than 45% of its three-year budget in any year. The Commission finds this valuable in order to prevent applicants with high numbers of existing Wi-Fi hotspots from simply using the entire budget in a single funding year. The Commission will also require that such services must be competitively bid prior to requesting E-Rate support pursuant to the program's competitive bidding rules.

The Commission emphasizes that the hotspot budget represents the maximum pre-discount amount an applicant may request across three funding years, rather than an allocation of funding for Wi-Fi hotspots and service lines for which an applicant is entitled reimbursement. Applicants should evaluate whether there is need in their own school and library communities and what can be effectively used and tracked in compliance with program ( print page 67310) rules. Applicants will also continue to be subject to the E-Rate program rules requiring that schools and libraries are responsible for paying the non-discounted share of the costs. The intent of this hotspot lending program is for the Wi-Fi hotspots to be available for loan to and for use by students, school staff, or library patrons without sufficient broadband access at home and other off-campus locations for educational purposes. Applicants and service providers will be subject to E-Rate program rules, certifications, and other requirements designed to protect program integrity, as discussed.

Applicants may not request funding for Wi-Fi hotspots for future use or to be stored in case of an emergency, and the Commission will not allow applicants to purchase Wi-Fi hotspots to store in case of theft, loss, or breakage. Each Wi-Fi hotspot must be associated with a line of service. The Commission recognizes the concerns from commenters about replacing Wi-Fi hotspots, but based on lessons from the ECF program, determine that a streamlined approach would be simpler to administer, provide clarity for applicants, and ensure limited E-Rate program funds are used appropriately. In the event of loss or breakage, applicants may purchase extra devices with other sources of funding to use with the E-Rate-supported service or they can request replacement devices paired with lines of service in the next funding year if they have not exhausted their budgets. The Commission cautions, however, that applicants that do not replace lost or broken hotspots must work with their service providers to discontinue the associated service within a reasonable amount of time of becoming aware of the issue ( e.g., 30 days). In order to ensure the E-Rate program is not paying for services that sit unused for these or other reasons, the Commission will require service providers to exclude or waive any associated early termination fees for the services to Wi-Fi hotspots being funded with E-Rate support that are lost, broken, or unused and can no longer be distributed to students, school staff, or library patrons. The Commission reminds applicants that they must document information about lost or broken equipment in the asset inventory containing details about each Wi-Fi hotspot.

In combination, the Commission expects this three-year pre-discount budget mechanism and the funding caps to be effective in ensuring that schools and libraries with students, school staff, and library patrons with need have access to E-Rate funding to effectively set up and request funding for hotspot lending programs, while protecting the Universal Service Fund from overspending and reducing administrative burdens, as compared to the ECF program. At the same time, the Commission is cognizant that a one-size formula for limiting hotspot requests may not fit every school and library and may need to be adjusted if it is impacting program participation. As such, the Commission delegates to the Bureau, working with the Office of Economics and Analytics, the ability to adjust the limiting mechanism quantities ( i.e., 20 per 100 students and 5.5 per 1,000 square feet) as well as the funding caps in future funding years or future three-year budget cycles, after seeking comment on such an adjustment. The Commission also delegates to the Bureau the authority to resolve technical, procedural, and administrative issues that may arise in connection with this formula.

In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on what category of service should be used for wireless internet service and the Wi-Fi hotspots needed to deliver the service, as well as how to prioritize such services should demand for E-Rate support exceed the annual funding cap. Consistent with the existing eligible services list, wireless internet services will be listed as eligible as a category one service, and will not be subject to the category two budgets. Wi-Fi hotspots will be eligible as category one network equipment necessary to make category one wireless internet services functional. The Commission agrees with commenters arguing that it should be eligible as category one, consistent with the treatment of supporting equipment necessary to sustain connectivity.

At the same time, in the event that demand for E-Rate support exceeds available funding, the Commission also adopts a rule to fund requests for eligible off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services after requests for eligible on-premises services, inclusive of both category one and category two services. Based on recent funding years and the limits that the Commission is adopting on Wi-Fi hotspot and recurring service requests, it does not expect the changes it adopts to cause demand to exceed the E-Rate funding cap. However, the Commission agrees with commenters that this approach will ensure that on-campus E-Rate funding is available and predictable for schools and libraries in future funding years. In making this determination, the Commission also applies it to requests for funding for off-premises use of school bus Wi-Fi services. Mobile wireless broadband connectivity for school buses is also eligible as a category one service, but as an off-premises wireless internet service, it will be funded after eligible on-premises services should demand exceed the E-Rate annual funding cap. This appropriately treats these off-premises wireless internet services and the equipment needed for the connectivity in the same manner and ensures that future demand for these off-premises services does not make access to on-premises broadband connectivity to and within the schools and libraries less predictable.

Next, mindful of its obligation to protect the integrity of the E-Rate program and be a careful steward of these limited funds, the Commission adopts a number of safeguards aimed at ensuring compliance with its rules and strengthening program integrity. In deciding whether and which measures to adopt, the Commission considers a variety of factors, including, importantly, the intended purpose for which this funding is available, its experience with the ECF program, and commenters' concerns regarding the burdens associated with and feasibility around adopting such protections. The Commission also relies on and leverage existing tools to ensure compliance with its rules, such as its audit procedures and competitive bidding, non-discounted share of costs, and discount rate rules. Coupled with those protections already built into the design of the mechanism the Commission establishes for the distribution of Wi-Fi hotspots and services, it seeks to protect the Fund, and the Commission reiterates its commitment to identify and pursue instances of waste, fraud, and abuse, including recovery of improperly disbursed funds where appropriate.

In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on ways to ensure that the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services primarily serves an educational purpose consistent with the Commission's rules and section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act. Specifically, the Commission asked whether requiring schools and libraries to certify on their forms that E-Rate support is being used primarily for this purpose is sufficient or if additional safeguards should be imposed to protect against improper use. Based on its experience with the ECF program and recognizing that the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services raises novel challenges about ensuring their proper use, the Commission finds that adopting additional safeguards is necessary to ensure that E-Rate program funds are used for their intended purpose and to protect the integrity of the program. In ( print page 67311) so doing, the Commission rejects those views expressed by commenters that the existing certifications are sufficient safeguards, and that ensuring the proper use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services off-premises is overly burdensome or impractical.

The Commission reminds applicants that E-Rate program rules require schools and libraries to use E-Rate-supported services, including Wi-Fi hotspots and services used off-premises, primarily for educational purposes. Thus, in addition to requiring schools and libraries to use the existing E-Rate certifications to ensure that the off-premises use of E-Rate-funded Wi-Fi hotspots and services is primarily for an educational purpose, the Commission requires applicants to maintain and—where necessary—update their acceptable use policies to clearly state that this off-premises use must be primarily for an educational purpose as defined by its rules. With respect to schools, this means that the acceptable use policy must state that the use must be “integral, immediate, and proximate to the education of students.” Similarly, for libraries, the acceptable use policy must clearly state that the use must be “integral, immediate, and proximate to the provision of library services to library patrons.”

While the Commission's rules require schools and libraries to ensure the use of E-Rate-funded services align with these purposes, it has long-recognized that schools and libraries are in the best position to determine what guidelines and restrictions should govern the appropriate use of their networks and other technology. The Commission did not find the need to impose any other restrictions or specifications in the ECF program; and the Commission agrees with commenters that schools and libraries are appropriately positioned to make determinations about acceptable use in their communities. Applicants are subject to the requirements under the Children's internet Protection Act, which requires local educational agencies and libraries to establish specific technical protections before allowing network access. In establishing such protections, applicants often create AUPs that outline expected user behaviors. For example, schools in Virginia are “required to establish guidelines for appropriate technology use” and AUPs must, among other things, state “the educational uses and advantages of the internet” and identify “prohibited forms of technology-based applications and hardware use.” School staff and students are also required to “monitor the use of technologies for grade-level and content appropriateness, ethics, and safety.” Similarly, Maine State Libraries are encouraged to have an AUP in place for technology that is available for patron use and to review these policies with library staff. The Commission expects that schools and libraries will implement content and user network restrictions consistent with the restrictions that they place on their building-based networks, and to adopt suitable AUPs and other policies to limit access, but the Commission seeks to ensure applicants have the flexibility for unique situations and to avoid layering additional, similar restrictions that could result in program violations. For example, duration limits could deter applicants seeking to use hotspots for students that are home sick or home for inclement weather and accessing school or homework remotely.

Nor does the Commission require applicants to restrict access to the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services to only users with appropriate credentials at this time. Based on the record, the Commission finds that it does not have sufficient information to adopt such requirements; and its experience with the ECF program suggests that many schools and libraries already require appropriate credentials when logging into their networks and using school- or library-issued devices, while those that do not have such restrictions typically have other technical solutions to limit access. To avoid unnecessarily penalizing those applicants with technical limitations and to provide applicants with flexibility, the Commission does not require schools and libraries to implement specific user access restrictions at this time, and it seeks additional comment on this issue in the companion FNPRM. Notwithstanding, consistent with Bureau's expectation around the use of Wi-Fi services on school buses, to the extent schools and libraries already restrict access to their networks and devices, the Commission expects them to continue to implement content and user network restrictions consistent with those restrictions that they place on their building-based broadband networks as described in their acceptable use and other policies. The Commission finds that this approach provides reasonable limits to ensure that the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services is primarily for educational purposes in accordance with a school's and library's existing AUP and other policies.

To ensure students, school staff, and library patrons are aware of the limited purpose for which they might use E-Rate-funded Wi-Fi hotspots and services off-premises, the Commission requires schools and libraries to provide notice by adopting and publicly posting their acceptable use policies in whatever form they deem appropriate, but do not require them to collect signed documentation of user compliance with these policies as the Commission required of libraries participating in the ECF program. Given that schools and libraries already typically provide some form of notice of their acceptable use policies to students, school staff members, and library patrons, the Commission finds that imposing such a requirement would not be overly burdensome. The Commission likewise agrees with those commenters who argue that collecting signed documentation of user compliance with these policies is a significant burden on applicants, many of whom have limited resources and staff to collect and maintain such documentation. Indeed, its experience with libraries who participated in the ECF program has demonstrated just how onerous and complicated collecting and maintaining signed user compliance documentation can be; and the Commission is particularly sensitive to the concerns raised by some commenters that such measures might cause libraries to run afoul of their State privacy laws and, as a result, discourage participation. Accordingly, the Commission does not require applicants to collect this sort of user compliance documentation. However, applicants will be required to certify on their FCC Forms 486 that they have updated and publicly posted their acceptable use policies in accordance with the rules adopted herein. Additionally, applicants may be requested to provide their acceptable use policies and provide evidence of where it is publicly posted, upon request by the Commission or the Administrator.

Finally, while the Commission recognizes that schools and libraries may not have the same level of supervision or control over their students', school staff members', or patrons' off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services as they might have on-premises or even on a school bus as one commenter suggests, with these additional safeguards in place, the Commission expects to better ensure their proper use consistent with its rules and the Communications Act than if the Commission only relied on the existing E-Rate certifications. And, consistent with its existing rules, the Commission remind applicants that its rules require that E-Rate-supported equipment and services be primarily used for educational purposes, not solely used ( print page 67312) for this purpose as one commenter submits. Thus, its rules provide some, albeit intentionally limited, flexibility to use these Wi-Fi hotspots and services for other purposes when they are not needed for educational purposes in the first instance. Applicants may be required, during a post-commitment review or audit, to explain what steps they have taken to comply with the requirement that use of the Wi-Fi hotspots is primarily for educational purposes ( e.g., user restrictions, content restrictions, or duration or time limits).

