School Technology: Five School Districts' Experiences in Funding
Technology Programs (Letter Report, 01/29/98, GAO/HEHS-98-35).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed how five school
districts funded their technology goals and their difficulties in
finding those resources, focusing on: (1) the funding sources school
districts used to develop and fund their technology programs; (2) the
barriers school districts have faced in funding the technology goals
they set, and their efforts to overcome these barriers; (3) which
components of districts' technology programs have been the most
difficult to fund, and what have been the consequences; and (4) how the
districts plan to handle the ongoing costs of the technology they have
acquired.

GAO noted that: (1) the five districts that GAO studied used a variety
of ways to fund their technology programs; (2) funding sources included
money from district operating budgets, special technology levies and
bonds, state and federal funds, and private and other contributions; (3)
most districts received a majority of funding from one source, although
this funding source varied by district; (4) technology directors in the
five districts have cited a variety of barriers to obtaining the funds
needed to implement technology programs; (5) in all five districts,
technology had to compete for funding with other needs and priorities,
including school building maintenance, repair, and construction,
mandated programs, and additional teachers to handle increased
enrollment; (6) community resistance to higher taxes, according to
district officials, limited all five districts' ability to raise more
revenue; (7) technology directors also cited barriers to obtaining other
sources of funding, such as business contributions or grants,
particularly because the districts lacked staff to manage fund-raising
efforts; (8) furthermore, some officials reported that demographics made
them ineligible for some grants; (9) program components that were
hardest to fund, technology directors and others said, were those
heavily dependent on staff positions; (10) staffing was difficult to
fund because some funding sources' could not be used for staffing and
because some sources were not well suited for this purpose; (11) to
support the ongoing and periodic costs of their technology programs, the
districts planned to continue using a variety of funding sources largely
as in the past despite some of these sources' uncertainties; (12) most
planned to continue to fund annual ongoing costs, such as maintenance
and technical support, with district operating dollars; (13) officials
were not sure, however, how much these sources would provide in the
future as program needs grow; (14) the periodic costs of eventually
upgrading and replacing equipment, software, and infrastructure also
faced uncertain funding; and (15) officials in some locations noted that
at times major funding sources fell significantly short of expectations.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-98-35
     TITLE:  School Technology: Five School Districts' Experiences in 
             Funding Technology Programs
      DATE:  01/29/98
   SUBJECT:  Public schools
             School districts
             Aid for education
             Federal/state relations
             Educational grants
             Computers
             Taxes
             Education or training
             Information technology
IDENTIFIER:  Technology Innovation Challenge Grant Program
             Manchester (NH)
             Roswell (NM)
             Seattle (WA)
             Internet
             Gahanna (OH)
             Davidson County (NC)
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

January 1998

SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY - FIVE SCHOOL
DISTRICTS' EXPERIENCES IN FUNDING
TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS

GAO/HEHS-98-35

School Technology Funding

(104868)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act
  ETSC - Educational Technology Support Center
  FCC - Federal Communications Commission

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-276652

January 29, 1998

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman
The Honorable Christopher Dodd
The Honorable Carol Moseley-Braun
United States Senate

Many of the nation's more than 16,000 school districts are exploring
how--and how much--to invest in computer and other education
technologies for the classroom.  Although questions still remain
about how best to use such technology to improve students' education,
many believe it has an important role to play.  Schools are moving
forward, as business and industry have, with plans for computer
networks, Internet connections, and other technology.  Acquiring and
maintaining such technology, however, can be costly.  One study has
estimated that placing one networked computer laboratory in each
school nationwide would cost $11 billion up front and $4 billion in
annual costs.\1

The Congress has taken steps to increase financial assistance to
support the use of technology in schools.  For example, for fiscal
year 1998, lawmakers appropriated $425 million to fund the Technology
Literacy Challenge Fund to support statewide strategies to integrate
technology into school curricula and $106 million to fund the
Technology Innovation Challenge Grant program to develop and
implement innovative uses of education technology.\2 Relatively
little is known, however, about how districts fund the technology
they acquire. 

You asked us to study the challenges school districts face in
financing their technology programs.  In response to your request,
our study addresses the following four questions: 

  -- What funding sources have school districts used to develop and
     fund their technology programs? 

  -- What barriers have districts faced in funding the technology
     goals they set, and how did they try to overcome these barriers? 

  -- Which components of districts' technology programs have been the
     most difficult to fund, and what have been the consequences? 

  -- How do districts plan to handle the ongoing costs of the
     technology they have acquired? 

Our study is based on the experiences of five school districts
selected to illustrate the experiences of many districts in
developing education technology programs.  We asked state education
agency officials in every state, as well as officials in other
organizations, to identify districts that had established education
technology programs and made some progress in implementing them. 
Because we sought information on experiences that were likely to be
relatively common among districts nationwide, we asked the officials
to exclude districts that had benefited from extraordinary
assistance, such as those receiving a major portion of their funding
from a company or individual.  We selected five districts that
provided a cross section of districts in size, community type,
geographic location, state assistance for education technology, state
fiscal capacity, and state share of education funding. 

This report examines how five districts funded their technology goals
and their difficulties in finding these resources.  It does not
evaluate the districts' technology goals or assess the effect of
technology on students' academic progress.  Although education
technology can encompass a wide range of tools, including cable
television and distance learning, our discussions with school
district officials focused on computers and peripherals and their
connectivity to local and wide area networks and to the Internet.  We
refer to these resources as computer-based technology.  For a
detailed description of our report's scope and methodology, see
appendix I. 

The five districts chosen, shown in table 1, range from a rural
district in North Carolina's furniture manufacturing region to the
largest urban school districts in New Hampshire and Washington. 
These five districts were trying to do many things that other
districts are doing--increase the number of computers available for
instruction, build computer laboratories and classroom computer
resources, and make Internet access part of a teacher's instructional
tool kit.  Although the districts selected are not statistically
representative, they give insight to the experiences districts
encounter in finding resources to implement education technology
programs. 



                                         Table 1
                         
                           Characteristics of Districts Studied

District                                      Overview of technology program
--------------------------------------------  -------------------------------------------
Davidson County Schools, Davidson County, North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The district's 26 schools are located in 500  The district's technology plans include
square miles of largely rural country near    increasing the number of classroom
Winston-Salem. Described by an official as    computers and connecting all schools to the
"blue collar," the district has one of the    Internet. The district began implementing
lowest property tax rates in the state and a  its technology program in 1993 and has a
relatively low poverty rate (about 18         student-to-computer ratio of about 6 to 1.
percent of the 18,000 students are eligible   Nearly every classroom has at least one
for free or reduced-price lunches). It has    computer, all schools have at least one
the third lowest level of funding per pupil   Internet connection, and development of a
of all districts in the state.                district wide area network is under way.


Gahanna-Jefferson Public Schools, Gahanna, Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Gahanna is a suburb of Columbus.  The district developed its first technology
The district has 7,000 students and 11        plan in 1989. The district's high school
schools located in Gahanna and parts of two   and three middle schools have computer
townships. Considering the number of          laboratories, and more recent efforts have
students receiving free or reduced-price      focused on placing two computers in each
lunches, this is the most affluent district   grade 1 to 4 classroom. At the time of our
we reviewed, with 7.5 percent of students     study, the student-to-computer ratio was
eligible for such meals. State basic aid      about 13 to 1.
accounts for about 26 percent of the
district's general fund.


Manchester School District, Manchester, New Hampshire
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a population of about 100,000,           The district developed its first technology
Manchester is the state's largest city. Its   plan in 1994 and has a student-to-computer
school district is also the state's largest,  ratio of about 9 to 1. The district
with 22 schools and about 16,000 students.    received a federal grant in 1995 and is
The district is economically diverse and has  implementing a 5-year plan to link all
a growing immigrant population. About 24      schools in a wide area network with
percent of the students are eligible for      Internet access and to purchase additional
free or reduced-price lunches. The district   equipment.
receives a large share of operating funds
from local taxes, reflecting the state's
tradition of local funding for schools.


Roswell Independent School District, Roswell, New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roswell, a community of about 50,000, is      The district's technology plan, developed
located in sparsely populated southeastern    in school year 1993-94, has placed enough
New Mexico, about 200 miles from any major    computers in schools so that the student-
city. The district's 22 schools educate       to-computer ratio is about 8 to 1. The plan
about 11,000 students, nearly half of whom    calls for connecting all district schools
are eligible for free or reduced-price        to a wide area network and providing them
lunches. The state provides major funding     with Internet access by 1997. District
for districts in New Mexico; about 74         efforts have been augmented by a local
percent of basic funding in Roswell comes     education foundation that participates in
from state aid.                               making technology-related policy and by
                                              unique funding arrangements, including an
                                              agreement with teachers that allowed money
                                              to be used for software instead of salary
                                              increases.


Seattle Public Schools, Seattle, Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington State's largest city, Seattle has  Although the district got involved with
about 47,000 students in its 100 schools; it  technology in the 1980s, a major new phase
is the largest of the five districts we       began after passage of a technology levy in
studied. In this urban district, about 60     1991. Among other things, plans called for
percent of students are racial or ethnic      a computer laboratory in every school.
minorities, and 21 percent have non-          Failure of a subsequent technology levy has
English-speaking backgrounds. About 43        slowed planned goals, though most schools
percent are eligible for free or reduced-     have Internet access, and about one-fifth
price lunches.                                are on a wide area network. The student-
                                              to-computer ratio is about 7 to 1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conducting the case studies, we interviewed officials at the
school, district, and state levels, as well as others involved in
funding technology, such as parents and members of local
organizations helping to bring technology into schools.  Although we
talked with several district officials, including superintendents,
our most extensive interviews were with district-level technology
directors who had primary responsibility for implementing the
technology programs.  Detailed information on each district, on the
individual schools we studied, and on the state context appear in the
district case studies in appendixes II through VI.  We conducted our
study between March and November 1997 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\1 Connecting K-12 Schools to the Information Superhighway, McKinsey
& Company, Inc., prepared for the National Infrastructure Advisory
Council (Palo Alto:  1995).  This cost estimate assumes a single
computer lab in each school equipped with 25 networked computers and
connected to the national information infrastructure using standard
telephone lines. 

\2 We have reported on several issues regarding the Congress'
interest in technology, including Rural Development:  Steps Toward
Realizing the Potential of Telecommunications Technologies
(GAO/RCED-96-155, June 14, 1996); Telecommunications:  Initiatives
Taken by Three States to Promote Increased Access and Investment
(GAO/RCED-96-68, Mar.  12, 1996); School Facilities:  America's
Schools Not Designed or Equipped for 21st Century (GAO/HEHS-95-95,
Apr.  4, 1995); Information Superhighway:  An Overview of Technology
Challenges (GAO/AIMD-95-23, Jan.  23, 1995); and Information
Superhighway:  Issues Affecting Development (GAO/RCED-94-285, Sept. 
30, 1994). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

The five districts we studied used a variety of ways to fund their
technology programs.  Funding sources included money from district
operating budgets, special technology levies and bonds, state and
federal funds, and private and other contributions.  Most districts
received a majority of funding from one source, although this funding
source varied by district.  For example, two districts received 54
percent or more of their funding through district-level technology
bonds or levies; another district used a federal grant for 66 percent
of its funds.  Private funds, such as corporate contributions,
constituted about 3 percent or less of the funding for any of the
five districts. 