In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on how to prevent the warehousing of Wi-Fi hotspots and reimbursement for unused equipment and/or services. Among the various ways contemplated, the Commission asked whether it should adopt numerical criteria to assess usage, require participants to provide evidence of usage, direct service providers to terminate services that are not being used, and/or limit E-Rate support to nine months out of the year ( i.e., the length of a typical school year) to prevent the program from covering the costs of unused devices and services during the summer. Many commenters agree that the E-Rate program should not pay for unused and/or warehoused equipment or services. At the same time, commenters urge us to create requirements that are both administrable for participants and also take into consideration the practical reasons why equipment or services may go unused for limited periods of time before adopting specific non-usage requirements and reimbursement denial procedures. As a general matter, the Commission agrees with these commenters and recognize that there are numerous reasons for non-usage and that applicants and service providers are often unable to monitor or mitigate all instances of non-usage. The Commission therefore distinguishes the treatment for equipment or services that are entirely unused or warehoused from instances where Wi-Fi hotspot equipment and services may have limited periods of non-usage.

The Commission first relies on the agency's extensive experience overseeing the ECF program in designing a hotspot program that protects against waste and abuse. It's experience suggests that reasonable safeguards to prevent warehousing and manage non-usage are necessary and possible, and the Commission rejects the view expressed by one commenter that there is no need for any usage requirement if the Commission applies existing competitive bidding requirements to off-premises services. In addition, the Commission made several important modifications to this hotspot initiative to distinguish it from the statutorily required procedures in the ECF program. First, the competitive bidding requirements required here were not mandatory in ECF, and the Commission believes requiring them will help ensure applicants consider available options and make cost-effective purchases. Next, the budget mechanism the Commission imposes will also require applicants to use limited funding to target those students, school staff, and library patrons with the greatest need. The Commission also placed funding caps for hotspot devices and recurring service, which will have the effect of limiting the E-Rate funding available for Wi-Fi hotspots and service. Finally, the Commission also believes requiring schools and libraries to pay the non-discount share of costs will help incentivize applicants to make measured choices and determine community needs. These important distinctions from the ECF program will be integral to helping us protect limited funds. The Commission disagrees with the commenter and find it is necessary to adopt additional requirements to ensure that the Commission is maximizing the use of E-Rate supported Wi-Fi hotspots and services.

Requirements. Considering its long-standing obligation to protect the integrity of the E-Rate program and being mindful of the concerns expressed by commenters regarding the feasibility of tracking and identifying non-usage, the Commission adopts a combination of requirements to protect against non-usage. The Commission first requires applicants to activate the Wi-Fi hotspot and service, make it available for loan, and publicize the availability of the Wi-Fi hotspot device and service to students, teachers, and library patrons via public notice or other means. To further protect the program from potential waste, the Commission also requires applicants to certify to having taken these steps on their FCC Forms 486. Applicants already use the FCC Form 486 to notify USAC that services have started on a particular funding request and will be required to certify to adopting measures to ensure proper use of E-Rate-funded Wi-Fi hotspots and services, among other things, and are required to submit these forms 120 days after the service start date or the date of the funding commitment decision letter, whichever is later. The Commission finds that requiring applicants to also certify to having taken these steps on their FCC Forms 486 before they or their service providers can begin to submit their requests for reimbursement is reasonable and would not be overly burdensome. To be clear, the Commission expects schools and libraries to make every effort to make available and encourage the use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services supported by the E-Rate program.

Second, the Commission expects that schools and libraries will carefully consider how to structure their lending programs to promote ongoing use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services. ALA highlights the importance of flexibility in circulation policies to address local needs but notes a general standard is necessary to “ensur[e] the data is used regularly by users.” The Commission agrees that schools and libraries understand well their community needs and are in the best position to structure a lending program to meet those needs, and can do so in a way that maximizes use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services following the requirements the Commission adopted. Such measures to encourage use may include limited lending periods ( e.g., 21 days or less), providing technical assistance to students and library patrons, monitoring circulation statistics, or other approaches deemed suitable by the school or library for the local community. For example, EveryLibrary Institute explains that libraries often already have mechanisms in place to pause service to a specific device which is “typically enough reason for the patron to return the device.” This prevents the service provider from billing “for the time elapsed when the device was not in service, reducing program costs automatically.” Similarly, ALA reported that “the Dublin Public Library in Texas and Pima County Library in Arizona [are] able to work with service providers to track data usage and other aspects of hotspot use.”

Finally, to further prevent the E-Rate program from paying for ongoing services that are not being used, lines of service that have no data usage for approximately three consecutive months must be terminated by the service provider. As discussed further in this proceeding, on a monthly basis, service providers are required to notify applicants of each line of hotspot service that goes unused for at minimum 60 consecutive days and to provide applicants 30 days for the hotspot to be used before terminating the line of service. Service providers are also required to provide schools and libraries with data usage reports as described, and schools and libraries should regularly review these reports to identify hotspots with periods of non-usage to determine if there is an issue ( print page 67313) with the device or to seek the return of a Wi-Fi hotspot after some period of non-use so the device can be loaned out again.

Warehousing. In the ECF program, the Commission prohibited schools and libraries from requesting E-Rate support for the purchase of additional Wi-Fi hotspots beyond the per-user limitation to “maximize the use of limited funds” and only provided support for devices and services currently needed, thus avoiding unnecessary warehousing. Several commenters, including the EveryLibrary Institute, flagged “the possibility of applicants overstocking equipment to prepare for breakage or loss” and that the E-Rate program should not pay for such equipment and services. The Commission agrees and adopt the same per-user limitation and prohibition against warehousing. Considering the limited funding available, the Commission finds that permitting applicants to purchase hotspots in anticipation of future use, loss, or breakage would be wasteful, and it concludes that limiting support in this way is reasonable. Applicants must certify to their compliance with this limitation on the FCC Form 471 application. Wi-Fi hotspots that have not been made available for distribution per the requirements specified will be considered to have been warehoused, a violation of the Commission's rules, and subject to a financial recovery.

Limited periods of non-use. As well-documented in the record, there may be legitimate reasons for limited periods of non-use by students, school staff, and library patrons that are outside of the control of schools, libraries, and service providers. Even in the context of the ECF program, the Commission has recognized that there may be circumstances where non-usage occurs but services would still be eligible for support, such as during a school's summer break. At the same time, the Commission is mindful of the need to balance the legitimate reasons for limited periods of non-use with its need to protect program integrity, and as such have adopted the approach described, with a notice opportunity before services will be terminated.

Commenters expressed concern with requirements that would leave schools and libraries responsible for paying the full amount of service charges when there is limited usage and indicated that such an approach would discourage participation in the program. However, service providers have also asserted that they have no control over the hotspots provided by a school or library to students, staff members, or library patrons. In response to the approaches proposed in the NPRM, commenters explained that assessing usage against numerical criteria would be challenging because usage below a pre-determined weekly, monthly, or quarterly threshold does not necessarily indicate that the hotspot devices are being warehoused and should be prohibited from reimbursement. Commenters also described the importance of student access to hotspots in the summer months to complete summer reading projects and other educational activities, and that the year-round access provided by libraries is essential. The Commission agrees with commenters that overly complex usage requirements would likely deter schools and libraries from seeking support for Wi-Fi hotspots and services, and find that such an outcome would negate its efforts to ensure schools and libraries can operate lending programs to connect students, school staff, and library patrons for off-premises use. Similarly, given the vital importance of internet connectivity, the Commission finds that limiting E-Rate support to nine months would contravene the purpose of this funding and “would further exacerbate the `summer slump'—the decrease in learning between school years—and inhibit remote learning during summer school.”

However, to reduce the risk of waste and inefficiencies in supporting Wi-Fi hotspots and services in the E-Rate program, the Commission finds that imposing a reasonable non-usage threshold requirement is both appropriate and necessary to ensure that E-Rate support is going to services that are actually being used. The Commission therefore adopt a rule to prohibit E-Rate support for lines of service that have not been used for a period of three consecutive months and have gone through the required notice process. Pursuant to this new rule, at least once every 31 days, service providers are directed to identify lines of service that have gone unused for no less than 60 days and provide the school or library with 30 days' notice that failure for the hotspot service to be used within the 30-day notice period will result in service termination for that particular line. The Commission concludes that this approach appropriately accounts for limited legitimate instances of non-usage, such as a school's summer break, while also providing sufficient time to allow schools and libraries to work with their service provider, as well as their student, school staff, and library patron users to cure the non-usage without being unnecessarily penalized. Upon receipt of a non-usage notification from a service provider, applicants should take steps to determine whether the device and services are being used, should be redistributed, or should be discontinued. Applicants may work with their service provider to restart services that have been terminated ( e.g., where a hotspot is redistributed) one time per funding year, but the Commission caution applicants that such action to restart service after termination will be subject to program integrity reviews and therefore, applicants should take steps to ensure that they have the associated need prior to restarting services terminated for non-usage again.

The Commission is also sympathetic to the concerns expressed in the comments regarding a rule that would leave schools and libraries responsible for paying the full amount of service charges for limited usage or in this case, a terminated line of service. In the event of a terminated line of service resulting from this non-usage requirement, service providers are prohibited from billing the applicant for the balance that was not paid for by the E-Rate program. Service providers will be required to certify on their FCC Form 473 (Service Provider Annual Certification (SPAC) Form) that they will comply with this non-usage notice and termination requirement and will not charge applicants the balance for the terminated services.

Finally, while the Commission understands service providers' concerns regarding their lack of a direct customer relationship with a student, school staff, and library patron user, it finds that imposing this usage requirement will appropriately incentivize service providers to avoid requesting reimbursement for ongoing lines of services that are not being used. This requirement follows a similar principle to the non-usage rules adopted in other programs, like ACP and Lifeline, and therefore the Commission expects that many mobile wireless service providers are familiar with monitoring usage and have even adapted their systems to track and provide notice accordingly. The Commission concludes that this rule strikes a reasonable and appropriate balance between ensuring that E-Rate support for Wi-Fi hotspots is being used responsibly, while not implementing overly complex rules that would be unadministrable for schools and libraries or deter participation.

Some commenters alternatively suggest that the Commission provides program participants with an opportunity to explain the reason for the non-usage before denying funding and ( print page 67314) argue that this approach is preferable. The Commission declines to take this approach because it finds that such a process would be overly resource intensive and fail to efficiently achieve the program's goals. In particular, the Commission finds that tracking down students, school staff members, and library patrons to ascertain the reason for non-usage while disbursements are on hold could take time and significantly delay the review and disbursement process. In addition, such an approach would require the Commission to prescribe a comprehensive list of the permissible reasons for which Wi-Fi hotspots and services may not be used after they have been distributed, which it would then need to be able to verify for purposes of ensuring program compliance. Considering the record, the Commission is reluctant to create and implement such a list because that approach would only delay reimbursements, frustrate program participants, and cause uncertainty about the availability of funding. Comparatively, the Commission finds the non-usage notice and termination rule detailed will better allow schools and libraries to work with their students, school staff, and library patrons, as well as their service providers to ensure the hotspots and services are being used without impacting or delaying the review and disbursement processes.

Moreover, in the context of the new program safeguards that the Commission adopts in the Order, the additional usage requirements the Commission establishes protects public funds and maximize the use of supported Wi-Fi hotspots and services. In particular, the Commission believes the funding cap for monthly service described will aid in controlling costs and the requirement of paying the non-discount share of costs will incentivize schools and libraries to avoid subscribing to unused services, enabling us to provide support for Wi-Fi connectivity necessary to engage in remote learning for students, school staff, and library patrons. However, in light of the challenges identified with the solutions proposed in the NPRM and lack of information in the record to address these issues, the Commission remains cognizant of the risk of non-usage of E-Rate-funded hotspots and want to ensure applicants are encouraging use among their students, school staff, and library patrons. The Commission therefore finds it necessary to explore further ways to monitor and address non-usage in the companion FNPRM. Additionally, the Commission delegates authority to the Bureau to resolve any procedural or administrative issues that arise with the usage requirements adopted herein.

Usage reports. To enable schools and libraries to monitor usage and make adjustments to the structure of their lending programs in a way that maximizes the use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services, the Commission requires service providers to provide reports regarding data usage to applicants at least once per billing period. Such reports must be provided in machine-readable digital format, so that the information lines can be read and sorted, clearly identifying the lines that are not being used across billing periods or that will be or have been terminated as a result of the non-usage rules adopted herein. Because service providers regularly make such reports available to applicants and the Commission provides flexibility in how reports are provided, the Commission finds that imposing such a requirement would not be overly burdensome. Further, no commenter opposes this idea. Schools and libraries are also required to make these reports available to the Commission and/or USAC upon request, including to support program integrity reviews. The Commission expects applicants to review the data usage reports and to take actions to address non-usage included in the reports, including requesting the return of the Wi-Fi hotspot or requesting the service to be turned off to prompt the return of the unused hotspot device, consistent with the requirements described herein.

Program integrity reviews. In addition to the existing standard post-commitment reviews and audits to ensure compliance with E-Rate program rules more broadly, the Commission directs USAC to regularly conduct program integrity reviews to monitor school, library, and service provider compliance with the requirements defined, including checking for warehousing and discontinued lines of services for non-usage. The Commission further directs USAC, subject to approval by the Bureau, to develop risk-based procedures for these reviews. Schools and libraries subject to these program integrity reviews must provide usage reports and other documentation as requested, consistent with E-Rate program rules.

The Commission modifies § 54.516 of its rules to require E-Rate participants who receive support for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services to maintain detailed asset and service inventories of each hotspot and wireless service provided for use off-premises. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether to adopt the ECF program's requirement to keep detailed asset and service inventories for each hotspot device and service provided to a student, school staff member, or library patron. In response, commenters raised concerns about the burdens associated with maintaining such inventories. The Commission's experience with the ECF program, however, demonstrated the inventory requirements served a critical purpose in ensuring that schools and libraries receiving support know where the equipment and services are located and that they comply with the program requirements. In particular, the inventories were helpful in detecting, for example, warehousing of devices by identifying which devices had not been distributed. As such, the Commission concludes that the benefit to the program of adopting more detailed inventory requirements will outweigh the burden of requiring increased recordkeeping. The Commission is further convinced that this is a reasonable requirement by the fact that the E-Rate program is not an emergency program like the ECF program. The Commission therefore concludes that there is time for schools and libraries to make a reasonable assessment of their needs and ability to comply with these recordkeeping requirements, and urge applicants to do so prior to requesting support. Relatedly, the Commission reminds participants that they may be asked to provide this information upon request to the Commission or USAC, and that failure to comply with program rules, including the requirement to maintain asset and service inventories, may result in a denial of funding or a financial recovery.

In adopting the more detailed inventory requirements, the Commission is sympathetic to the concerns expressed by library commenters, who claim that the level of detail required by the ECF program's inventory requirements served as a barrier to participation in the program because of conflicts with many States' library patron privacy laws and existing library circulation systems and practices. In particular, commenters explain that the majority of States have laws in place that protect the confidentiality of library records and prohibit disclosure of patrons' personally identifiable information ( e.g., individual names) without first seeking a waiver from each individual or, in some cases, needing a court order. Circulation and tracking systems are set up to be compliant with these State ( print page 67315) laws, meaning that libraries did not already track and retain records with sufficient detail to meet the ECF program's requirements, resulting in the need for manual tracking of this information, and to do so potentially in conflict with applicable State laws. While the Commission recognizes that schools also have their own privacy laws to which they adhere, the limitations are not so strict as to create comparable burdens for recordkeeping. The Commission therefore agrees with commenters who advocate for adopting library-specific rules to recognize the realities of libraries' abilities to maintain such records and to ensure that libraries can take part in this important funding source to continue their successful hotspot lending programs.

The Commission also agrees with commenters who urges it to be clear up front about what is expected of the recordkeeping requirements. The Commission finds that modifying § 54.516 of its rules to adopt the specific information required for an asset and service inventory of Wi-Fi hotspots and services purchased with E-Rate support is the best approach to ensure parties understand exactly what is expected. The Commission also reminds applicants that the obligation of schools and libraries to keep track of and document the devices that they distribute includes documenting information about missing, lost, or damaged equipment.

For school participants receiving support for Wi-Fi hotspots and services, the asset and service inventory must identify: (1) the equipment make/model; (2) the equipment serial number; (3) the full name of the person to whom the equipment was provided; (4) the dates the equipment was loaned out and returned, or the date the school was notified that the equipment was missing, lost, or damaged; and (5) service detail. By “service detail,” the Commission means the line number or other unique identifier that associates a device to that particular line of service. For library participants receiving support for Wi-Fi hotspots and services, the asset and service inventory must identify: (1) the equipment make/model; (2) the equipment serial number; (3) the dates the equipment was loaned out and returned, or the date the library was notified that the equipment was missing, lost, or damaged; and (4) service detail.

Consistent with the E-Rate program's current recordkeeping rule, program participants are required to retain documentation related to their participation in the E-Rate program, including the asset and service inventories, acceptable use policies, evidence of publicizing Wi-Fi hotspot availability, and other required documentation for at least 10 years after the latter of the last day of the applicable funding year or the service delivery deadline for the funding request. Separately, the Commission amends the language of § 54.516 of its rules to include E-Rate-funded equipment and services provided on school buses.

As was the case for the ECF program, the Commission is mindful of privacy concerns regarding the collection of personally identifiable information about the individual ( e.g., student, school staff member, or library patron) that makes use of E-Rate-supported equipment and services. The Commission, USAC, and any contractors or vendors will abide by all applicable Federal and State privacy laws. The Commission also directs Commission, USAC, and contractor/vendor staff to take into account the importance of protecting the privacy of students, school staff and library patrons; to design requests for information, including those related to the data usage reports and asset and service inventories, from schools and libraries in a way that minimizes the need to produce information that might reveal personally identifiable information; and to work with auditors to accept anonymized or deidentified information in response to requests for information wherever possible. In addition to the existing standard post-commitment reviews and audits to ensure compliance with E-Rate program rules more broadly, the Commission directs USAC to regularly conduct program integrity reviews to monitor school, library, and service provider compliance with the asset and service inventory rules.

In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on safeguards to prevent duplicative funding for off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services across the Federal universal service programs and other funding programs, including Federal, State, Tribal, or local programs. The Commission also requested comment on whether “a certification by the school or library [would] be sufficient to indicate that E-Rate support is only being sought for eligible students, school staff, or library patrons and the school or library does not already have access to Wi-Fi hotspots purchased with ECF support or other sources of funding.” Generally, commenters agree that the Commission should not duplicate funding for Wi-Fi hotspots and services that are funded through other sources or programs. The Commission concludes that it is appropriate to prohibit duplicative funding for off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and services funded with E-Rate support and further find that protections against duplicate funding adopted herein should apply to all E-Rate-funded equipment and services.

For example, NTCA argues that Wi-Fi hotspots and services should be limited to locations where High-Cost USF support is not distributed and where the Commission's own broadband availability data indicate service is not already available. In contrast, other commenters contend that “the Commission should not impose unnecessary restrictions on households' receipt of funding from multiple Federal universal service programs . . . households are entitled to apply under different USF programs for different eligible needs.” The Commission agrees that it should not duplicate funding for Wi-Fi hotspots and services that are already funded. However, the Commission disagrees that the availability of High-Cost support or the availability of service as indicated in its broadband data should preclude funding for an E-Rate-supported Wi-Fi hotspot because this does not guarantee that a student or library patron has the off-premises broadband access needed to complete their educational activities.

As noted in the NPRM, households may justifiably receive support from multiple universal service programs at the same time; however, to make the most of the support available through the E-Rate program, and to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse, the Commission finds it necessary to not extend E-Rate support to Wi-Fi hotspots and services that have already been funded though other sources or programs. Therefore, the Commission will not provide E-Rate support for eligible Wi-Fi hotspots and services, or the portion of eligible Wi-Fi hotspots and services that have already been reimbursed with other Federal, State, Tribal, or local funding, or other external sources of funding. Additionally, while commenters suggested that the Commission should not provide funding to households that receive ACP benefits, the Commission note that the ACP officially ended on June 1, 2024. As such, the Commission finds that not only does this eliminate the concern of duplicative funding between ACP and the Wi-Fi hotspots and services funded through the E-Rate program, but it also reinforces the need for E-Rate support to connect students, school staff, and library patrons who may now lack access as a result of losing the ACP benefit. ( print page 67316)

To prevent duplicative funding, the Commission takes a similar approach to the approach the Commission took in the ECF program and adopt a rule prohibiting E-Rate participants from seeking support or reimbursement for eligible equipment and services that have been funded by other programs, including Federal ( e.g. other universal service programs, ECF, etc.), State, Tribal, or local programs. Recognizing that the need to protect against duplicative funding is not limited to E-Rate-funded Wi-Fi hotspots and services used off-premises, the Commission adopts rules to prohibit duplicative funding for all E-Rate-funded equipment and services. The Commission also finds this to be consistent with the Commission's past actions to prevent duplicate funding in other universal service support mechanisms. Additionally, consistent with record support for requiring applicants to certify that there is no duplicative funding for their requests, the Commission requires applicants to certify on the application for funding and on the request for reimbursement forms ( i.e., the FCC Forms 472/474) that they are not seeking support for eligible equipment and services that have been funded by other sources. This measure balances the interest of applicants by allowing them to continue participating and receiving funding from other programs, for which they are eligible, while simultaneously preventing waste of limited E-Rate funds by not funding equipment and services that have already been funded by other programs. These rules will help ensure that applicants are aware of the prohibition on duplicative funding for equipment and services, and are only requesting funding that they do not otherwise have available.