Technology directors in the five districts cited a variety of
barriers to obtaining the funds needed to implement technology
programs.  In all five districts, technology had to compete for
funding with other needs and priorities, including school building
maintenance, repair, and construction; mandated programs (such as
asbestos removal); and additional teachers to handle increased
enrollment.  Community resistance to higher taxes, according to
district officials, limited all five districts' ability to raise more
revenue.  Technology directors also cited barriers to obtaining other
sources of funding, such as business contributions or grants,
particularly because the districts lacked staff to manage
fund-raising efforts.  Furthermore, some officials reported that
demographics made them ineligible for some grants.  In trying to
overcome these barriers, technology directors reported that their
districts used a variety of methods to educate and inform school
board members, district patrons, and the community at large of the
importance and usefulness of technology.  Methods ranged from
speaking to the school board and parent groups to investing in model
technology programs at one or more schools to showcase technology. 
Districts also tried a variety of leadership and partnership
approaches to enlist support.  In two of the five districts, for
example, a local foundation was especially helpful in providing
leadership and money. 

Program components that were hardest to fund, technology directors
and others said, were those heavily dependent on staff positions
(maintenance, training, and technical support).\3 Staffing was
difficult to fund because some funding sources could not be used for
staffing and because some sources were not well suited for this
purpose.  For example, bonds and special levies passed by the
districts we reviewed could only be used for capital expenditures. 
Officials also pointed out difficulties both in using one-time grants
for ongoing staff positions and in attracting funding for staff from
outside supporters.  Shortfalls in maintenance and technical support
resulted in large workloads for existing staff, maintenance backlogs,
and reduced computer use because computers were out of service. 

To support the ongoing and periodic costs of their technology
programs, the districts we studied planned to continue using a
variety of funding sources largely as in the past despite some of
these sources' uncertainties.  Most planned to continue to fund
annual ongoing costs, such as maintenance and technical support, with
district operating dollars.  Officials were not sure, however, how
much these sources would provide in the future as program needs grow. 
The periodic costs of eventually upgrading and replacing equipment,
software, and infrastructure also faced uncertain funding.  Officials
in some locations noted that at times major funding sources fell
significantly short of expectations. 


--------------------
\3 Besides these three, other technology program components are
hardware, software, infrastructure, and telecommunications access. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2


      CLASSROOM COMPUTER-BASED
      TECHNOLOGY IS GROWING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

In recent years, much discussion about education technology has
focused on the use of computers, networks, and connections to the
Internet to augment learning.  These technologies can be used in a
variety of ways: 

  -- Drill-and-practice programs can provide a way for students to
     improve basic skills (such as addition or spelling) and may be
     used by teachers to track and tailor student learning. 

  -- Other software programs can provide students with powerful tools
     to facilitate writing, analyze and manipulate data, simulate
     physical and social science processes, and produce multimedia
     projects, combining text with sound, graphics, and video. 

  -- Reference applications can give students and teachers quick
     access to a broad range of learning resources, such as
     encyclopedias available on CD-ROM.  Modem or network connections
     can provide access to resources beyond the immediate reach of
     the classroom such as library card catalogs and Internet
     information. 

  -- Networks can support collaborative and active learning by
     allowing many students, teachers, parents, experts, and others
     to share resources and communicate with each other both locally
     and over great distances. 

A computer-based education technology program has several components
that range from the computer hardware and software to the training
and support needed to use and maintain the technology (see fig.  1). 
Although technology models define components somewhat differently,
they generally cover the same equipment and support elements. 

   Figure 1:  Basic Components of
   a Computer-Based Education
   Technology Program

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Although more complete data are needed, surveys conducted by Quality
Education Data note a dramatic growth in computer-based technology in
schools.  In school year 1983-84, schools had 1 computer for every
125 students; in school year 1996-97, they had 1 for every 9.  Nearly
all schools now use personal computers, with the average school
owning 86 computers for instructional use.  Access to multimedia
computers that have graphics, sound, and video capabilities important
to taking advantage of learning opportunities on the Internet has
also grown to about 1 such computer for every 22 students.  In
addition, schools are using computer networks more.  The percentage
of schools with local area networks grew more than twelvefold in just
5 years, from 5 percent in school year 1991-92 to 63 percent in
school year 1996-97. 

Meanwhile, many education technology experts believe that current
levels of school technology do not give students enough access to
realize the technology's full potential.  For example, schools should
provide a ratio of four to five students for every computer or five
students for every multimedia computer, many studies suggest.  These
ratios are much lower than the ratios at most schools.  Concern has
also been expressed that aging school computers may not be able to
run newer computer programs, use multimedia technology, and access
the Internet.  In school year 1995-96, 35 percent of installed
computers used for student instruction comprised aging Apple II
computers,\4

which cannot run most software designed today.  Furthermore, although
the percentage of schools with Internet access quickly increased from
35 to 65 percent between 1994 and 1996, just 14 percent of
instructional rooms (classrooms, computer or other labs, and library
media centers) have this access.\5


--------------------
\4 Technology in Public Schools, 15th Edition, Quality Education Data
(Denver:  1996), p.  31. 

\5 Advanced Telecommunications in U.S.  Public Elementary and
Secondary Schools, Fall 1996, National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S.  Department of Education, NCES-97-944 (Washington,
D.C.:  Feb.  1997).  Another issue of concern has been equitable
access to technology.  Although evidence suggests that federal
compensatory education programs have helped mitigate differences in
access to computers for disadvantaged students, data continue to show
lower levels of access for some technologies, including multimedia
computers, cable television, Internet, and networks.  For example,
the Department of Education study cited above showed that 78 percent
of schools with low percentages of poor students (less than 11
percent eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program) had
Internet access, compared with 53 percent of schools with high
percentages of poor students (71 percent or more eligible for the
free or reduced-price lunch program). 


      RESEARCH ON IMPACT OF
      TECHNOLOGY INCONCLUSIVE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2

Policymakers want to know whether computer-based technology
contributes to improved student achievement.\6 In fact, some studies
of traditional, tutorial-based applications, such as
drill-and-practice software to improve basic skills (such as reading
or arithmetic), have shown measurable improvements in student
learning.  Studies also note improvements in writing and other
subject areas as well as improvements in students' motivation and
attitudes about learning resulting from classroom technology use.  In
addition, the benefits of computer-based instruction appear to be
greater for educationally disadvantaged or low-achieving students. 
Although much research has focused on traditional, tutorial
applications of technology, many are interested in technology's
potential to support fundamental changes in approaches to teaching. 
Such approaches involve environments in which students assume a
central role in their own learning, learn to think critically, and
collaborate with others.  Students working together to research a
topic on the Internet is one example of such an application. 
Research data on these more complex uses of technology are few,
however, and are not as well organized as research on more
traditional applications.  Without other research, analysts often
cite anecdotal reports of the positive experiences of schools that
extensively use technology. 

On the other hand, some analysts have questioned whether technology
can significantly benefit schools.  Concerns have been raised, for
example, about whether schools can use technology effectively and
about the extent to which schools might shift resources from other
important education needs to support technology investments.  In
addition, some researchers have questioned the methodologies used to
evaluate technology's impact on student achievement.  For example,
the influence of contextual factors in a number of studies has raised
concern as have the persistence of the measured effects and the
independence of those responsible for the research.  Schools have
also increasingly introduced technology as part of broader reform
efforts, making it difficult to isolate the effects of technology
alone. 

Our review did not address these issues; rather, our report describes
how some districts found the funds to implement technology programs. 


--------------------
\6 Summaries of research on the impact of technology on student
achievement can be found in Connecting K-12 Schools to the
Information Superhighway, McKinsey & Company; Barbara Means and
others, Using Technology to Support Education Reform, Department of
Education (Washington, D.C.:  1993); and Report to the President on
the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the United
States, President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology,
Panel on Educational Technology (Washington, D.C.:  Mar.  1997). 


      COMPUTER-BASED TECHNOLOGY
      INVOLVES HIGH INVESTMENT AND
      SUPPORT COSTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.3

School districts that want to provide students with continuing and
effective access to education technology may require substantial
amounts of money for acquiring computers and maintaining their
investment.  Quality Education Data has reported that public schools
spent an estimated $4.3 billion on technology in school year 1996-97
and are projected to spend $5.2 billion this school year.\7

A 1996 study by the RAND Corporation estimated the cost of providing
technology-rich learning environments in all schools as between $10
and $20 billion per year, depending on the level of technology.  This
amounts to about 3.2 to 8 percent of current expenditures for public
elementary and secondary education for the 1994-95 school year.  In
contrast, school district expenditures on technology in 1994-95 were
estimated to be 1.3 percent of current education expenditures.\8 The
researchers note that financing such costs would be difficult for
some districts because of current fiscal pressures and may require
them to significantly restructure their budgets, a difficult task. 


--------------------
\7 1997-98 Technology Purchasing Forecast, Quality Education Data,
(Denver:  1997), p.  4. 

\8 Thomas K.  Glennan and Arthur Melmed, Fostering the Use of
Educational Technology:  Elements of a National Strategy, RAND
Corporation (Santa Monica:  1996).  Estimates of the total cost to
integrate technology in schools have varied widely largely due to
differences in assumptions about the level of technology acquired and
the extent to which the technology is supported.  In Connecting K-12
Schools to the Information Superhighway, McKinsey & Company estimated
the cost of implementing four different models of technology use. 
The most basic model, which assumed a single networked computer lab
in each school connected to the Internet, was projected to cost $11
billion in initial costs plus $4 billion in annual operating expenses
(1.5 percent of current public kindergarten to twelfth grade
education expenditures).  The highest level model, which assumed
installation of networked computers in every classroom of every
school at a density of five students per computer and a high-speed
connection to the Internet, was estimated to require $47 billion
initially and $14 billion in annual operating expenses (or 3.9
percent of current public kindergarten to twelfth grade education
expenditures.)


      FEDERAL, STATE, AND PRIVATE
      INITIATIVES FOR SCHOOL
      TECHNOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.4

Several federal, state, and private initiatives are helping school
districts acquire and use technology.  At the federal level,
substantial funding increases have been provided recently for several
programs supporting education technology, including the Technology
Innovation Challenge Grant program, which was appropriated $106
million for fiscal year 1998.\9 The Congress also appropriated $425
million to fund the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund\10 in fiscal
year 1998 in support of state efforts to integrate technology into
school curricula.  Another major source of financial assistance was
provided for in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.\11 Under this
act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted an order
stating that schools should receive discounts ranging from 20 to 90
percent on all telecommunications services, Internet access, and
internal connections, depending on the school's level of economic
disadvantage and its location in an urban or rural area and subject
to an annual cap of $2.25 billion.\12 The funds to support these
discounts will come from collections from interstate
telecommunications and other service providers. 