Section 254(h)(3) of the Communications Act, which applies to the E-Rate program, and the existing E-Rate rules prohibit sale, resale, or transfer of E-Rate-supported equipment for five years. In the ECF Order, the Commission adopted a three-year wait time to dispose, sell, trade, or donate equipment purchased with ECF funds, including Wi-Fi hotspots, explaining that “devices and other equipment loaned to students, school staff, and library patrons and installed off-campus will likely have a shorter average life cycle than equipment installed and maintained on school or library premises.” Consistent with its approach in the ECF program, the Commission finds that Wi-Fi hotspot devices intended for off-premises use by students, school staff, and library patrons are likely to have a shorter lifecycle and therefore, the Commission adopts a rule that Wi-Fi hotspot devices for off-premises use and supported with E-Rate funds can be disposed of after three years.

Schools and libraries requesting E-Rate support for Wi-Fi hotspots are prohibited from selling, reselling, or transferring equipment in consideration of money or any other thing of value for three years after its purchase. Wi-Fi hotspots purchased with E-Rate funds and used off-premises will be considered obsolete at the end of the three year period. Obsolete equipment may be resold or transferred in consideration of money or any other thing of value, disposed of, donated, or traded. This approach takes into consideration the limited lifespan of Wi-Fi hotspots, while also helping prevent potential waste, fraud, and abuse by ensuring that the hotspot devices are used for a minimum of three years.

Head Start, Pre-Kindergarten, and Kindergarten. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to limit the student population eligible for E-Rate support for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and service. Specifically, the Commission proposed to exclude Head Start programs, providing early learning and development for pre-school children from the ages of 3 to 5, and pre-kindergarten students from receiving E-Rate support for off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services. Commenters agree with excluding the eligibility of Head Start and pre-kindergarten populations for a Wi-Fi hotspot to be used off-premises, but also urged that kindergarten populations should be excluded as well. SECA supports making young learners, pre-kindergarten, and kindergarten ineligible for Wi-Fi hotspots when they are off-campus stating that not giving them this device can “help curb lost and damaged devices” and further stating that “hotspots generally should be made available only for students in grades where they are required to access the internet off-campus for their homework and for other educational purposes.” WISPA also agrees that funding for Wi-Fi hotspots should be limited to post-kindergarten students who are more likely to need internet access for educational purposes.

The Commission agrees and make Head Start, pre-kindergarten, and kindergarten populations ineligible for E-Rate-supported Wi-Fi hotspots for off-premises use, consistent with the support of commenters. As noted in the NPRM, studies recommend an hour or less of internet exposure for children under the age of five. Therefore, for these populations the risks may outweigh the benefits of receiving an E-Rate-supported Wi-Fi hotspot for off-premises use, and as a result, these populations are less likely to need the internet for educational purposes. As mentioned in the NPRM, Head Start and/or pre-kindergarten education facilities serving this particular age group may be eligible for E-Rate funding for broadband connectivity to and within their facilities, if determined to be elementary schools under their applicable State laws. Commenters also note that kindergarteners are unlikely to need internet access for off-campus educational uses. The Commission thus limits eligibility for Wi-Fi hotspots and internet services to post-kindergarten students and school staff. The Commission notes, however, that for the purposes of calculating the hotspot budgets, it seeks to streamline the information collections and will use the full-time student enrollments that are used for category two budgets, which includes kindergarten students and may also include pre-kindergarten students in certain States.

In providing support for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services, the Commission is also mindful of the longstanding goal of fair and open competitive bidding for such equipment and services. The Commission recognizes that many schools and libraries may have taken advantage in recent years of discounted Wi-Fi hotspots and/or recurring services offered during the pandemic to enable their students, school staff, and library patrons to engage in remote learning. The Commission recognizes that applicants may have done this while it temporarily waived the gift rules for the ECF and E-Rate programs. The Commission reminds all E-Rate program participants seeking reimbursement for Wi-Fi hotspots and services of its gift rules, which prohibit applicants from soliciting or accepting any gift or other thing of value from a service provider participating in or seeking to participate in the E-Rate program. Similarly, service providers are prohibited from offering or providing any gift or other thing of value to those personnel of eligible entities involved in either program. The Commission's gift rule is always applicable to E-Rate program participants and is not in effect or triggered only during the time period when competitive bidding is taking place. Additionally, applicants are not permitted to solicit or accept a gift or thing of value over $20 from a service provider, and service providers are not ( print page 67317) permitted to offer or provide applicants a gift or thing of value over $20.

The Commission has previously explained that the gift rule is not intended to discourage charitable donations to E-Rate eligible entities as long as those donations are not directly or indirectly related to E-Rate procurement activities or decisions and provided the donation is not given with the intention of circumventing the competitive bidding or other E-Rate program rules. For example, the Commission understands that some service providers offer free or discounted Wi-Fi hotspots with a service plan. The gift rule prohibits service providers from offering these kinds of special equipment discounts or equipment with service arrangements to E-Rate recipients only if such offerings are not currently available to some other class of subscribers or segment of the public.

Moreover, the record and its experiences in the ECF program have shown that service providers sometimes bundle Wi-Fi hotspots and ineligible components into the costs of services. Entities seeking E-Rate support for Wi-Fi hotspots and services for off-premises use are reminded that E-Rate recipients are required to cost-allocate ineligible components that are bundled with eligible equipment or services. With respect to offerings that bundle the costs of the eligible Wi-Fi hotspots and services together, applicants may continue to seek E-Rate funding for eligible components of bundled services. However, for the ease of administration and to streamline review of funding requests, applicants and service providers should itemize these eligible components when invoicing, and Wi-Fi hotspots, services, as well as any eligible components or fees should be requested on separate funding lines when seeking support for these equipment and services.

The Commission considers audits and other review mechanisms in the E-Rate program to be important tools in ensuring compliance with its rules and identifying instances of waste, fraud, and abuse. Considering the action the Commission takes to extend the off-premises uses eligible for E-Rate funding, the Commission expects that these tools will continue to be paramount to its ability to ensure that these finite funds are used appropriately and consistent with its rules. The Commission makes clear, therefore, that any support provided for the off-campus use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services under the program will be subject to all audits and reviews currently used by the program ( e.g., Beneficiary and Contributor Audit Program (BCAP) audits, Payment Quality Assurance (PQA) assessments, and Program Integrity Assurance (PIA) reviews and Selective Reviews (SR) reviews) and could be subject to recovery should the Commission and/or USAC find a violation of its rules and deem it appropriate. Specifically, consistent with existing E-Rate audits and reviews, applicants and service providers may be subject to audits and other investigations to evaluate compliance with the rules the Commission adopt, including, for example, what equipment and services are eligible and how the equipment and services may be used.

The Commission, USAC, and contractor/vendor staff are directed to work with auditors to accept anonymized or deidentified information in response to requests for information wherever possible. If anonymized or deidentified information regarding the students, school staff, and library patrons is not sufficient for auditors' or investigative purposes, the auditors or investigators may request that the school or library obtain consent of the parents or guardians, for students, and the consent of the school staff member or library patron to have access to this personally identifiable information or explore other legal options for obtaining personally identifiable information. In the event consent is not available, the Commission recognizes that the auditors may need to use other procedures or take different actions to determine if there is any evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse from the use of E-Rate funding for off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots. The Commission additionally delegates to the Bureau and Office of the Managing Director, in consultation with the Office of General Counsel (and specifically the Senior Agency Official for Privacy) the authority to establish requirements for the Bureau's, USAC's, or any contractor's/vendor's collection, use, processing, maintenance, storage, protection, disclosure, and disposal of personally identifiable information in connection with any audit or other compliance tool.

The Commission also reminds program participants of their obligation to maintain documentation sufficient to demonstrate their compliance with program rules for ten years after the latter of the last day of the applicable funding year or the service delivery deadline for the funding request. And, upon request, they must submit documents sufficient to demonstrate compliance with program rules, including the Wi-Fi hotspot-specific documentation requirements the Commission adopted, such as maintaining asset and service inventories and acceptable use policies. Additionally, schools, libraries, and service providers participating in the E-Rate program may be subject to other audit processes, including audits and inspections by the Office of Inspector General and other entities with authority over the entity.

Sections 254(c)(1), (c)(3), (h)(1)(B), and (h)(2) of the Communications Act collectively grant the Commission broad and flexible authority to establish rules governing the equipment and services that will be supported for eligible schools and libraries, as well as to design the specific mechanisms of support. This authority reflects recognition by Congress that in order to advance its universal service objective, the types of services supported by the various support mechanisms are constantly evolving in light of “advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services.” In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether these provisions authorize it to provide E-Rate support for schools or libraries to purchase Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless internet services for off-premises use, recognizing how today's technology-based educational environment has significantly evolved beyond the physical boundaries of a school or library campus. Specifically, the Commission proposed to find that school or library purchases of Wi-Fi hotspots and internet services for off-premises use by students, school staff, and library patrons for remote learning and the provision of virtual library services constitutes an educational purpose and enhances access to advanced telecommunications and information services pursuant to section 254 of the Communications Act. As explained further in this proceeding, the Commission concludes that it has authority under section 254 of the Communications Act to permit eligible schools and libraries to receive E-Rate support for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless internet services.

First, the Commission considers its proposed finding that the off-premises use of school- or library-purchased wireless internet services and the Wi-Fi hotspots needed to deliver such connectivity constitutes services that are “provide[d] . . . to elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries,” and thus, may be supported pursuant to section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act when used “for educational purposes.” In response, many commenters agree that section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act ( print page 67318) does not prohibit the Commission from allowing E-Rate funds to be used by schools or libraries to support remote learning for students and school staff, and access to library services for library patrons so long as it first finds that the equipment and services that schools or libraries purchase for off-premises use will serve an educational purpose. The Commission finds this view to be consistent with its determination in the School Bus Wi-Fi Declaratory Ruling that any future decision to support school or library purchases of E-Rate-supported services requires the Commission to first find that the off-premises use of such service is “integral, immediate, and proximate to the education of students or the provision of library services to library patrons” and, therefore, serves an educational purpose.

Turning next to the question of whether the off-premises use at issue herein serves an educational purpose, many commenters urge the Commission to find that the off-premises use of such wireless internet services and the Wi-Fi hotspots needed to deliver such connectivity to be integral, immediate, and proximate to the education of students or the provision of library services to library patrons. For example, the North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation (NACEPF) and Mobile Beacon argue that “[e]nabling students to participate in hybrid learning, complete their homework, or participate in other educational opportunities clearly qualifies as an `educational purpose.' ” Likewise, commenters assert that Wi-Fi hotspots are needed to ensure library patrons can access library services. The Commission agrees with these commenters. Given the lack of a reliable broadband connection at some students', school staff members', and library patrons' homes, the struggle for many households to afford high-speed broadband (particularly in light of the end of the ACP), and the increasing need for connectivity in today's technology-based educational environment that extends learning beyond a school or library building ( e.g., for virtual classes, electronic research projects, homework assignments, virtual library resources, research, etc.), the Commission finds that the off-premises use of such wireless internet services and the Wi-Fi hotspots needed to deliver such connectivity to students, school staff, or library patrons is “integral, immediate, and proximate to the education of students or the provision of library services to library patrons” and, therefore, serves an educational purpose. For example, if a student is unable to complete their homework or participate in a virtual class or research project due to lack of internet access while off-premises, that lack of access is likely to have an immediate, negative impact on that student's academic performance, which is integral to their education. Similarly, if a library patron is unable to access work-related research for school or career advancement, that lack of access is likely to have an immediate, negative impact on that patron's career. As such, the Commission finds that the connectivity provided through the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots can make a difference in a student's, school staff member's, or library patron's ability to meaningfully engage in learning and fully access library services; the provision of such services thus serves an educational purpose.