A number of federal agencies provide funding for education
technology, including the Departments of Education, Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, and Energy; the National Science Foundation; and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  Through these
agencies, funding has been provided for technology and supported such
activities as educational television programming, distance learning,
assistive technologies for disabled learners, and more recently,
assistance for telecommunications networks and technology planning. 
Other federal funding, though not specifically provided for
technology, may be used for this purpose.  For example, funds from
ESEA programs--such as title I, which provides grants for
educationally disadvantaged students, and the Eisenhower Professional
Development program, which supports activities to strengthen
teachers' skills--may be used to support education technology efforts
to reach these programs' goals.  Similarly, under the Goals 2000: 
Educate America Act,\13 districts may use the education reform funds
to acquire technology and implement technology-enhanced instruction. 
The federal government provides several hundred million dollars
annually to support education technology, according to estimates. 
Much of this funding is provided through federal programs for which
technology is not the direct focus.\14

In addition, states have provided various levels of funding and other
types of assistance for education technology.  Many states have
provided some funding to support technology in schools:  New Jersey,
for example, provided a total of $10 million in grants to every
school district in the state in fiscal year 1997; and Georgia
provided over $50 million in lottery funds to school districts for
technology in fiscal year 1997.  Other assistance provided by states
includes negotiating statewide hardware and software purchase
agreements, establishing technology training or support centers,
providing school access to statewide networks, and easing regulations
to allow schools to use state textbook funds to purchase software. 
In addition, some states have encouraged their public utility
commissions to provide schools with telecommunication services at
reasonable rates. 

Other public and private entities have also helped schools implement
education technology.  Businesses, foundations, universities, and
other organizations have provided financial assistance or contributed
expertise, shared resources, or donated equipment to support schools'
education technology needs.  A recent example is NetDay, a national
volunteer effort to install basic wiring in schools to give them
Internet access.  Businesses and individuals nationwide have
contributed funds, technical expertise, or materials and joined with
thousands of community volunteers to sponsor NetDay activities. 


--------------------
\9 Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965, as amended (20 U.S.C.  6846), authorizes the Technology
Innovation Challenge Grants.  The 5-year grants (hereafter referred
to as "Challenge Grants") support the development and innovative use
of technology and new learning content.  Grants are awarded on a
competitive basis to consortia, which include at least one local
education agency with a high percentage of children below the poverty
line. 

\10 Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965, as amended (20 U.S.C.  6841), which authorizes State and Local
Programs for School Technology Resources, is the authority for the
Technology Literacy Challenge Fund.  Funds are allocated to state
education agencies on the basis of their share of funds under title I
(part A) of ESEA.  From these amounts, competitive grants are awarded
to local education agencies using new technologies to improve
schools. 

\11 P.L.  104-104, sec.  254. 

\12 On Dec.  16, 1997, the FCC adopted an order stating that for the
first 6 months of 1998, no more than $625 million will be collected
or spent to support these services for schools and libraries. 

\13 P.L.  103-227 [1994]. 

\14 For a more comprehensive list and description of federal programs
supporting education technology, see Information Technology and
Elementary and Secondary Education:  Current Status and Federal
Support, Congressional Research Service Issue Brief 96-178
(Washington, D.C.:  June 4, 1997). 


   DISTRICTS USED MANY SOURCES TO
   FUND TECHNOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Each district we studied used a combination of funding sources to
support technology in its schools (see table 2).  At the local level,
districts allocated funds from their district operating budgets,\15
levied special taxes, or both.  They also obtained funds from federal
and state programs specifically designated to support school
technology or from federal and state programs that could be used for
this purpose, among others.  Finally, districts obtained private
grants and solicited contributions from businesses.  Although some
individual schools raised funds in the districts we studied,
obtaining technology funding was more a district-level function than
a school-level function, according to our review. 



                                          Table 2
                          
                             Percentage of District Technology
                            Funding Received Through School Year
                          1996-97 From Local, State, Federal, and
                                 Private and Other Sources

                                           State funding       Federal funding
                                        -------------------  -------------------
                    District     Local  Technolog            Technolog             Private
                    operatin   bond or         y-     Other         y-     Other       and
                           g   special   specific  programs   specific  programs     other
District            budget\a    levy\b   programs        \c   programs        \d   funding
------------------  --------  --------  ---------  --------  ---------  --------  --------
Davidson County           27         0         22        43          0         6         2
 Schools, Davidson
 County, N.C.
Gahanna-Jefferson         77         0         19         0          0         1         3
 Public Schools,
 Gahanna, Ohio
Roswell                   22        54          4         3          0        13         3
 Independent
 School District,
 Roswell, N.M.
Manchester School         18         0          0         0         66        12         3
 District,
 Manchester, N.H.
Seattle Public            16        67        0.8         3          4         6         3
 Schools, Seattle,
 Wash.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Primary source appears in boldface type.  Percentages may not
add to 100 due to rounding. 

\a District operating budgets may include state funding.  The
approximate percentage of state funding for the amounts shown is, for
Davidson County, 0 percent; Gahanna, 26 percent; Roswell, 99 percent;
Manchester, 0 percent; and Seattle, 66 percent. 

\b Local bonds and special levies are district property tax
initiatives sometimes, but not always, specifically targeted for
technology. 

\c Includes state funding programs not targeted for technology but
available for technology use if it fulfills the goals of the funding
program.  An example is using vocational education funds to buy
computers. 

\d Includes federal funding programs not targeted for technology but
available for technology use if it fulfills the goals of the funding
program.  Examples are titles I and II of the ESEA of 1965. 

\e Includes foundation and other private grants and corporate and
in-kind donations.  Parent-
teacher organization funds raised at individual schools are excluded
from these totals. 

Although districts tapped many sources, nearly all districts obtained
the majority of their funding from one source.  This source, however,
varied by district.  For example, in Seattle\16 a 1991 local capital
levy has provided the majority of its education technology funding to
date.  In Gahanna, the district operating budget has provided the
majority of technology funding. 

Regarding local funding, all five districts allocated funds from
their operating budgets for technology, with such allocations ranging
widely from 16 to 77 percent of their technology funding.  Two
districts also used funds raised through local bonds or special
levies.  One of them, Roswell, dedicated part of a triennial 2-mill
levy\17 to technology. 

Four districts received state funding specifically targeted for
technology that totaled from less than 1 percent to 22 percent of
their total technology funding.  State technology funds were provided
either on a per pupil basis or through competitive grants.  Both
Davidson County and Gahanna received state funding on a per pupil
basis that funded significant portions of their hardware.  Roswell
also received state funding on a per pupil basis--but in smaller
amounts--which it used to fund teacher training.  Seattle competed
for and won a state technology grant, which it used to purchase
hardware and software for a middle school. 

Two districts won special federal technology grants.  Manchester and
Seattle won highly competitive 5-year federal Challenge Grants for
$2.8 million and $7 million, respectively.  Manchester won the grant
in 1995 during the first round of Challenge Grant competition.  This
grant is the major source of funding for the district's technology
program, providing 66 percent of the district's technology funding. 
A major objective of the grant is to create a network connecting
computers in all schools to the Internet.  Seattle won its grant in
1996 and uses it in several efforts, including activities that
prepare students for employment in technology careers.  The $1.5
million in grant funding Seattle has received so far accounts for
about 4 percent of the district's current technology funding. 

In addition to state and federal funds targeted for technology, all
five districts reported using other federal and state program funding
that was not specifically designated for technology but could be used
for this purpose.  For example, officials in four districts reported
using federal title I funds, and officials in three reported using
state instructional materials funds or textbook funds to support part
of their program.  In Manchester, a schoolwide program at a title I
elementary school\18 we visited had funded many of its 27 computers
as part of its title I program.  State program funds, such as for
exceptional and at-risk children as well as vocational education,
were a significant funding source in Davidson County, where the
district has directed about $2 million of these state funds to
technology. 

All districts we studied had obtained about 3 percent or less of
their technology funding from private sources.\19 This assistance
comprised grants; monetary and in-kind donations; and assistance from
businesses, foundations, and individuals.  Officials attributed
limited business contributions to several factors, including
businesses not fully understanding the extent of the schools' needs. 
One official said that when business representatives visit schools
and compare schools' technology with technology in their workplaces,
they can better understand schools' needs.  Several officials also
said businesses feel overburdened by many requests from the community
for assistance, and some said their district had few businesses from
which to seek help.  Nonetheless, all five districts noted the
importance of business' contribution and were trying to improve their
ties with business. 

As part of our review, we also examined the efforts of individual
schools to raise money for technology.  In all five districts,
obtaining technology funding was mainly a district- rather than a
school-level function.  School-level technology coordinators in all
but one school worked part time or had other responsibilities in
addition to technology.  Their main duties involved providing
technical support and training and purchasing equipment, rather than
obtaining funding for technology.  The majority of funding that most
schools used for technology came from the school district.  Sometimes
these funds were provided expressly for technology, such as those
from local technology levies.  In other cases, schools had some
choice in spending funds and chose to use them to support technology
needs. 

About half of the schools we studied also supplemented their district
funding with funds for technology from parent-teacher organization
activities and other school fund-raisers.  Amounts totaled generally
less than $7,000 in any given year but did range as high as $84,000
over 4 years at one school.  A few schools reported obtaining special
grants for technology from local businesses, foundations, or
sometimes from their districts.  Individual teachers or other staff
wrote the grants, which generally were for small amounts, in most
cases under $7,000.  Staff at two schools also reported that teachers
and other staff used their personal funds to support classroom
technology activities.  One district official estimated that teachers
at a school in her district spent an average of $100 or more on
software, hardware, and supplies; the official had also spent about
$700 of her own money.  One of the teachers at that school told us
she spent $1,200 on technology items for her classroom in a single
year. 


--------------------
\15 District operating budgets include locally generated revenues
used to finance the daily operations of the school district, which
include instruction and administration, and may also include general-
purpose state aid.  They do not include funds used for capital outlay
or debt service.  Although districts may include categorical federal,
state, or local funds in their operating budgets, we asked districts
to separately account for any such funds used for technology. 

\16 Hereafter, we refer to school districts by their city or county
names. 

\17 A 2-mill levy is a property tax that assesses $2 for every $1,000
of assessed property value. 

\18 A schoolwide program permits a school to use title I and other
federal education funds and resources to upgrade the entire education
program of the school, in contrast with title I targeted assistance
through which funds are used only for educational services for
eligible children.  A school must have at least 50 percent of its
enrolled students or 50 percent of children living in the area from
low-income families to qualify. 

\19 In considering the level of funding received from private
business or corporations in the districts we visited, it is important
to note that our selection criteria excluded districts that had
benefited from extraordinary assistance such as those receiving the
majority of their funding from a company or individual.  A recent
study by CCA Consulting estimated that contributions from corporate
and other sources averaged 7 percent of funding for school districts'
education technology programs in school year 1994-95.  The McKinsey &
Company study estimated that business and other contributions account
for 15 percent of public school technology funding, with local
funding accounting for 40 percent, state funding for 20 percent, and
federal funding for 25 percent. 


   INFORMATIONAL EFFORTS AND
   PARTNERSHIPS HAVE ADDRESSED A
   VARIETY OF BARRIERS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Technology directors in the districts we studied identified a variety
of barriers to obtaining funding both at the district level and from
other sources such as grants.  Upon analyzing their responses to
open-ended survey questions, we identified several types of barriers
common to a number of districts (see table 3).  The case studies in
appendixes II through VI discuss these barriers further.  District
officials usually tried to overcome these barriers and obtain support
for technology using broad informational efforts and various
leadership approaches. 