The Commission disagrees with the commenters who assert that “educational purpose” is defined to require a physical link to a school or library campus. Although activities that occur on-campus are presumed to serve an educational purpose, the Commission has never stated that the inverse would be true ( i.e., that all off-premises uses are presumed not to be for an educational purpose). To the contrary, the Commission has already recognized that in certain instances, the off-premises use of E-Rate-funded telecommunications services and information services are found to serve an educational purpose, such as when a school bus driver uses wireless telecommunications services while delivering children to and from school, or when students use Wi-Fi or similar access point technologies on school buses to complete homework. A number of commenters agree that it is consistent with this precedent to find that the off-premises use of wireless internet services and the Wi-Fi hotspots needed to deliver such connectivity similarly serves an educational purpose. The Commission further disagree with NTCA's claim that its prior orders have required that services be physically “tied to a place of instruction.” Although the Commission has previously stated that “the purpose for which support is provided” must “be for educational purposes in a place of instruction,” neither the Commission nor the statute has defined the physical confines of where instruction can take place, and the Schools and Libraries Second Report and Order, 68 FR 36931 , June 20, 2003, that NTCA quotes did allow funding for certain off-premises services, demonstrating the Commission's longstanding understanding that “educational purposes in a place of instruction” can include off-premises uses. Therefore, based on the record and consistent with Commission precedent, the Commission concludes that section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act allows E-Rate support for services purchased by “elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries” for the purpose of allowing students, school staff, and library patrons to use those services off-premises for educational purposes. Finally, contrary to NTCA's assertion, the Commission also finds this conclusion is consistent with the statutory language requiring that services be provided “to” schools and libraries because schools or libraries are the customers and recipients of the services they purchase, and the services are therefore provided to them within the meaning of section 254(h)(1)(B), even if used elsewhere.

The provision of support to schools and libraries to purchase wireless internet services for off-premises use for educational purposes fits squarely within the Commission's long-established authority and direction under section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act to designate “ `services that are within the definition of universal service under subsection (c)(3),' which itself authorizes the Commission to designate non-telecommunications services for support under E-Rate.” As explained in the NPRM, the Commission expressly rejected the assertion that the support provided under section 254(h) of the Communications Act is limited to telecommunications services when it concluded in the First Universal Service Order, 62 FR 32862 , June 17, 1997, that section 254(h)(1)(B) through section 254(c)(3) of the Communications Act authorizes universal service support for telecommunications services and additional services such as information services. Pursuant to this longstanding precedent, authority provided by section 254(h)(1)(B) and section 254(c)(3) is not limited to telecommunications services but also authorizes support for the off-premises use of wireless internet services. Further, the Commission finds that section 254(h)(1)(B) through section 254(c)(3) of the Communications Act provides authority to support the Wi-Fi hotspot devices that are necessary to provide the wireless internet services. In the First Universal Service Order, the Commission concluded that “it can include `the information services' e.g., protocol conversion and information ( print page 67319) storage, that are needed to access the internet, as well as internal connections, as `additional services' that section 254(h)(1)(B), through section 254(c)(3), authorizes us to support.” The Commission further distinguished between ineligible types of peripheral equipment ( e.g., laptops) and eligible equipment that is necessary to make the services functional. The Commission find that because Wi-Fi hotspots can provide a critical connection for delivery of internet service, they fall into the latter category, and the Commission therefore concludes that it has authority under section 254(h)(1)(B) through section 254(c)(3) of the Communications Act to support the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspot devices that are needed for the delivery of wireless internet services.

Separately, the Commission finds that section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act authorizes it to permit E-Rate support for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services because hotspots and services that connect students, school staff, and library patrons to digital learning will “enhance, to the extent technically feasible and economically reasonable, access to advanced telecommunications and information services for all public and nonprofit elementary and secondary school classrooms . . . and libraries.” First, the Commission finds that providing support for such equipment and services through the E-Rate program will be “technically feasible and economically reasonable.” This is best demonstrated by the more than one million ECF-funded Wi-Fi hotspots and services that were distributed to students, school staff, and library patrons who may have otherwise lacked access and who were successfully connected to remote learning. Based on those experiences in the ECF program, as well as demand falling short of the E-Rate program's funding cap for many years and the limited lending program budget mechanism adopted herein, the Commission believes that the cost of funding the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services can be accomplished within the E-Rate program's existing budget.

Second, the Commission concludes that funding Wi-Fi hotspots and services for off-premises use will help enhance access for school classrooms and libraries to the broadband connectivity necessary to facilitate digital learning for students and school staff, as well as library services for library patrons who lack broadband access when they are away from school or library premises. As discussed, the internet has become critical for equitable access to education. For example, even before the pandemic, a significant number of teachers and students around the country reported requiring an internet connection to complete homework, and after the pandemic, some schools still retain the option to attend classes virtually. Beyond the context of school, digital literacy has become increasingly important in the workforce, with many applications, interviews, and forms that in an earlier era applicants might have used library resources to complete in person are now taking place online. Yet, a portion of our population still lacks internet access, meaning that they are unable to engage in such regular educational tasks like homework, research, developing or updating resumes, or applying for jobs. For many of these individuals, the internet access provided by their local school or library is their primary means of accessing such critical resources. The record is filled with examples of how Wi-Fi hotspots and services, in particular, have been very effective at closing this Homework Gap and digital divide. By providing E-Rate support for Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless internet services that can be used off-premises, the Commission can help schools and libraries to connect, for example, the student who has no way of accessing their homework to prepare for the next day's classroom lesson, or the school staff member who is unable to engage in parent-teacher meetings or professional trainings that take place after the school day ends, or the library patron who needs to attend a virtual job interview or perform bona fide research after their library's operating hours. Thus, the Commission concludes that by permitting support for the purchase of Wi-Fi hotspots and internet wireless services that can be used off-premises and by allowing schools and libraries to use this technology to connect the individuals with the greatest need to the resources required to fully participate in classroom assignments and in accessing library services, the Commission will thereby extend the digital reach of schools and libraries for educational purposes and allow schools, teachers, and libraries to adopt and use technology-based tools and supports that require internet access at home. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that the action adopted is within the scope of its statutory directive under section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act to enhance access to advanced telecommunications and information services for school classrooms and libraries.

Furthermore, the Commission agrees with commenters that permitting E-Rate support for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services is consistent with its exercise of its authority under section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act to establish the Connected Care Pilot Program and to clarify that the use of Wi-Fi on school buses is eligible for E-Rate funding. In establishing the Connected Care Pilot Program, the Commission found that providing support for patients' home broadband connections expanded health care providers' digital footprints for purposes of providing connected care services and allowed health care providers and patients to overcome the obstacle of cost to adopt beneficial connected care services through the pilot program, thus enhancing eligible health care providers' access to advanced telecommunications and information services. As NACEPF & Mobile Beacon explain in their reply comments, similar reasoning exists to support off-premises access for classrooms and libraries: many students lack the broadband connectivity required to fully participate in their education and to complete their assignments. Providing for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services would remove this obstacle and therefore, enhance the ability of classrooms and libraries to connect with learners and enable them to participate fully in their classwork and lessons, and complete their assignments. The Commission disagrees with ACA Connects' assertion that the NPRM' s proposal differs from the permissible actions taken in the School Bus Wi-Fi Declaratory Ruling because unlike a school bus, which is a school-controlled facility, no nexus exists between the school or library and the off-premises learning location ( e.g., a student's home). The Commission does not agree that the school or library needs to be in control of a location where the individual learns for there to be a nexus, because the Commission finds that this is not in line with the reality of how classroom instruction incorporates online resources ( e.g., assignments that must be completed and submitted online—often by a deadline outside of ”school hours”, schoolwork sent home with a student, online school days, required use of e-books or online videos) or the intent of E-Rate funding. Rather, the Commission finds that students, school staff, and library patrons have a direct nexus with their school or library through the provision of remote learning and education and that this nexus will be further ( print page 67320) strengthened by the safeguards the Commission also imposed.

Finally, the Commission finds section 254(h)(2)(A)'s reference to services for “classrooms” includes using E-Rate support to connect students, school staff, and library patrons to valuable digital educational resources when they are not located on the school or library campus. The Commission notes that the statute directs the Commission to establish rules to enhance access “ for all public and nonprofit elementary and secondary school classrooms . . . and libraries.” Notably, the text does not say to enhance access to services “at” or “in” school classrooms (or libraries), as would more naturally indicate a tie to a physical location. Moreover, the Commission sought comment in the NPRM on whether the reference in section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act to “elementary and secondary school classrooms . . . and libraries” includes expanding access to supported services that can be used in student, school staff, and library patron homes, given that today's educational environment often extends outside of the physical school or library building. In response, many commenters highlight the proliferation of online instruction and remote learning, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, commenters argue that the language of section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act should be interpreted to reflect the increasingly hybrid nature of education and enable off-premises access to important educational resources that support learning, such as student access to homework or online classes, or educator access to professional learning courses, networks, and materials, and library patron access to e-books and virtual programs. As exemplified during the COVID-19 pandemic-era campus closures, the physical school building is not the only place where a student can be in “class” and there are myriad reasons why a student, school staff member, or library patron may not be able to travel to the physical campus but still requires access to their remote learning and other educational resources. As such, the Commission concludes that section 254(h)(2)(A)'s reference to “classrooms” is appropriately interpreted to extend beyond the brick and mortar school buildings. Although a few commenters argue that interpretation is inconsistent with the statute's use of the word “classroom” because hotspots can be used anywhere, the Commission disagrees. As explained, in today's world, effective classroom learning often demands access to the internet outside of the school or library building, and the Commission therefore continues to believe that the best reading of “for . . . classrooms” allows funding for services that support effective classroom instruction, even if such services are used outside of a brick-and-mortar classroom. At the same time, to ensure the Commission is making the most-effective use of these scarce funds and limiting the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services to educational purposes, the Commission finds it necessary to adopt the specific safeguards discussed.

The Commission concludes that the obligations of the Children's internet Protection Act (CIPA) apply if the school or library receives E-Rate (or ECF) support for internet access, internet service, internal connections, and/or the related network equipment, including Wi-Fi hotspots. Enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, CIPA prohibits certain schools and libraries from receiving funding under section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act for internet access, internet service, or internal connections, unless they comply with specific internet safety requirements. Specifically, CIPA requires schools and libraries “having computers with internet access” to certify that they are enforcing a policy of internet safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure ( e.g., a filter). Congress enacted this law to ensure that children are protected from exposure to harmful material while accessing the internet provided by a school or library. Schools and libraries are therefore required to block or filter visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors across all sites, including social media. CIPA also requires monitoring the online activities of minors and providing education about appropriate online behavior, including warnings against cyberbullying.