                                         Table 3
                         
                           District-Level Barriers to Obtaining
                               Education Technology Funding

                                       Gahanna-       Roswell
                         Davidson     Jefferson   Independent    Manchester       Seattle
                           County        Public        School        School        Public
                         Schools,      Schools,     District,     District,      Schools,
Barrier                      N.C.          Ohio          N.M.          N.H.         Wash.
-------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Competing needs                 X             X           X\a           X\a             X
 take precedence
Community tax                 X\a           X\a             X             X             X
 resistance
Inadequate staff to           X\a           X\a          X\\a             X             X
 manage fund-
 raising
Funding source                X\a             X                                       X\a
 conditions or
 requirements are
 restrictive
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The barrier was considered especially significant by the district
technology director. 


      COMPETING NEEDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Officials in all of the districts we visited reported that
district-level funding for technology was difficult to obtain because
it was just one of many important needs that competed for limited
district resources.  For example, a Gahanna official reported that
his district's student population had grown, and the district needed
to hire more teachers.  A Seattle official reported that his district
had $275 million worth of deferred maintenance needs.  In several
cases, districts had to comply with certain mandates before making
money available for needs such as technology.  Manchester officials
noted, for example, that required special education spending
constituted 26 percent of the fiscal year 1997 district operating
budget, a figure expected to rise to 27.5 percent in fiscal year
1998.  As a result, officials believe that less funding may be
available for other programs, including technology.  In addition, one
district official stated that one reason education measures were
difficult to pass was that these measures competed for limited public
funding with other programs such as transit systems, parks, and
sports stadiums.  Manchester district officials reported that the
district competed even more directly with other city needs for tax
revenues because the school district is a department of the city
government and lacks independent fiscal authority to sponsor tax
initiatives such as levies or bonds. 


      COMMUNITY TAX RESISTANCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

General communitywide anti-tax sentiment contributed to difficulties
in obtaining district-level funding for technology, according to
district officials.  Officials from all districts said that
resistance to higher taxes affected their ability to increase the
district's operating revenue to help meet their technology goals.  In
Manchester, a district official reported that local property taxes
already provide a large portion of the school district budget, and
any tax increases face strong community resistance.  Davidson County
has one of the lowest local property tax rates in the state, and,
according to officials, many county residents were attracted to the
area because of the tax rates. 

In addition, two districts--Roswell and Seattle--lacked the ability
to increase the local portion of their operating budgets.  This is
because--to improve equity--the state school finance systems limited
the amount of funds districts could raise locally.  Districts
reported that anti-tax sentiment also affected their ability to pass
special levies and bond measures.  For example, Seattle voters
supported a special levy to initiate the district's technology plan
but rejected a second levy to fund the next phase of the plan 5 years
later.  Davidson County voters had passed a bond measure several
years ago that provided a small amount of funds for technology, but
officials said it was too soon for the fiscally conservative
community to consider another bond measure for technology.  In
Gahanna, several levy measures were defeated in the mid-1990s,
reflecting, according to officials, the community's dissatisfaction
with the district's leadership at that time.  Although all district
officials identified a resistance to taxes in their communities, most
said they believed the community generally supported education. 


      LACK OF FUND-RAISING STAFF
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

The lack of fund-raising staff presented difficulties to districts in
raising funds beyond the school district.  Many officials reported
that their other job responsibilities precluded their searching for
technology funding.  When discussing this issue, district officials
often mentioned that they need lots of time to develop funding
proposals or apply for grants.  For example, one technology director
with previous grant-writing experience said she would need an
uninterrupted month to submit a good application for a Department of
Commerce telecommunications infrastructure grant.  As a result, she
did not apply for this grant.  Manchester's technology director said
that when the district applied for a federal Challenge Grant, it
created a team to work on the proposal.  Two members of the team, the
technology director, and another official had to drop everything else
to complete the application within a 4-week time frame. 

Similarly, officials said they needed considerable time and effort to
create the consortium of businesses, universities, and other
organizations required for receiving some grants.  For example, an
official in Roswell said that such requirements made it difficult for
geographically isolated districts like his to apply for these grants. 
According to some technology directors, the combination of scarce
staff time and extensive grant application requirements sometimes
kept them from applying for grant funding. 

In addition, although the funding potential of new sources is
unclear, officials in most districts said they would like to have a
staff member dedicated to pursuing new sources of technology program
funding.  Seattle and Manchester officials both said they had
contracted with part-time grant writers.  Seattle also had a general
grants officer on the district's staff to identify and manage grants,
but he had limited time to write grant proposals.  Gahanna officials
said they planned to hire a district grants officer in the next year
or two. 


      FUNDING SOURCE CONDITIONS OR
      REQUIREMENTS ARE RESTRICTIVE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

In three districts we studied, technology officials said that some
funding sources had conditions or requirements that made it difficult
for the districts to obtain technology funding from these sources. 
In two of these districts, officials said that their districts did
not meet the income requirements of some sources.  For example, one
official characterized her district as not being "needy" enough to
qualify for some funding, stating further that corporations and
foundations typically like to give funds to very needy schools where
they can make a dramatic difference.  Although her district's student
population had many students from lower income families, she said
that the district was not disadvantaged overall compared with other
school systems.  Similarly, an official from another district said
that his district's average income was too high to meet the
requirements for some sources. 

Conditions associated with other types of funding, such as levy
funds, concerned an official in the third district.  The official
believed that restrictions on raising levy funds--such as minimum
voter turn-out requirements, a 60-percent majority approval
requirement, and a restriction prohibiting the district's involvement
in a levy campaign--make it harder for the district to obtain funds
from this source.  This particularly concerned this official because
levy funding has been the main funding source for technology in this
district. 


      INFORMATIONAL AND LEADERSHIP
      EFFORTS DIRECTED AT
      OVERCOMING FUNDING BARRIERS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5

Districts employed general strategies to overcome these funding
barriers rather than focus on specific barriers.  The strategies
involved two main approaches:  efforts to inform decisionmakers about
the importance of and need for technology and a variety of leadership
efforts to secure support for technology initiatives. 

To inform decisionmakers, district officials addressed school board
members, city council representatives, service group members,
parents, community taxpayers, and state officials.  Officials gave
presentations and technology demonstrations, held parent information
nights, made contacts with foundation representatives, and conducted
lobbying efforts with state officials and grassroots efforts to
encourage voter participation in levy or bond elections.  Roswell,
for example, set up a model technology school to demonstrate the use
of technology in classrooms.  One effort by Seattle officials
involved soliciting support from the state legislature for changes in
education funding laws that could affect the district's spending on
technology and other needs. 

In the districts we studied, district officials and business
community members provided leadership to support school technology. 
In some districts, the superintendent garnered support for the
technology program.  For example, according to officials we
interviewed, the superintendent in Davidson County had a
long-standing commitment to technology and enough understanding of
the political landscape to gain support for school technology
implementation.  Officials from two other districts noted that
technology leadership in their districts had been lacking in recent
years due in part to turnover in superintendents and other district
personnel, and they looked to their current superintendents to
provide it. 

Another leadership role held by some school district officials we
visited stemmed from their technology expertise, including a vision
for its educational use and an ability to articulate and implement
this vision.  Although the district's technology director most often
filled this role, occasionally school officials assumed this role. 
In Roswell, for example, one official referred to the district's
former technology director as the person who directed the effort to
seek technology funding and to consider ways to spend that funding. 
This person was also characterized as having foresight and viewed as
responsible for technology becoming such a big part of the district's
bond and levy measures.  Likewise, technology directors in Davidson
County, Gahanna, Seattle, and Manchester each played a central role
in envisioning and implementing their respective district technology
programs over multiyear periods and continued to be consulted for
expertise and guidance. 

Beyond the school districts, members of the business community
assumed leadership roles to support technology by entering into
partnerships with the districts to help with technology development
efforts as well as to help obtain funding.  All five districts we
studied had developed such partnerships with businesses in their
communities. 

In Roswell and Seattle, business community leaders had developed a
formal approach to helping their school districts' efforts to
implement technology by establishing a foundation that worked with
each district, providing leadership and funding for technology. 
Seattle's foundation, the Alliance for Education, views its role as
helping the district reach its goals in several different areas,
including technology.  In this partnership, the Alliance serves as a
convener and catalyst to join representatives from the business
community with the school district and match entities interested in
providing funding or other assistance with programs that need funding
or other assistance.  As part of its technology assistance, the
Alliance also helps channel equipment to schools, provides training
opportunities for teachers, and coordinates an effort to allow
schools to have high-speed Internet access.  In Roswell, the
Educational Achievement Foundation has been involved in district
policy-making as well as funding.  In school year 1993-94, its
members helped develop the school district's initial technology plan
using lessons learned by members who had developed technology
programs for their businesses.  The foundation also developed the
concept for using technology in the district's model technology
elementary school and provided part of the funding for this school. 
Foundation members and district officials we spoke with said this
model program was instrumental in convincing voters to pass a bond
measure to implement technology in schools districtwide. 

In other locations we visited, the business community and districts
were developing ties but through less formal structures.  For
example, the Manchester school district developed relationships with
40 business and community groups when it needed to meet a community
consortium requirement for its Challenge Grant proposal.  A district
official stated that these relationships continue to grow and that
education has become a main focus of the Chamber of Commerce.  In
Gahanna, the school district's relationships with local businesses
included ties to a local Business Advisory Council.  Although
providing funding is not this group's main focus, it does provide the
district with curriculum recommendations about skills needed in the
workplace.  In Davidson County, although officials said that few
businesses reside in the rural area from which to solicit support,
the district had established ties with some local businesses.  One
activity this district noted as evidence of local business support
for technology was a successful effort to get community businesses to
fund notebook computers for middle school teachers. 


   STAFF-RELATED AND OTHER
   COMPONENTS DIFFICULT TO FUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Nearly all districts found maintenance, technical support, and
training--
components often dependent on staff--more difficult to fund than
other components, according to our review.  Officials cited several
restrictions or limitations associated with funding sources that
affected their use for staff costs.  First, some funding simply could
not be used to pay for staff.  Officials in Roswell and Seattle noted
that special levy and bond monies, their main sources of technology
funds, may not be used to support staff because the funds are
restricted to capital expenditures.  North Carolina's state
technology program also prohibited funds from being used for staff
costs.  Second, some funding sources do not suit the ongoing nature
of staff costs.  Officials noted, for example, that grants and other
sources provided for a limited time or that fluctuate from year to
year are not suited to supporting staff.  Furthermore, in two
districts, officials said that businesses and foundations tend not to
support ongoing program costs, including technical support and
maintenance costs.  Officials in one district also said that
technical support and training were harder to fund because they were
less visible than such items as hardware and software.  Most
districts funded technology staff primarily from district operating
budgets.  However, several officials noted that competing needs and
the limited size of district budgets make it difficult to increase
technology staff positions. 

Officials in all five districts reported having fewer staff than
needed.  Some technology directors and trainers reported performing
maintenance or technical support at the expense of their other duties
due to a lack of sufficient support staff.  Some district officials
also noted high stress levels among district technology trainers or
maintenance staff trying to serve many school sites.  One result of a
lack of staff was lengthy equipment downtime when computers and other
equipment were not available for use.  In several districts, repairs
for some equipment reportedly took as long as 2 weeks or more. 
Equipment downtime means reduced access for teachers and students,
and several officials observed that this may frustrate teachers and
discourage them from using the equipment. 

Limited funding for staff costs also affected teacher training,
according to officials.  In Gahanna, the district technology director
said the district lacks enough educational technologists to assign
one to each school, and, as a result, all teachers have not received
in-depth training.  He noted that training made a noticeable
difference in teachers' effectiveness in using technology and that in
cases where teachers had worked one on one with educational
technologists, students were gaining new skills in acquiring,
assimilating, and manipulating data.  Manchester's technology
director said that the most difficult costs for the district to fund
are teacher release time and substitute pay to enable teachers to get
training.  Most district officials expressed a desire for more
technology training capability, noting that teacher training promoted
the most effective use of the equipment.  Another official concluded
that the district risked wasting the dollars it had invested in
technology if it could not keep the equipment running or if teachers
were not using the technology for lack of training or technical
support. 

Many districts had developed some approaches to mitigating the
shortfalls in technology support staff.  For example, Seattle
reported purchasing extended warranties on new equipment as a
cost-effective way to support maintenance needs.  Having
manufacturers or vendors rather than district staff perform
maintenance on newer machines allowed the district to concentrate its
limited maintenance resources on the older equipment.  Several
district high schools were also training students to provide
technical support in their schools.  In addition, several schools we
visited designated one or more teachers to help with training or
provide technical support to other teachers in the building along
with their full-time responsibilities.  Two districts also had
cooperative agreements with nearby colleges to assist with teacher
training. 

In addition to staff-related components, several districts reported
problems obtaining funds for hardware and telecommunication service
charges.  Technology's high cost and continual changes requiring
higher powered machines made funding hardware difficult, according to
district officials.  Finding funds for equipment upgrades was also
difficult, said one official, because these needs are less visible to
potential funders.  Despite significant hardware investments, several
districts reported having less teacher and student access to
equipment than desired.  Difficulties in funding telecommunication
services were raised by officials in three districts for different
reasons.  One district official said such costs posed problems
because of their large expense; an official in another district said
funding these services was difficult because the need for funding is
ongoing; and an official in a third district cited problems due to
the need for funding from limited district operating funds. 


   DISTRICTS PLAN TO USE SAME
   FUNDING SOURCES FOR ONGOING
   COSTS DESPITE UNCERTAINTIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Most of the districts we studied planned to continue supporting the
costs of their technology programs largely as they had in the past,
despite the uncertainties associated with many funding sources.  The
ongoing costs faced by districts are basically of two types.  First,
districts need to fund regular annual costs, such as those for
maintenance, technical support, training, and telecommunications
services.  Second, districts and schools need to fund the periodic
costs of upgrading and replacing hardware, software, and
infrastructure to sustain their programs. 

Most districts planned to continue funding ongoing maintenance,
technical support, training, and telecommunications costs mainly from
their operating budgets.  Most hoped to sustain at least current
levels of support; just one district, Seattle, anticipated losing
some support staff due to districtwide budget cuts.  District
officials in most locations believed, however, that current levels of
maintenance and technical support were not adequate and recognized
that demands for staff would most likely grow with the addition of
new equipment, expanded networks, and aging of older equipment.  Some
officials talked about hiring staff in small increments but did not
know to what extent future district budgets would support such
hiring.  Officials in two districts looked to assistance promised
under the Telecommunications Act to help with telecommunications
costs, but at the time of our visit the timing and actual level of
assistance they would receive had not been determined. 

The periodic cost of upgrading and replacing hardware, software, or
infrastructure can be substantial and although each district had made
significant progress in these areas, most faced some uncertainty in
continuing to fund at least some of these costs from current sources. 
For example, officials in several districts noted that state
technology funding was an inconsistent source of funding, subject to
changing priorities of state legislatures.  Davidson County and
Gahanna had the most notable examples of this.  Davidson County has
relied heavily on state technology funds to buy hardware and
establish its infrastructure, but the state reduced the program
funding in the second year, and the district received only about
$300,000 rather than the $900,000 it had expected.  Similarly,
Gahanna received only about half the amount it expected from state
technology funding when the funding formula was changed to target
funds to poorer districts. 

In Seattle, special levies are the district's main funding source for
equipping schools with computers and expanding networking in schools,
according to the technology director, despite the unpredictability of
this source.  A failed levy in 1996 set technology plans back several
years and forced the district and schools to piece together much
smaller amounts from grants and other sources.  Manchester, which
completed the second year of a 5-year Challenge Grant in December
1997, will have to figure out where to get funding to sustain its
program after the Challenge Grant is completed given the district's
operating budget limitations and a lack of state technology funds. 
Officials in Roswell also reported uncertainties about future
funding, but the district has established a pattern of passing levies
every 3 years and using some of these funds for school technology. 
All of the districts we visited were still working toward acquiring
enough computers to reach their goals, and most had not developed
plans to address the eventual need to replace current hardware.  Some
officials said they believed that the general public probably does
not know that this will be necessary. 

Officials in all districts underscored the need for stable funding
sources and for technology to be considered a basic education
expenditure rather than an added expense.  They suggested different
ways to accomplish this.  For example, officials in most districts
believe the district operating budget should have a technology line
item.  They believe this would demonstrate district commitment to
technology as well as provide a more certain funding source.  An
official in one district that had such a line item pointed out,
however, that even this approach would not ensure funding because
budget items can be decreased in times of general budget reduction or
changing district priorities.  Another official saw the need for
state assistance to ensure stable funding for school technology.  He
said that technology is increasingly being considered part of basic
education and as such should be included in state formula funding. 
Without such funding, he said districts would be divided into those
that could "sell" technology funding to voters and those that could
not.  Furthermore, when districts cannot provide adequate technology
funding for all schools, technology tends to grow in pockets; schools
with a strong, supportive parent base or a principal with good public
relations or grant-writing skills are likely to get more funding than
schools without these resources. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

Education technology represents a substantial investment for school
districts intent on following the lead of business and industry in
making computers an integral part of everyday activities.  Finding
money to pay for the technology could be difficult, however, because
it is but one of many education expenses--such as reducing class size
or renovating aging buildings--that compete for limited funding. 
Furthermore, because technology programs involve ongoing maintenance,
training, and other expenses, one-time funding is unlikely to be
sufficient.  As a result, technology supporters in the districts we
studied not only had to garner support at the start for the
district's technology needs, they also had to continue making their
case year after year. 

To develop support for technology, leaders in these school districts
used a broad informational approach to educate the community, and
they also formed local partnerships with business.  Although each
district has developed some ties with business, funding from private
sources for each district, including business, constituted about 3
percent or less of what each district has spent on its technology
program.  Other districts may, like these, need to continue depending
mainly on special local bonds and levies, state assistance, and
federal grants for initially purchasing and replacing equipment and
on their operating budgets for other technology needs. 

Lack of staff time for seeking and applying for funding and the
difficulty of funding technology support staff were major concerns of
officials in all the districts we studied.  Too few staff to maintain
equipment and support technology users in the schools could lead to
extensive computer downtime, teacher frustration, and, ultimately, to
reduced use of a significant technology investment. 

The technology program in each of the five districts we studied had
not yet obtained a clearly defined and relatively stable funding
source such as a line item in the operating budget or a part of the
state's education funding formula.  As a result, district officials
for the foreseeable future will continue trying to obtain funding
from various sources to maintain their technology programs and keep
them viable. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

Because this report addresses issues at the school district level, we
did not seek formal comments from the Department of Education.  We
did, however, brief Department officials on the report's contents and
considered their comments where appropriate.  We also submitted
district case studies to school district officials for their review
and considered their comments where appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from the date of this letter.  At that time, we will send copies of
this report to the Secretary of Education, appropriate congressional
committees, and other interested parties.  If you wish to discuss
this report, please call me on (202) 512-7014 or Eleanor Johnson,
Assistant Director, on (202) 512-7209.  Major contributors are listed
in appendix VII. 

Carlotta C.  Joyner
Director, Education and
  Employment Issues


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

The objectives of this study were to determine (1) what sources of
funding school districts have used to develop and fund education
technology, (2) what barriers districts have faced in funding the
technology goals they set and how they have tried to overcome these
barriers, (3) which components of districts' technology programs have
been the most difficult to fund and what the consequences have been,
and (4) how districts plan to handle the ongoing costs of the
technology they have acquired. 

To answer these questions, we conducted case studies of five school
districts nationwide: 

  -- Davidson County Schools, Davidson County, North Carolina;

  -- Gahanna-Jefferson Public Schools, Gahanna, Ohio;

  -- Roswell Independent School District, Roswell, New Mexico;

  -- Manchester School District, Manchester, New Hampshire; and

  -- Seattle Public Schools, Seattle, Washington. 

We selected these locations to illustrate school districts'
experiences in funding education technology programs.  To identify
possible case study sites, we asked state officials responsible for
education technology in each state as well as officials in other
education organizations for examples of school districts that had
established education technology programs and made some progress
implementing them.  Because we sought information on experiences that
were likely to be relatively common among districts nationwide, we
asked the officials to exclude districts that had benefited from
extraordinary assistance, such as those that had received a major
portion of their funding from a company or individual.  We selected
five districts from those suggested that provided variety in size,
community type, geographic location, state assistance for education
technology, state fiscal capacity, and state share of education
funding.  For example, district size ranged from about 7,000 students
in the suburban Gahanna-Jefferson Public Schools to about 47,000
students in Seattle Public Schools, a large urban school district. 
The state share of education funding in school year 1993-94 ranged
from just over 8 percent in New Hampshire to about 74 percent in New
Mexico. 

We also reviewed each district's school-level experiences in funding
technology.  We asked district technology directors to name one
school that was relatively advanced in its implementation of
technology and one school whose experiences reflected a more typical
school in the district.  We visited a total of 11 schools--9
elementary and 2 high schools.  Although the districts and schools we
selected are not statistically representative, the diversity of those
selected increases the likelihood that findings common to all five
districts are relevant to other districts and schools implementing
education technology. 

We visited each location and interviewed district, school, state, and
other officials.  At the district level, we spoke with district
technology directors and in several locations also interviewed the
district superintendent, budget or finance officials, and staff that
provide technical assistance or training.  In Roswell and Seattle, we
also spoke with officials from the education foundations supporting
those districts, and in Gahanna, with one city council member and one
school board member.  At each school, we interviewed the school
principal and the technology coordinator or media coordinator
responsible for technology if such a position existed.  We also spoke
with teachers who are technology focal points for their buildings,
teachers that use technology extensively, and members of
parent-teacher organizations who are involved in funding technology. 
At the state level, we interviewed officials responsible for
education technology at state education agencies to obtain the state
context for the districts' experiences. 

Although education technology includes a wide range of tools,
including instructional television and distance learning, our
discussions with district and school officials focused on computers
and peripherals and their connectivity to local and wide area
networks and to the Internet.  We refer to these resources as
computer-based technology.  We used open-ended interview questions
and focused on how the districts funded the technology they acquired
and what barriers they faced in obtaining these resources.  Major
questions covered in district and school interviews included but were
not restricted to (1) the history of the technology program, (2)
efforts to obtain technology funding, (3) barriers to obtaining
technology funding and strategies used to overcome them, (4) barriers
to funding technology components, and (5) funding ongoing costs of
the technology program.  Our interviews with state and other
officials generally focused on the type and level of their
involvement in funding education technology.  We did not try to
evaluate districts' technology goals or to assess the effect of
technology on students' academic progress. 