First and foremost, the Commission remains focused on CIPA's intended purpose and expect schools and libraries to take every step necessary to ensure internet access funded by the E-Rate program remains safe for use by minors. Recognizing that accessing the internet carries inherent risk for minors, many schools have already implemented measures to restrict students' access to certain websites, including social media. For example, one school district in New Mexico relies on a filter to only permit student access to selected sites, while also blocking access to sites deemed non-educational. The top 20 domains where students were denied access by the filter included primarily social media sites, with TikTok and Snapchat comprising roughly 40% of denied requests. Schools and libraries, in compliance with the requirements of CIPA, should continuously evaluate the effectiveness of their internet safety policies and technology protection measures against the shifting nature of potentially harmful online content and the various sites and platforms that make content available to minors. Similarly, many service providers offer network-level filtering in their service offerings to support schools' and libraries' deployment of network-level technology protection measures. The Commission recognizes that determinations of what is considered appropriate are left to the local communities, and it encourages schools and libraries to evaluate the needs of their communities and apply filters as appropriate at the network level to ensure E-Rate-funded internet is safe for use by minors in line with the intent of the law.

The NPRM sought comment on the applicability of CIPA when connecting E-Rate-funded Wi-Fi hotspots to the internet off-premises, and proposed to require that CIPA applies if the school or library accepts E-Rate or ECF support for internet access or internet services, or E-Rate support for internal connections. The Commission has previously clarified that Wi-Fi hotspots qualify as eligible “Network Equipment” for internet access, internet service, or internal connections and would trigger CIPA compliance for the purchasing school or library. In response to the NPRM, several commenters express support for requiring CIPA compliance. The Commission agrees with these commenters and find that the requirements of CIPA apply for off-premises use if the school or library receives E-Rate-funded internet service, internet access, internal connections, or related network equipment (including Wi-Fi hotspots).

The Commission finds the concerns raised about the applicability and privacy implications of CIPA when funding the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services unpersuasive. The Commission is not aware of any issues with CIPA compliance arising from the ECF program, in which the Commission applied CIPA to off-premises use. Moreover, its rules require schools and libraries to certify to CIPA compliance, under penalty of reimbursement of funds and enforcement under Federal requirements regarding truthful statements. The Commission has ( print page 67321) recognized the “long history” supporting this approach to CIPA compliance in the E-Rate application process. The Commission's rules also provide that the certifying entity may be “the relevant school, school board, local education agency, or other authority with responsibility for administration of the school” or the relevant “library, library board, or other authority with responsibility for administration of the library.” The Commission is therefore confident that participants in E-Rate are well positioned to understand and enforce their CIPA obligations.

Finally, the Commission denies requests that E-Rate funds be used to pay for CIPA implementation costs. The Commission has previously determined that E-Rate recipients are statutorily prohibited from obtaining discounts under the universal service support mechanism for the purchase or acquisition of technology protection measures necessary for CIPA compliance.

All of the rules that are adopted in the Order are designed to further the support provided by the E-Rate program to schools and libraries to ensure affordable access to high-speed broadband and to protect the integrity of the E-Rate program funding. However, each of the separate rules the Commission adopts herein shall be severable. If any of the rules are declared invalid or unenforceable for any reason, it is the Commission's intent that the remaining rules shall remain in full force and effect.

Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains new information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public to comment on the information collection requirements contained in the Order as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 . In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198 , see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4) , the Commission previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, concurs, that this rule is “non-major” under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2) . The Commission will send a copy of the Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) .

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Addressing the Homework Gap through the E-Rate Program Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released in November of 2023. The Federal Communications Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

The Commission is required by section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to promulgate rules to implement the universal service provisions of section 254. Under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism, also known as the E-Rate program, eligible schools, libraries, and consortia that include eligible schools and libraries may receive discounts for eligible telecommunications services, internet access, and internal connections. The Commission's E-Rate program provides support to schools and libraries allowing them to obtain affordable, high-speed broadband services and internal connections, which enables them to connect students and library patrons to critical next-generation learning opportunities and services. The E-Rate program thus plays an important role in closing the digital divide, a top priority for the Commission.

In the Order, the Commission addresses the remote learning needs of today's students, school staff, and library patrons and help close the country's digital/educational divide by making the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services by students, school staff, and library patrons eligible for E-Rate support. The ECF program highlighted the demand and need for off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services for educational success. As mentioned in the NPRM, “[b]roadband access is proven to improve individuals' educational outcomes, while lack of access has been shown to severely hamper educational opportunities.” Allowing E-Rate support for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services is an important step to ensure student and library patrons can take advantage of all available educational opportunities, and to help close the “homework gap”, especially as the ECF program is winding down and support under the ACP ended as of June 1, 2024.

In the Order, the Commission finds that the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services constitutes an educational purpose and enhances access to advanced telecommunications and information services for schools and libraries. Applicants will have a calculated budget, limiting the amount of E-Rate support available for Wi-Fi hotspots and services based on applicant size and E-Rate discount rate. This will help schools and libraries create a hotspots lending program, lending Wi-Fi hotspots and services to students or patrons who most need remote access to meet their educational goals. Further, to balance its goal of reducing the digital divide with the responsibility of being a prudent steward of the universal service funds, the Commission adopts funding caps of $15 month for service and $90 for a Wi-Fi hotspot (for 3 years) to keep the costs low, limit the impact on the fund, and to encourage support to only those that need the devices and services the most. The budget mechanism and funding caps, along with other safeguards ( e.g. certifications, competitive bidding, prohibition against duplicative funding, audits, recordkeeping, usage requirements, etc.) will protect program integrity and prevent potential waste, fraud, and abuse. Additionally, the Commission will ensure that off-premises funding for Wi-Fi on school buses and for Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless internet service does not deter on-premises funding by prioritizing on-campus funding before these off-premises funding requests. Overall, the measures taken in the Order, help ensure that off-premises educational opportunities are available to students, school staff, and library patrons with the most need, while also protecting E-Rate's critical funds.

There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.

Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules, ( print page 67322) adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million businesses.

Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.

Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 11,879 special purpose governments—independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

Small entities potentially affected by the rules herein are Schools, Libraries, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, All Other Telecommunications, Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Wireless Telephony, Wired Broadband internet Access Service Providers (Wired ISPs), Wireless Broadband internet Access Service Providers (Wireless ISPs or WISPs), internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband), Vendors of Infrastructure Development or Network Buildout, Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing, Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing.

In the Order, the Commission applies existing or modified E-Rate or ECF recordkeeping requirements for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services. The Commission limits the use of services to those that can be supported by and delivered with Wi-Fi hotspots provided to an individual user. Schools and libraries must adopt and provide notice of an acceptable use policy highlighting that the goal of the hotspot lending program is to provide broadband access to students and library patrons who need it and for educational purposes. When E-Rate-funded hotspots are used in conjunction with hotspots funded via other sources, applicants must document clearly ( e.g., individual survey results or attestations) that each individual student needed a Wi-Fi hotspot, in accordance with the AUPs, and may not rely on general or estimated findings about income levels. Applicants will have a calculated budget, limiting the amount of E-Rate support available for off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and services based on their full-time student count or library square footage, and their category one discount rate.

Additionally, the Commission requires applicants to certify on their FCC Form 486 that they have taken reasonable steps to ensure proper use, to prevent warehousing, and to manage non-usage of devices. This will not be overly burdensome, because applicants already use FCC Form 486 to notify USAC that services have started on a particular funding request. Considering the limited funding available, applicants may not request funding for hotspot devices for future use or to be stored in case of an emergency, and the Commission will not allow applicants to purchase extra devices to store in case of theft, loss, or breakage. The Commission finds that this would be wasteful in this first year of expanding the program. Each device must be associated with a line of service, and applicants may not request more than 45 percent of the three-year hotspot budget in a single funding year.

At least once every 31 days, service providers are required to identify lines of hotspot service that have gone unused for 60 consecutive days and to provide applicants 30 days to use the hotspot before the line of service is terminated. Additionally, service providers must provide data usage reports to applicants at least once per billing period. The reports need to clearly identify the lines that are not being used across billing periods or that will be or have been terminated as a result of non-usage. The usage reports should not be overly burdensome because service providers regularly make such reports available to applicants. Applicants are also required to make these usage reports available to the Commission and/or USAC upon request, including to support program integrity reviews. Service providers are required to certify on their FCC Form 473 (Service Provider Annual Certification (SPAC) Form) that they will comply with this non-usage notice and termination requirement and will not charge the balance for terminated services.

Schools are required to maintain a similar, but modified asset and service inventory requirements to the ECF's program's asset and service inventory requirements, which details equipment and service inventories for each device or service purchased with E-Rate support and provided to an individual student or school staff member. The school's asset inventory must identify: (1) the equipment make/model; (2) the equipment serial number; (3) the full name of the person to whom the equipment was provided; (4) the dates the equipment was loaned out and returned, or the date the school was notified that the equipment was missing, lost, or damaged and (5) service detail. By “service detail,” the Commission means the line number or other identifier that associates a device to that particular line of service.

Taking into consideration the State's library patron privacy laws that some libraries must adhere to and existing library circulation systems and practices, the Order, adopts a limited asset and service inventory requirement for libraries. The limited asset and service inventory provides libraries more flexibility in accounting and tracking Wi-Fi hotspots and services funded with E-Rate support. For library ( print page 67323) participants receiving support for Wi-Fi hotspots and services, the asset and service inventory must identify: (1) the equipment make/model; (2) the equipment serial number; (3) the dates the equipment was loaned out and returned, or the date the library was notified that the equipment was missing, lost, or damaged; and (4) service detail. The asset inventories of schools and libraries will help us verify that there is no warehousing of hotspots, and confirm that hotspots are being used as intended.

Consistent with the E-Rate program's current recordkeeping rule, program participants will be required to retain documentation related to their participation in the E-Rate program, including the asset and service inventories, acceptable use policies, and data usage reports for at least ten years after the latter of the last day of the applicable funding year or the service delivery deadline for the funding request. Commenters are concerned about adopting new recordkeeping requirements, but there is support for maintaining the E-Rate program's existing recordkeeping requirements, due to applicants familiarity with the requirements. The recordkeeping adopted in the Order, would be similar to what most applicants, including small entities, are already familiar with and currently undertake for the E-Rate and ECF programs. As such, the Commission anticipates that the costs for compliance created by the decisions in the Order will be minimal. The recordkeeping requirements also help protect E-Rate funds from potential waste, fraud and abuse.

The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities. . .including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”

In the Order, the Commission minimizes the economic impact on small entities by making the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and services eligible for E-Rate funding to support remote learning for students, school staff, and library patrons. The availability of E-Rate funding for Wi-Fi hotspots and services gives applicants, including small entities, the opportunity to administer hotspot lending programs and provide students, school staff, and library patrons the off-premise broadband connectivity needed for educational success. The steps taken in the Order are especially important now that the ECF program is winding down and applicants will no longer have ECF funding available to meet the remote learning needs of their students, school staff, or library patrons and as of June 1, 2024, ACP support is no longer available for many households as well.

The Commission considered the benefits of multi-functional devices, including smartphones, tablets, and laptops with built-in wireless connections, but decline to include them at this time because it does not have sufficient information to justify this use and the Commission found them to be more expensive than sole-function Wi-fi hotspots. Further, equipment such as laptops and tablets remain ineligible for E-Rate support. The Commission recognizes that off-premises connectivity provided via Wi-Fi hotspots is not a one-size-fits-all solution, however the actions in the Order are a step in creating an economically reasonable method of meeting its statutory obligations.