In addition to the interviews, we asked district and school officials
to complete a background survey detailing the sources of funding they
had used to fund their technology programs and the amounts they had
received.  Because the five districts began implementing their
technology programs at different times--one district began funding
technology in earnest in 1989, others began more recently--some of
the information reported about each district reflects different time
periods.  The background survey also asked officials for basic
demographic and financial data and information on the current level
of technology in the district or the school.  In addition, district,
school, and state officials provided us with other pertinent
documents, such as technology plans, which we reviewed. 

In conducting the case studies, we relied primarily on the opinions
of the officials we interviewed and the data and supporting documents
they provided.  We did not independently verify this information but
sought corroboration by conducting many interviews in each district. 
We also reviewed data officials provided us for internal consistency
and sought clarification where needed.  We submitted the case studies
to district and school officials for their review and made changes as
appropriate.  We conducted the study between March and November 1997
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


Appendix II DAVIDSON COUNTY
SCHOOLS, NORTH CAROLINA
=========================================================== Appendix I

Located in central North Carolina, Davidson County is a largely rural
area near Winston-Salem.  The county covers more than 500 square
miles and supports several manufacturers of furniture, textiles,
machinery, ceramics, and glass.  Also an agricultural area, the
county has about 3,000 farms. 

Davidson County Schools developed its current technology plan in
1995.  The goals of the technology plan include placing networked
computers in classrooms, computer labs, and media centers; providing
Internet access from any networked computer; and connecting schools
to a wide area network.  Among our case study districts, Davidson
County stands out due to the extent of its reliance on state
technology funds and other state program funds.  Table II.1 shows
summary information about the district, including the extent to which
technology has been implemented. 



                               Table II.1
                
                Summary Data for Davidson County Schools

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
District context
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of schools                                                   26
Enrollment on or about October 1, 1996                          17,982
Total district budget for school year 1996-97                   $74,81
                                                                 3,400
Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch        18

Technology in place
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of students to computer                                      6:1
Schools connected to wide area network                               4
Number of schools with at least one connection to the Internet      26

Technology funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding obtained for technology from all sources since 1995     $4,298
                                                                  ,100

Percent of funding obtained from local, state, federal, and private
and other sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------
District operating budget\a                                         27
Local bond or special levy\b\                                        0
State funding--specifically for technology                          22
State funding--other\c                                              43
Federal funding--specifically for technology                         0
Federal funding--other\d\                                            6
Private and other\e                                                  2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Although district operating budgets may include state funding,
this figure includes only local funding. 

\b Local bonds and special levies are district property tax
initiatives sometimes, but not always, specifically targeted for
technology. 

\c These include state funding programs not targeted for technology
but available for technology use if it fulfills the goals of the
funding program.  \

\d These include federal funding programs not targeted for technology
but available for technology use if it fulfills the goals of the
funding program. 

\e These include foundation and other private grants and corporate
and in-kind donations.  Parent-teacher organization funds raised at
individual schools are excluded from these totals. 


   STATE'S ROLE IN PROVIDING
   FUNDING AND TECHNICAL
   ASSISTANCE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

As table II.1 shows, Davidson County's efforts reflect a significant
amount of assistance from state technology funding.  In 1993, North
Carolina's General Assembly established the School Technology
Commission and charged it with developing a statewide technology
plan.  The Commission's plan, completed in February 1995, called for
a commitment of $381 million over a 5-year period to provide students
with technology-rich environments and teachers with the training and
means to effectively use technology.  However, for the first 2 years
of the 5-year period, appropriations for the School Technology Trust
Fund have totaled $62 million, significantly less than anticipated
levels. 

Money from the School Technology Trust Fund has been allotted to
county school systems mainly on the basis of districts' average daily
membership.  A small portion of the funding was also distributed to
school districts according to low wealth formulas in the program's
first year.  The money may not be used to hire new personnel but
otherwise may be used to implement local technology plans, including
purchasing computer hardware, software, and supplies; contracting for
services; purchasing telecommunications services; and paying for
substitutes while teachers receive technology training.  The state
has recently passed legislation to give schools the flexibility to
use state textbook funds for other purposes, including education
technology, according to a state official. 

The 24 staff members in the Department of Public Instruction's
Instructional Technology Division provide school districts a wide
array of services.  A team of four technology consultants helps
districts to implement and evaluate technology plans, focusing
primarily on instruction.  Each consultant serves a geographic region
of the state and provides on-site consultation, help with resource
identification, and plan review.  In addition, the state coordinates
and supports distance learning by satellite and delivers training and
instructional telecasts for teachers and students.  The Instructional
Technology Division also reviews and evaluates educational materials,
including instructional software, and publishes a bimonthly hard-copy
review and an online review of recommended titles.  One of the
instructional materials reviewer's positions is funded by a
professional library journal, which publishes the recommendations. 

Other ways in which the state is involved in education technology
include requiring teachers to obtain technology training as a
condition for license renewal and requiring students to pass a
computer competency test in eighth grade to graduate.  State agencies
have also negotiated contracts to provide computers and other
equipment at discounted rates to school districts.  In addition, the
state was among the first to receive a grant from the Technology
Literacy Challenge Fund totaling almost $3.7 million for school year
1997-98. 


   DISTRICT EXPERIENCE IN FUNDING
   TECHNOLOGY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

The officials we talked with agree that Davidson County Schools has
achieved as much as it has with technology because the district has
made technology a priority.  Around 1990, the superintendent began to
take steps to ensure that modest amounts from the regular budget were
available for technology.  A small portion of a bond issue was also
used to buy computers for students.  In 1993, a district technology
committee developed a 3- to 5-year technology plan outlining the
standards and goals for schools as they implemented technology.  Two
years later, after the district had reached several of its goals,
state funding became available through the state School Technology
Trust Fund.  In response, the district prepared a new 5-year plan
that was somewhat broader in scope than its previous plan. 

The technology director reported that the district is generally on
schedule in implementing its technology plan, despite some shortfalls
in expected state funding.  The district has accomplished a
student-to-computer ratio of 6 to 1.  Many of the computers have
older generation technology, however, so excluding these machines,
the ratio would be closer to 8 to 1.  The technology director said
the district almost has at least one computer in every classroom. 
Twenty-three of the 26 schools have a schoolwide network, which
generally can support two networked computers in each classroom.  All
schools had at least one Internet connection, mostly using dial-up
modems.  Four schools were soon to be connected to the district's
wide area network, giving their networked computers Internet access. 

The district funded its technology plan from a combination of
resources.  From its operating funds, the district has spent about
$150,000 on software in the last 2 years and over $400,000 on
hardware.  It has also used local funds for several staff positions
in schools to support technology.  State technology funds have been
an important resource to the district, although the amounts have been
smaller than expected.  These funds have been the main source of
funds for the district's hardware and infrastructure needs.  In
addition to using state funds specifically provided for technology,
the superintendent and district program directors have also taken
advantage of the flexible authority of many other state programs and
prioritized these funds for technology.  As a result, 43 percent of
the district's funding for technology has come from state programs
focused on other areas such as vocational education and at-risk
students.  Parent-teacher organizations have also made technology a
priority, with some providing as much as $20,000 to $30,000 per year
for technology.  Smaller amounts of assistance have come from private
and other sources, including several local businesses that supported
the purchase of notebook computers. 

In addition to the technology director, several other staff provide
technology support to schools.  The district's two technology
educators focus on teacher training and spend most of their time in
schools modeling curriculum-related uses of technology for teachers
in their classrooms.  The district also funds a program that trains
teachers to serve as technology mentors for other teachers in their
building.  District computer technicians, network specialists, and an
audio-visual technician perform maintenance on the computer and other
equipment. 


      ISSUES RAISED BY DISTRICT'S
      TECHNOLOGY PERSONNEL
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1

The district's technology personnel raised the following issues about
school technology:  insufficient technology personnel, lack of time
for fund-raising, uncertain future funding, taxpayer resistance,
district ineligibility for some funding sources, and the importance
of leadership. 


         INSUFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY
         PERSONNEL
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1.1

District officials reported that one of their greatest needs is
technology-related personnel.  For example, they noted that the
district needs more technology educators.  The district's two
technology educators divide their time among the 26 schools and are
overworked, according to the technology director.  She said she would
like to have technology educators serve no more than three to four
schools each, as is the case in some neighboring districts.  She
noted, however, that personnel are difficult to fund because the
ongoing cost requires a stable funding source.  State technology
funds, for example, cannot be used for staff, and, even if they
could, these funds have fluctuated greatly from year to year. 
Officials also noted the community's strong resistance to increased
taxes, making it difficult to consider increasing staff.  The
district and schools addressed personnel shortages by using teaching
assistant positions in the schools for technology and by having
teachers mentor other teachers in technology.  The technology mentors
are not paid for these duties but receive the use of a notebook
computer and other equipment. 


         LACK OF TIME FOR
         FUND-RAISING
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1.2

Among the most significant barriers to obtaining technology funding
was the lack of time to pursue funding sources, according to the
technology director.  This was closely related to the general problem
of insufficient staff to support the technology program.  The
technology director said she spends her day handling crises, such as
fixing downed servers when maintenance staff are unavailable, making
it difficult to find the time to research and write grants.  She
noted that because of this, she has foregone applying for some state
and federal grants and has instead focused more on local foundations
and other groups with limited application requirements. 


         UNCERTAIN FUTURE FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1.3

The uncertainty of state technology funding has also concerned
district staff.  After providing $42 million for the program's first
year as planned, the General Assembly appropriated just $20 million
for the program's second year, significantly less than the $71
million outlined in the state's technology plan.  Consequently, the
district received about one-third the funding anticipated in the
program's second year.  Budget proposals for the program's third year
suggest a continued shortfall from amounts identified in the state
plan.  The timing of state technology funds is also a problem,
according to the technology director.  The district often does not
know the amount it will receive until after the school year has
started. 


         TAXPAYER RESISTANCE
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1.4

In addition to these concerns, officials noted that voters'
resistance to taxes in Davidson County was particularly strong.  The
county has one of the state's lowest property tax rates, and,
according to officials, many county residents came there because of
these tax rates.  The technology director considered the community's
long-standing resistance to taxes a significant barrier to funding
technology in schools. 


         INELIGIBILITY FOR SOME
         FUNDING SOURCES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1.5

The district's demographic profile also poses a barrier to obtaining
technology funding, according to the technology director.  She noted
that funding sources are often more available for districts with high
percentages of students living in poverty.  In contrast, Davidson
County--
described by one official as a blue-collar area--has a relatively
small percentage of children living in poverty.  It is neither
extremely wealthy nor poor.  The low poverty rate and the low tax
rate combine to create a situation in which the district has the
state's third lowest level of spending per student.  The technology
director also said it seemed to her that corporations and foundations
are more interested in giving to schools where their contribution can
improve achievement dramatically.  Davidson County, in contrast, has
consistently produced test scores above the state average. 


         IMPORTANCE OF LEADERSHIP
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1.6

A key factor in getting technology into their schools, according to
several officials, was the strong leadership and direction of the
superintendent and technology director.  The school superintendent
strongly believes in the need for technology and has used his
authority to reallocate significant funds to achieve technology
goals.  Many also noted the leadership provided by the district's
technology director to implement the superintendent's vision as a
crucial element to meeting technology goals.  The superintendent and
the technology director said that Davidson County's experience shows
that any district can establish a technology program if the goals are
realistic and educationally relevant and if it has strong advocates
who will persevere to get technology funds. 


   SUMMARY OF SCHOOLS VISITED
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

In each district, we examined two schools' technology programs in
depth to determine how local schools were implementing technology
programs and what, if anything, they were doing to supplement the
funding provided through the district.  We asked the district's
technology director to select two schools for us to visit--one
considered more advanced in its implementation of technology than
other schools in the district and one considered more typical of the
district's schools.  Northwest Elementary School was suggested as a
school making widespread use of technology; Pilot Elementary School
was suggested as a more typical school for the district. 


      NORTHWEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.1

Northwest Elementary School is in the northern part of the county,
close to Winston-Salem.  The elementary school has 875 students in
kindergarten through fifth grade, with 9 percent eligible for free or
reduced-price lunches and 4 percent who are racial or ethnic
minorities. 

Northwest Elementary School developed a 3-year technology plan in
school year 1993-94 and completed the plan in 1 year.  The rapid
implementation was due in part to state technology funds that were
not anticipated when the plan was developed.  The school has also
benefited from large contributions from the school's parent-teacher
organization for technology--about $84,000 from school years 1993-94
through 1996-97.  The school has a student-to-computer ratio of 6 to
1, with most of the computers located in classrooms.  Almost
one-quarter of these computers, however, are older generation
computers.  Nearly all classrooms have Internet access using dial-up
modems, and the school was soon to be connected to the district's
wide area network, which also provides Internet access. 

The school's media specialist is responsible for technology as well
as the media center.  Officials noted that before the addition of
computers, tending the media center was already a full-time job for
media specialists and coordinators.  The principal said the school
has been trying to get a position dedicated solely to technology but
has not succeeded.  The school also rotates its teaching assistants
to supervise the school's computer lab.  This has meant classroom
teachers giving up their assistants for part of a day.  The school
also has four technology mentors, who are classroom teachers who help
other teachers in the building integrate technology into the
curriculum.  The mentors receive no stipend but have the use of a
notebook computer for home and school.  The principal appreciated the
support the school receives from the district but noted that the
district needs more staff.  He said that if the school had waited for
district staff to install wiring, it would not have been ready for
connecting to the wide area network when it was.  The school paid to
install the wiring and was fortunate that a parent donated the
technical skills required for putting in the infrastructure. 

The principal cited the district's low tax rate and the fact that the
district has had no levies specifically for technology as significant
barriers to funding technology.  He also said the school lacked the
staff to actively seek funding sources.  Although he had experience
in writing grants, he did not have the time to do so. 


      PILOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.2

Pilot Elementary School, in the heart of Davidson County, has about
490 students in prekindergarten through fifth grade.  About
one-quarter of Pilot's students are eligible for free or
reduced-price lunches, and less than 1 percent are racial or ethnic
minorities. 

Pilot's efforts to introduce technology began in earnest in 1992 when
the school obtained four Macintosh computers and automated the media
center, according to the school's media coordinator.  In 1993, the
school developed a formal technology plan as required by the district
in anticipation of expected state technology funds.  In the last
several years, the school has surpassed its original technology
goals, which the media coordinator described as modest.  The school
has one computer lab and each grade level has one networked computer
shared among classrooms.  Some primary grade classrooms also have
older Apple computers.  The student-to-computer ratio is about 6 to
1, including these older machines, and about 9 to 1 excluding them. 
The school's newer section is wired for network connections, but the
school does not yet have the computers that can take advantage of
these connections.  The school has one connection to the Internet for
student use through a dial-up modem in the media center. 

The school's media coordinator divides her time between overseeing
the media center and supporting technology, although she said
technology consumes most of her time.  She trains teachers and
students, troubleshoots equipment and software problems, does minor
repairs, and installs software on the network.  The school also has a
half-time technology assistant plus two technology mentors.  In
addition, the school receives maintenance and technical support from
the district, but school officials noted that these functions are
understaffed given the many schools in the district and the increase
in the number of computers. 

One of the most significant barriers to the school's ability to raise
its own funds to supplement district technology efforts is the
limited incomes of the families in this rural part of the district. 
The principal appreciated the school's parent-teacher organization's
contributions for technology--
about $9,500 since 1994--but hesitated to pressure them to provide
more.  The principal also mentioned that not many businesses are
located in the school area.  Although a nearby furniture manufacturer
has provided some assistance, no large corporations or industries are
there to fund a computer lab or donate used computers.  As for
searching for additional funds, both the principal and media
coordinator said the school did not have the staff to do this. 


GAHANNA-JEFFERSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
OHIO
========================================================= Appendix III

The Gahanna-Jefferson School District is in a suburban area northeast
of Columbus, Ohio.  The district serves a population of about 36,000
people and includes the City of Gahanna as well as parts of two
townships.  The school district has 11 schools, and about 7.5 percent
of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. 

The district adopted its first technology plan in 1989 and has funded
technology mainly with district operating funds supplemented with
state assistance.  Each classroom in grades 1 through 4 has at least
two computers purchased in part with recent funding from a state
program.  In the Gahanna high school and three middle schools,
students have access to computers primarily in computer labs.  All
Gahanna schools are connected to the Internet through a wide area
network.  Table III.1 shows summary information about the district,
including the extent to which technology has been implemented. 



                              Table III.1
                
                   Summary Data for Gahanna-Jefferson
                             Public Schools

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
District context
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of schools                                                   11
Enrollment on or about October 1, 1996                           6,974
Total district budget for school year 1996-97                   $48,00
                                                                 0,000
Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch       7.5

Technology in place
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of students to computer                                     13:1
Schools connected to wide area network                              11
Number of schools with at least one connection to the Internet      11

Technology funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding obtained for technology from all sources since 1989     $3,287
                                                                  ,300

Percent of funding obtained from local, state, federal, and private
and other sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------
District operating budget\a                                         77
Local bond or special levy\b                                         0
State funding--specifically for technology                          19
State funding--other\c                                               0
Federal funding--specifically for technology                         0
Federal funding--other\d                                             1
Private and other\e                                                  3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a District budgets may include state funding.  State funding
constituted 26 percent of this figure. 

\b Local bonds and special levies are district property tax
initiatives sometimes, but not always, specifically targeted for
technology. 

\c These include state funding programs not targeted for technology
but available for technology use if it fulfills the goals of the
funding program. 

\d These include federal funding programs not targeted for technology
but available for technology use if it fulfills the goals of the
funding program. 

\e These include foundation and other private grants and corporate
and in-kind donations.  Parent-teacher organization funds raised at
individual schools are excluded from these totals. 


   STATE'S ROLE IN PROVIDING
   FUNDING AND TECHNICAL
   ASSISTANCE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

As table III.1 shows, Gahanna relied on state funding for about 19
percent of its technology funding.  Ohio has had extensive
involvement in providing hardware, software, professional
development, and technical assistance directly to schools; developing
a statewide technology infrastructure; and coordinating partnerships
among schools, businesses, universities, libraries, and other public
institutions.  Recent initiatives have been guided, at least in part,
by Ohio's 1992 State Technology Plan.  The plan provided a framework
for making state-level policy decisions and allocating resources and
is intended to guide schools as they proceed with their own
technology planning. 

Although the state has funded technology directly or indirectly in
several ways, state funding assistance for Gahanna has come mainly
from Ohio's SchoolNet Plus program and to a lesser degree from the
SchoolNet program--two state programs that have provided substantial
funding for technology to school districts statewide. 

SchoolNet Plus is a $400 million effort to provide at least one
interactive computer workstation for every five public school
students in kindergarten through fourth grade.  The state planned to
disburse these funds in three rounds that began in fiscal year 1996
with a portion of the funds targeting districts with low property
wealth.  As of April 1997, the state reported that about $203
million, which includes all of the first round and part of the second
round of funding, had been disbursed to districts.  Districts could
use these funds to purchase computer hardware and software, provide
professional development, or upgrade wiring. 

Ohio SchoolNet, established in fiscal year 1994, authorized $95
million in state bond sales to finance classroom wiring and computer
workstations.  Of the total amount, $50 million was set aside to wire
Ohio's 100,000 public school classrooms.  (Because Gahanna had
already wired its classrooms, instead of funding, it received state
credits it could redeem for computers.) The remaining $45 million of
state SchoolNet funding was set aside to purchase computers and
related equipment for approximately 14,000 classrooms in the state's
districts with the least property wealth. 

In addition to the SchoolNet and SchoolNet Plus programs, the state
of Ohio offers a number of other technology funding programs.  These
include about $27 million in Technology Equity Grants funded since
1993. 

The state technology plan provided the road map for using technology
in schools, and Ohio's statewide telecommunication infrastructure
provided the interconnecting backbone and served to greatly leverage
the kinds of applications that are or will be available in schools. 
As early as 1976, Ohio had implemented a microwave network that
initially connected the state's 12 public television stations and
later grew to connect the state's 29 educational radio and 10 radio
reading stations.  The independent Ohio Educational
Telecommunications Network Commission partly subsidized the
operations of these stations and worked with educational service
agencies to provide instructional programming.  Recognizing the need
to expand the network's capacity along with many other state
agencies' need to access a high-speed network, the state authorized
its Department of Administrative Services to contract with a
consortium of telephone companies to provide a statewide fiber
optic-based broadband network at substantially reduced rates.  The
contract, initiated in February 1996, allows all users in the state,
including schools, to purchase access to high-speed lines that allow
users to access the Internet and other networks and enable the
transmission of high-quality data, video, and sound at the same
competitive rate.  As of April 1997, about 300 elementary or
secondary schools had high-speed lines installed under this contract. 

Ohio has applied to receive an estimated allocation of $8.5 million
from the federal Technology Literacy Challenge Fund for school year
1997-98.  It plans to use the funds to extend its SchoolNet Plus
program into the middle grades. 


   DISTRICT EXPERIENCE IN FUNDING
   TECHNOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

Computer technology in Gahanna schools began in about 1986, when the
Gahanna schools and Columbus State Community College developed a
partnership that equipped a Gahanna high school classroom with
computers to be used by high school students during the day and by
college students in the evening.  Interest in technology rose in
1989, when a Gahanna high school teacher won a 20-computer lab in a
technology and learning teacher-of-the-year contest. 

The district began developing its first technology plan in the late
1980s with the participation of a committee of teachers, students,
and other community members.  Implementation goals included providing
computer labs, a computer for each classroom, ongoing teacher access
and training, and wiring for networking as buildings were renovated. 
The Board of Education included the plan as part of an operations
levy in 1989 that earmarked more than $800,000 over 4 years for
technology.  However, part of the funding was cut due to
lower-than-expected revenues and higher district operating expenses. 
Most of this 4-year technology plan was eventually completed after
about 6 years. 

Subsequent technology plans focused on equipping classrooms with
computers.  From 1989 through 1997, the district operating budget
provided a total of about $2.5 million for technology.  In 1996 and
1997, Gahanna received nearly $465,890 from the state SchoolNet Plus
program to provide all elementary schools with software and two
computers for each classroom in grades 1 through 4.  Computers in
both the high school and the three middle schools are mainly located
in labs rather than in classrooms as in the elementary schools.  All
Gahanna schools are connected to the state's wide area network that
provides Internet access at reduced rates. 