The NPRM asked whether applicants should be required to determine and maintain records of students', school staff members', or library patrons' unmet need by, for example, conducting surveys. Commenters were not in favor of recordkeeping for unmet need. Commenters mentioned that schools and libraries are in the best position to know which students and patrons need the hotspots and services most, and therefore, the Commission should not impose recordkeeping requirements for unmet needs, but should allow schools and libraries to determine who to lend the devices and services to. In consideration of the comments, and finding that a budget mechanism approach for a lending program reduces the need to implement any unmet needs requirements, the Order does not impose recordkeeping requirements for unmet needs. Applicants, including small entities, will be able to determine their unmet need and not be burdened by unmet need documentation.

Further, to minimize significant economic impact on applicants, service providers are not allow to bill applicants for the balance that was not paid for by the E-Rate program for terminated lines of service from the non-usage requirements adopted in the Order.

Finally, any burdens for applicants presented in the Order are outweighed by the benefits to applicants. With funding from the E-Rate program applicants will now have the opportunity to offer off-campus access to broadband to help meet the educational necessities of students, staff, and library patrons.

The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register .

Late-Filed Comments. The Commission notes there were several comments filed in this proceeding after the January 16, 2024 comment deadline and January 29, 2024 reply comment deadline. In the interest of having as complete and accurate record as possible, and because the Commission would be free to consider the substance of those filings as part of the record in any event, the Commission will accept the late-filed comments and waive the requirements of 47 CFR 1.46(b) , and have considered them in the Order.

Accordingly, it is ordered , that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1 through 4, 201-202, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154 , 201-202 , 254 , 303(r) , and 403 , the Report and Order is adopted effective September 19, 2024.

It is further ordered , that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1 through 4, 201 through 202, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154 , 201-202 , 254 , 303(r) , and 403 , part 54 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 54 , is AMENDED, and such rule amendments shall be effective September 19, 2024, except for §§ 54.504(a)(1)(x)-(xii), 54.504(g), and 54.516(e)-(g), which are delayed indefinitely. The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for those sections after approved by the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

It is further ordered that the Office of the Secretary shall send a copy of the Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Communications common carriers
Hotspots, internet
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Telecommunications

Marlene Dortch,

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151 , 154(i) , 155 , 201 , 205 , 214 , 219 , 220 , 229 , 254 , 303(r) , 403 , 1004 , 1302 , 1601-1609 , and 1752 , unless otherwise noted.

2. Effective September 19, 2024, § 54.500 is amended by adding in alphabetical order definitions of “Wi-Fi” and “Wi-Fi hotspot” to read as follows:

Wi-Fi. “Wi-Fi” is a wireless networking protocol based on Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers standard 802.11.

Wi-Fi hotspot. A “Wi-Fi hotspot” is a device that is capable of receiving advanced telecommunications and information services, and sharing such services with another connected device through the use of Wi-Fi.

3. Effective September 19, 2024, § 54.502 is amended by redesignating paragraph (e) as (f) and adding new paragraph (e) as follows:

(e) Off-premises Wi-Fi hotspot program. Each eligible school district, school operating independently of a school district, library system and library operating independently of a system shall be eligible for support for category one services for a maximum pre-discount budget for off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and recurring services pursuant to the formula described in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section and subject to the limitations described in paragraphs (e)(5) and (6) of this section.

(1) Fixed three-year funding cycle. Beginning in funding year 2025, each eligible school, school district, library, or library system shall be eligible for a budgeted amount of pre-discount support for category one off-premises Wi-Fi hotspots and recurring services over a three-year funding cycle that will reset every three funding years. Each school, school district, library, or library system shall be eligible for the total available budget less the pre-discount amount of any support received for these services in the prior funding years of that fixed three-year funding cycle.

(2) School and school district mechanism. Each eligible school operating independently of a school district or school district shall be eligible for up to a pre-discount price calculated by multiplying the student count by 0.2 and the category one discount rate, rounded up to the nearest ten. This value is then multiplied by $630. The formula will be based on the number of full-time students.

(3) Library and library system mechanism. Each eligible library operating independently of a system, or library system shall be eligible for up to a pre-discount price calculated by multiplying the square footage by 0.0055 and the category one discount rate, rounded up to the nearest ten. This value is then multiplied by $630.

(4) Wi-fi Hotspots and service funding caps. The available funding for Wi-Fi hotspots is capped at $90 and services at $15 per month. An applicant may not request more than 45 percent of the Wi-Fi hotspot budget in a single funding year. Each E-Rate-supported Wi-Fi hotspot must have an accompanying request for recurring service.

(5) Non-usage notice and termination requirements. At least once every 31 days, service providers shall determine whether any E-Rate-supported lines have zero data usage in the prior 60 days and provide notice to the applicant of the particular lines within 5 business days. If there is zero data usage for 90 days, service providers shall discontinue service to such lines.

(6) Early termination. Service providers must exclude or waive early termination fees for lines of service associated with Wi-Fi hotspots that are lost, broken, or unused, including those for which service is discontinued in paragraph (e)(5) of this section. Service providers shall not bill applicants for unused lines of service that are discontinued.

(7) Off-premises hotspots program adjustments. The Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, is delegated authority to adjust the limiting mechanism amounts and the Wi-Fi hotspot program cost caps, after seeking comment on a proposed adjustment.

(8) Eligible users. Eligible schools and libraries are permitted to request and receive support for the purchase of Wi-Fi hotspots and services for off-premises use by:

(i) In the case of a school, students and school staff; and

(ii) In the case of a library, patrons of the library.

(9) Per user limitation. Support for eligible Wi-Fi hotspots and services used off-premises is limited to not more than one Wi-Fi hotspot per student, school staff member, or library patron.

4. Delayed indefinitely, § 54.504 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(1)(x) through (xii), and (g) to read as follows:

(x) The school, library, or consortium is not seeking support and reimbursement for eligible equipment and/or services that have been purchased and reimbursed with other Federal, State, Tribal, or local funding.

(xi) The school, library, or consortium will create and maintain an asset and service inventory as required by § 54.516(e).

(xii) The school, library, or consortium will not use Wi-Fi hotspots or service as part of a one-to-one Wi-Fi hotspot initiative, nor will the Wi-Fi hotspots be purchased for future use, emergency use, or use in the case of theft, loss, or breakage.

(g) Off-premises Wi-Fi hotspot certification on the FCC Form 486. An eligible school, library, or consortium that includes an eligible school or library receiving support for Wi-Fi hotspots and service for use off-premises must certify on FCC Form 486 that the school, library, or consortium has updated and publicly posted their acceptable use policy consistent with the requirements set forth in § 54.516(f); the Wi-Fi hotspots and/or services the school, library, or consortium purchased using E-Rate support for off-premises use have been activated and made available to students, school staff, and/or library patrons; public notice of their availability has been provided; and the authorized person is not requesting reimbursement for Wi-Fi hotspots and/or services that have not been made available for distribution.

5. Effective September 19, 2024, § 54.506 is added to read as follows:

Entities participating in the E-Rate program may not seek E-Rate support or reimbursement for eligible equipment and services that have been purchased and reimbursed with other Federal, State, Tribal, or local funding.

6. Effective September 19, 2024, § 54.507 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(4) and adding paragraph (f)(5) to read as follows:

(4) In the event that demand exceeds available funding, requests for category one services used off-premises shall be funded after on-premises category one and category two services.

(5) For paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section, if the remaining funds are not sufficient to support all of the funding requests within a particular discount level, the Administrator shall allocate funds at that discount level using the percentage of students eligible for the National School Lunch Program. Thus, if there is not enough support to fund all requests at the 40 percent discount level, the Administrator shall allocate funds beginning with those applicants with the highest percentage of NSLP eligibility for that discount level by funding those applicants with 19 percent NSLP eligibility, then 18 percent NSLP eligibility, and shall continue committing funds in the same manner to applicants at each descending percentage of NSLP until there are no funds remaining.

7. Effective September 19, 2024, § 54.513 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

(b) Disposal of obsolete equipment components of eligible services. Eligible equipment components of eligible services purchased at a discount under this subpart shall be considered obsolete if the equipment components have been installed for at least five years, except that Wi-Fi hotspots for off-premises use shall be considered obsolete after three years. Obsolete equipment components of eligible services may be resold or transferred in consideration of money or any other thing of value, disposed of, donated, or traded.

8. Effective September 19, 2024, § 54.516 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) to read as follows:

(1) Schools, libraries, and consortia. Schools, libraries, and any consortium that includes schools or libraries shall retain all documents related to the application for, receipt, and delivery of supported services for at least 10 years after the latter of the last day of the applicable funding year or the service delivery deadline for the funding request. Any other document that demonstrates compliance with the statutory or regulatory requirements for the schools and libraries mechanism shall be retained as well. Subject to paragraph (e) of this section, schools, libraries, and consortia shall maintain asset and inventory records for a period of 10 years after purchase.

(b) Production of records. Schools, libraries, consortia, and service providers shall produce such records at the request of any representative (including any auditor) appointed by a State education department, the Administrator, the FCC, or any local, State or Federal agency with jurisdiction over the entity. Where necessary for compliance with Federal or State privacy laws, E-Rate participants may produce records regarding students, school staff, and library patrons in an anonymized or deidentified format. When requested by the Administrator or the Commission, as part of an audit or investigation, schools, libraries, and consortia must seek consent to provide personally identifiable information from a student who has reach age of majority, the relevant parent/guardian of a minor student, or the school staff member or library patron prior to disclosure.

9. Delayed indefinitely, § 54.516 is amended by adding paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) to read as follows:

(e) Asset and service inventory requirements —(1) Schools. Schools, school districts, and consortia including any of these entities, shall keep asset and service inventories as follows:

(i) For equipment purchased as components of supported category two services, the asset inventory must be sufficient to verify the actual location of such equipment.

(ii) For equipment needed to make wireless service for school buses functional, the asset inventory must be sufficient to verify the actual location of such equipment.

(iii) For each Wi-Fi hotspot provided to an individual student or school staff member, the asset and service inventory must identify:

(A) The equipment make/model;

(B) The equipment serial number;

(D) The dates the equipment was loaned out and returned, or the date the school was notified that the equipment was missing, lost, or damaged; and

(E) The service detail.

(2) Libraries. Libraries, library systems, and consortia including any of these entities, shall keep asset and service inventories as follows:

(ii) For each Wi-Fi hotspot provided to an individual library patron, the asset and service inventory must identify:

(C) The dates the equipment was loaned out and returned, or the date the library was notified that the equipment was missing, lost, or damaged; and

(D) The service detail.

(f) Acceptable use policies. Schools, school districts, libraries, library systems, and consortia including any of these entities that receive support for the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and/or services, shall maintain, provide notice, and, where necessary, update an acceptable use policy that clearly states that the off-premises use of the Wi-Fi hotspot and/or service is primarily for educational purposes as defined in § 54.500 and that the Wi-Fi hotspot and/or service is for use by students, school staff members, and/or library patrons who need it.

(g) Data usage reports. Service providers shall provide reports regarding Wi-Fi hotspot data usage for off-premises use to applicants, and applicants shall make such reports available to any representative (including any auditor) appointed by a State education department, the Administrator, the FCC, or any local, State, or Federal agency with jurisdiction over the entity upon request. Data usage reports must be in machine-readable digital format so that information lines can be read and sorted, clearly identifying the lines that are not being used across billing periods and the lines that have been terminated pursuant to § 54.502(e)(5).

10. Effective September 19, 2024, § 54.520 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(C), (c)(2)(iii)(C), and (c)(3)(i)(C) to read as follows:

(iii) * * *

(C) The Children's internet Protection Act, as codified at 47 U.S.C. 254(h) and (l) , does not apply because the recipient(s) of service represented in the Funding Request Number(s) on this Form 486 is (are) receiving discount services only for telecommunications ( print page 67326) services, or is (are) receiving support under the Federal universal service support mechanism for schools and libraries for internet access or internal connections that will not be used in conjunction with a computer owned by the recipient(s).

(C) The Children's internet Protection Act, as codified at 47 U.S.C. 254(h) and (l) , does not apply because the recipient(s) of service represented in the Funding Request Number(s) on this Form 486 is (are) receiving discount services only for telecommunications services, or is (are) receiving support under the Federal universal service support mechanism for schools and libraries for internet access or internal connections that will not be used in conjunction with a computer owned by the recipient(s).

(C) The Children's internet Protection Act, as codified at 47 U.S.C. 254(h) and (l) , does not apply because the recipient(s) of service under my administrative authority and represented in the Funding Request Number(s) for which you have requested or received Funding Commitments is (are) receiving discount services only for telecommunications services; and, or is (are) receiving support under the Federal universal service support mechanism for schools and libraries for internet access or internal connections that will not be used in conjunction with a computer owned by the recipient(s); and

[ FR Doc. 2024-18122 Filed 8-19-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

About This Site
Legal Status
Accessibility
No Fear Act
Continuity Information

IMAGES

Henry Jenkins Quote: “The worst thing a kid can say about homework is
Edward Norton Quote: “The more you do your homework, the more you’re
Jim Rohn Quote: “Lack of homework shows up in the marketplace as well
Quotes against Homework- Know the Effects of Negative Thinking about
61 Inspiring & Funny Homework Quotes (ASSIGNMENT)
TOP 25 HOMEWORK QUOTES (of 323)

COMMENTS

TOP 25 HOMEWORK QUOTES (of 323)
As a result, a genius is often a talented person who has simply done all of his homework. Thomas A. Edison. Inspirational, Motivational, Ninety Nine. 40 Copy quote. Homework is a term that means grown up imposed yet self-afflicting torture. James Patterson. Mean, Self, Torture. 61 Copy quote.
Stanford research shows pitfalls of homework
A Stanford researcher found that too much homework can negatively affect kids, especially their lives away from school, where family, friends and activities matter. "Our findings on the effects ...
Is homework a necessary evil?
Beyond that point, kids don't absorb much useful information, Cooper says. In fact, too much homework can do more harm than good. Researchers have cited drawbacks, including boredom and burnout toward academic material, less time for family and extracurricular activities, lack of sleep and increased stress.
Why Homework is Bad: Stress and Consequences
Less than 1 percent of the students said homework was not a stressor. The researchers asked students whether they experienced physical symptoms of stress, such as headaches, exhaustion, sleep ...
Are You Down With or Done With Homework?
These days, nightly homework is a given in American schools, writes Kohn. "Homework isn't limited to those occasions when it seems appropriate and important. Most teachers and administrators aren't saying, 'It may be useful to do this particular project at home,'" he writes. "Rather, the point of departure seems to be, 'We've decided ahead of ...
Is it time to get rid of homework? Mental health experts weigh in
For older students, Kang says, homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night. "Most students, especially at these high achieving schools, they're doing a minimum of three hours, and it's ...
Rethinking Homework
The negative effects of homework are well known. They include children's frustration and exhaustion, lack of time for other activities, and possible loss of interest in learning. Many parents lament the impact of homework on their relationship with their children; they may also resent having to play the role of enforcer and worry that they ...
"Homework in primary school has an effect of zero" (J. Hattie)
John Hattie Homework I beg to differ, depends on what type ! E.g. Cook a meal with mum or day, explain today's Math to a family member, read the last chapter of a book, make a touch cast report of your pet, use time laps photography with your iPad to show the growth of a seed into a plant, find Mars using an iPad app, create a billboard online that promotes one of the current issues ….
Is it time to get rid of homework? Mental health experts weigh in
Emmy Kang, mental health counselor at Humantold, says studies have shown heavy workloads can be "detrimental" for students and cause a "big impact on their mental, physical and emotional health ...
Homework's Diminishing Returns
Opponents of homework counter that it can also have negative effects, like increasing boredom with schoolwork and reducing the time students have to spend on leisure activities that teach ...
Homework: An Hour a Day Is All the Experts Say
The negative effects of lots of homework can far outweigh the positive ones. Researchers found that a lot of homework can result in: • Stress: Students reported high levels of stress associated ...
Does Homework Really Help Students Learn?
A conversation with a Wheelock researcher, a BU student, and a fourth-grade teacher. "Quality homework is engaging and relevant to kids' lives," says Wheelock's Janine Bempechat. "It gives them autonomy and engages them in the community and with their families. In some subjects, like math, worksheets can be very helpful.
Is Homework Good for Kids? Here's What the Research Says
A TIME cover in 1999 read: "Too much homework! How it's hurting our kids, and what parents should do about it.". The accompanying story noted that the launch of Sputnik in 1957 led to a push ...
This is why we should stop giving homework
At Human Restoration Project, one of the core systemic changes we suggest is the elimination of homework. Throughout this piece, I will outline several research studies and reports that demonstrate how the negative impact of homework is so evident that any mandated homework, outside of some minor catching up or for incredibly niche cases, simply does more harm than good.
More than two hours of homework may be counterproductive, research
Pope and her colleagues found that too much homework can diminish its effectiveness and even be counterproductive. They cite prior research indicating that homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night, and that 90 minutes to two and a half hours is optimal for high school. • Greater stress: 56 percent of the students considered ...
Should homework be banned?
Homework is a controversial topic in education, but what does the science say? Explore the pros and cons of homework and its impact on students' well-being in this article from BBC Science Focus Magazine.
25 Reasons Homework Should Be Banned (Busywork Arguments)
Excessive workload. The issue of excessive workload is a common complaint among students. Spending several hours on homework after a full school day can be mentally and physically draining. This workload can lead to burnout, decreased motivation, and negative attitudes toward school and learning.
Probing Question: Is homework bad for kids?
Probing Question: Is homework bad for kids? | Penn State University. Ask an eleven-year-old whether homework is a bad thing, and you'll likely be greeted with vigorous nodding and not a hint of ambiguity. But do grown-up experts agree? As with so many things, the answer is mixed.
The Negative Effects of Homework
One of the leading causes of sleep deprivation in teens is homework, which [in middle and high school at least], can easily be limited to a small subset. With a lack of relaxation and an abundance of work, the body shuts down, physically and mentally. Burnout, depression, and anxiety are all present when the anticipated overload occurs.
Is homework robbing your family of joy? You're not alone
In a 2019 survey of 1,049 parents with children in elementary, middle, or high school, Office Depot found that parents spend an average of 21 minutes a day helping their children with their ...
(PDF) Investigating the Effects of Homework on Student Learning and
This ar ticle investigates the effects of homework on student learning and academic. performance, drawing from recent resea rch and studies. The research suggests that homew ork, when ...
Addressing Student Mental Health Through the Lens of Homework Stress
Keywords: homework, stress, mental health The outcomes of adolescent mental health is a threat to students' health and wellbeing, more so than it ever has been in the modern era. As of 2019, the CDC reported a nearly 40. percent increase in feelings of sadness or hopelessness over the last ten years, and similar.
The Pros and Cons of Homework
Homework also helps students develop key skills that they'll use throughout their lives: Accountability. Autonomy. Discipline. Time management. Self-direction. Critical thinking. Independent problem-solving. The skills learned in homework can then be applied to other subjects and practical situations in students' daily lives.
Addressing the Homework Gap Through the E-Rate Program
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) takes steps to modernize the E-Rate program to meet the evolving needs of schools and libraries around the country by allowing for the distribution of Wi-Fi hotspots and services to students, school staff, and library patrons for off-premises use.

Homework Quotes

last adds STANDART BOTTOM BANNER

Homework quotes by:

Top Authors

Get Social with AzQuotes

SIDE STANDART BANNER

Login with your account

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

A balancing act

High-performing paradox

Student perspectives

Media Contacts

Is homework a necessary evil?

The 10-minute rule

All over the map

Quantity vs. quality

Further reading

Letters to the Editor

Is it time to get rid of homework? Mental health experts weigh in.

The pandemic made the conversation around homework more crucial

'Get organized' ahead of back-to-school

John Hattie on BBC Radio 4: “Homework in primary school has an effect of zero”

John Hattie about class size

John Hattie about public vs private schools

John Hattie about homework

John Hattie about streaming

38 comments on “ John Hattie on BBC Radio 4: “Homework in primary school has an effect of zero” ”

11 other websites write about for "John Hattie on BBC Radio 4: “Homework in primary school has an effect of zero”"

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Is it time to get rid of homework? Mental health experts weigh in

The pandemic made the conversation around homework more crucial

'Get organized' ahead of back-to-school

New fish species discovered in Mauritanian deep-water coral reefs

New supramolecular polymer shows spontaneous unfolding and aggregation

'Molecular Compass' points way to reduction of animal testing

Pioneering research discovers PFOS chemical pollution in platypuses

New research analyzes 'Finnegans Wake' for novel spacing between punctuation marks

Genomic research focuses on medical potential for scorpion venom

New forensics technique measures individual DNA shedding to aid criminal investigations

Novel ratchet mechanism uses a geometrically symmetric gear driven by asymmetric surface wettability

'Amazon' algae shed light on what happens to populations when females switch to asexual reproduction

New simulations shed light on stellar destruction by supermassive black holes

Relevant PhysicsForums posts

How to explain Bell's theorem to non-scientists

Free Abstract Algebra curriculum in Urdu and Hindi

Sources to study basic logic for precocious 10-year old?

Kumon Math and Similar Programs

AAPT 2024 Summer Meeting Boston, MA (July 2024) - are you going?

Related Stories

Smartphones are lowering student's grades, study finds

Doing homework is associated with change in students' personality

Scholar suggests ways to craft more effective homework assignments

Should parents help their kids with homework?

How much math, science homework is too much?

Anxiety, depression, burnout rising as college students prepare to return to campus

Recommended for you

Statistical analysis can detect when ChatGPT is used to cheat on multiple-choice chemistry exams

Larger teams in academic research worsen career prospects, study finds

The 'knowledge curse': More isn't necessarily better

Visiting an art exhibition can make you think more socially and openly—but for how long?

Autonomy boosts college student attendance and performance

Study reveals young scientists face career hurdles in interdisciplinary research

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

E-mail the story

Newsletter sign up

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

E-mail newsletter

The New York Times

The Opinion Pages

What Happened to Childhood?

The Home-School Advantage

It Starts Before High School

Change the Pace of the School Day

Related Discussions

Recent Discussions

Homework: An Hour a Day Is All the Experts Say

A conversation with a Wheelock researcher, a BU student, and a fourth-grade teacher

Explore Related Topics:

Senior Contributing Editor

Comments & Discussion