The Gahanna district has a full-time technology director and one
full-time maintenance technician who provides equipment and network
maintenance.  Some maintenance is done on contract, and the district
is considering hiring another technician part time.  The district has
recently established the position of education technologist--for an
educator with technology expertise to help and instruct teachers and
students in the classroom; it currently has four education
technologists.  Each is assigned to two or more schools. 


      ISSUES RAISED BY DISTRICT'S
      TECHNOLOGY PERSONNEL
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1

The district's technology personnel raised the following issues about
school technology:  competing education needs, leadership, taxpayer
resistance, staffing needs, and the uncertainty of funding. 


         COMPETING NEEDS
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1.1

Gahanna officials said that many district needs were competing with
technology for funding, particularly teachers' salaries, so it was
critical to convince community leaders and other taxpayers that
technology is important. 


         LEADERSHIP
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1.2

In addition, several top district leadership changes in the past few
years hurt the district's ability to establish technology as a
funding priority, according to officials.  They hope that the new
district superintendent will provide the leadership they believe is
needed to establish technology as a district priority. 


         TAXPAYER RESISTANCE
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1.3

The district has also had three recent operations levy failures that
resulted in budget cuts, including a reduction in planned technology
funding.  Officials reported that the district is trying to educate
and inform voters and decisionmakers about the importance of
technology by conducting activities such as neighborhood meetings
with the superintendent, technology fairs, and demonstrations by
school children and the education technologists.  Gahanna officials
said they believe they need to build district and community
commitment to technology. 


         STAFFING NEEDS
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1.4

District officials said they would like additional staff for
technology maintenance, training, and fund-raising to overcome
problems and improve the program.  One official said they need
another full-time technician to adequately address current equipment
downtime of up to 3 weeks, but current plans call for hiring a
part-time technician.  Officials reported being pleased with the
success of the education technologist training approach inaugurated
in school year 1996-97.  They noted they would like to provide more
teacher training to optimize computer use and would like each school
to have one education technologist.  Finally, officials cited the
need for staff to seek new funding sources and write grants.  They
plan to add a district grants officer position in the next year or
two. 


         UNCERTAINTIES OF FUNDING
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1.5

According to one official, Gahanna's state technology funds were
reduced by about half last year because of a state-level decision to
target more of the funding to less affluent districts.  District
officials expect to continue to receive state funds, although the
funds are not ensured and the amounts are not known.  The technology
director said stable technology funding is important, and district
officials are considering some new funding approaches such as a
special technology tax levy in the next year or two.  District
officials are generally positive about future technology funding and
expect it to come mainly from district resources.  They noted,
however, that the uncertainties raised by a recent Ohio State Supreme
Court decision\20 calling for a complete overhaul of the school
finance system may make it difficult to pass the upcoming regular
school levy. 


--------------------
\20 DeRolph v.  State of Ohio, 677 N.E.2d 733 (1977). 


   SUMMARY OF SCHOOLS VISITED
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

In each district, we examined two schools' technology programs in
depth to determine how local schools were implementing technology
programs and what, if anything, they were doing to supplement the
funding provided through the district.  We asked the district's
technology director to select two schools for us to visit--one
considered more advanced in its implementation of technology than
others in the district and one considered more typical of the
district's schools.  Blacklick Elementary School was suggested as a
school making widespread use of technology; Goshen Lane Elementary
School was suggested as a more typical school for the district. 


      BLACKLICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.1

Blacklick Elementary--the newest school in the Gahanna-Jefferson
district--has about 364 students in kindergarten through fifth grade. 
About 4 percent of the students are eligible for free or
reduced-price lunches, and about 9 percent are racial or ethnic
minorities. 

When the school opened in 1994, its first principal made technology a
priority.  She allocated well over half her $250,000 set-up budget
for technology, while funding the school library at less than half
the normal amount.  The school's parent-teacher organization helped
raise funds to complete the library during the first school year. 
Currently, the school has 73 instructional computers--mostly in
classrooms--and the student-to-
computer ratio is about 5 to 1.  Classrooms in grades 1 through 4
also received state SchoolNet Plus funding and have four computers
per classroom.  Classrooms in grade 5 have two computers.  All
classrooms have Internet access through the state's wide area
network. 

The school's librarian/media center coordinator spends about half of
her time overseeing the school technology program.  The principal
said she would like a full-time technology teacher who could also
help with troubleshooting and repairs. 

Regarding raising funds for technology at the school, the principal
said she and her staff do not have time to write grant proposals
because of their other duties.  The Blacklick parent-teacher
organization sponsors many fund-raisers that support school needs
such as the library, gym equipment, and classroom supplies.  The
organization provided over $7,000 for technology from school years
1995-97.  Members said many parents at the school were able to give
their time freely--which they believe may not be the case at all
district schools.  They reported that parents give technology a high
priority at their school. 


      GOSHEN LANE ELEMENTARY
      SCHOOL
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.2

Goshen Lane Elementary School has 498 students in kindergarten
through grade 5.  About 13 percent of the students are racial or
ethnic minorities, and about 25 percent are eligible for free or
reduced-price lunches. 

Technology is relatively new at Goshen Lane, with many computers
installed just before school year 1996-97.  The student-to-computer
ratio is about 8 to 1.  Grades 1 through 4 have two computers per
classroom, and all classroom computers are connected to the Internet
through the state's wide area network.  The school also has two
laptops, a transportable multimedia computer with a 32-inch monitor,
and a 24-computer lab.  Kindergarten and grade 5 classrooms do not
have computers because SchoolNet Plus funds were used to equip grades
1 through 4.  One fifth grade teacher said his class adapts by using
the portable equipment and spending 3 hours a week in the computer
lab. 

The one school staff member with technology responsibilities--the
media coordinator--reported spending about half of her time on
technology responsibilities.  According to the principal, the school
needs a district education technologist full time instead of half
time to help teachers and students. 

The principal said she would like more training for teachers and more
software--particularly software that encourages higher order thinking
skills.  Hardware is also needed to equip the kindergarten and fifth
grade classes.  In addition, the principal reported that many demands
competed for funding at the school but that she tries to make
technology a priority and has used some of her operations budget to
purchase technology.  She noted that she does not have time to search
for potential sources and grant writing is extremely time consuming. 

According to the principal, the parent-teacher organization is active
and manages all school fund-raising.  The fund-raising projects thus
far, however, have not been for technology purchases. 


MANCHESTER SCHOOL DISTRICT, NEW
HAMPSHIRE
========================================================== Appendix IV

Manchester is a traditional old New England mill city on the
Merrimack River in southern New Hampshire.  With a population of
about 100,000, it is the largest urban environment in the state. 
Most employment is blue-collar employment, and the ethnic and racial
makeup of the population has been changing with the recent addition
of Asian, Hispanic, and African American immigrants. 

The Manchester district developed its first technology plan in 1994. 
In 1995, the district won a federal Challenge Grant and is connecting
all schools to a state-of-the-art network for voice, video, and data. 
The current student-to-computer ratio is about 9 to 1.  Two full-time
district technology educators provide technology training for
teachers along with a group of about 60 teacher technology experts
who receive special training and help other teachers in their
schools.  Table IV.1 shows summary information about the district,
including the extent to which technology has been implemented. 



                               Table IV.1
                
                   Summary Data for Manchester School
                                District

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
District context
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of schools                                                   22
Enrollment on or about October 1, 1996                          16,404
Total district budget for school year 1996-97                   $52,96
                                                                 1,400
Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch        24

Technology in place
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of students to computer                                      9:1
Schools connected to wide area network                               3
Number of schools with at least one connection to the Internet      22

Technology funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding obtained for technology from all sources since 1995     $2,466
                                                                  ,500

Percent of funding obtained from local, state, federal, and private
and other sources\a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
District operating budget\b                                         18
Local bond or special levy\c                                         0
State funding--specifically for technology                           0
State funding--other\d                                               0
Federal funding--specifically for technology                        66
Federal funding--other\e                                            12
Private and other\f                                                  3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

\b Although district budgets may include state funding, this figure
includes only local funding. 

\c Local bonds and special levies are district property tax
initiatives sometimes, but not always, specifically targeted for
technology. 

\d These include state funding programs not targeted for technology
but available for technology use if it fulfills the goals of the
funding program. 

\e These include federal funding programs not targeted for technology
but available for technology use if it fulfills the goals of the
funding program. 

\f These include foundation and other private grants and corporate
and in-kind donations.  Parent-teacher organization funds raised at
individual schools are excluded from these totals. 


   STATE ROLE IN PROVIDING FUNDING
   AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

Manchester did not receive any of its technology funding from the
state, reflecting New Hampshire's continuing reliance on local
support for the vast majority of school funding.  Overall in the
state, local property taxes provide about 90 percent of school
funding, with state funds providing about 7 percent and federal about
3 percent.  The state provides no current funding to school districts
for education technology.  The New Hampshire Department of Education,
however, has started several efforts to help districts with their
technology programs. 

As part of a 1996 joint public/private venture called The New
Hampshire Technology in Education Initiative, the Department
conducted a survey of all school districts to determine the
availability of computers and networks.  That same year, the
Department organized a Technology Committee to develop a plan and
related strategies for supporting the effective integration of
technology in the state's education system.  The Committee's efforts
resulted in the design for a statewide education technology resource
system as well as the 1997 Statewide Education Technology Plan.  The
goals of the plan include providing classroom computer and Internet
access; training teachers; providing effective software and online
resources; development of technology plans at the district level;
development of a state-level process and structure to provide ongoing
planning, coordination, and communication; and promotion of effective
technology integration in the education system. 

The State Board of Education recently added a technology component to
the state professional requirements for teacher recertification. 
Teachers must now participate in 5 hours of activities relative to
the application of technology and Internet use. 

The New Hampshire Department of Education has also applied for
federal Technology Literacy Challenge funding and expects to receive
about $1 million for school year 1997-98.  The state office is
requiring district applications to include a strategic 3- to 5-year
technology plan and is providing training and technical assistance to
districts in developing the plan.  Program funding will be
distributed to school districts through competitive grants, generally
not to exceed $40,000 for single districts or $100,000 for large
districts or district consortia. 


   DISTRICT EXPERIENCE IN FUNDING
   TECHNOLOGY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

In 1985, the Manchester School District hired two technology staff
members to build a district technology program.  One had a teaching
background, and the other had an accounting and computer background. 
The two have worked as a team ever since and believe that they have
provided the district with the staff to "really make something
happen." When the team began, the district had 90 computers, most of
them purchased with federal chapter II\21 funds and located mostly in
the elementary schools.  In the early 1990s, the district purchased
more technology due, in large part, to the efforts of a district
superintendent who considered technology a priority and directed
year-end district budget surplus moneys to technology.  That
superintendent also initiated an extensive study of district
technology and development of a 5-year district technology plan.  The
plan called for funding of about $5 million over 5 years.  The
technology staff presented the plan to a joint session of the school
board and the Board of Mayor and Aldermen in early 1995.\22 It was
well received by both bodies but was not funded. 

Later in 1995, the district applied for a Challenge Grant and was
awarded $2.8 million over 5 years.  The grant has been the district's
main source of funding.  As part of the application process, the
district developed a consortium of 40 businesses and other community
organizations, which continues to grow. 

The district is using the Challenge Grant to connect all district
schools to a state-of-the-art network for voice, video, and data and
to buy some additional equipment.  Initial implementation started in
the high schools in school year 1995-96, in the junior high schools
in January 1997, and will continue at the elementary schools during
the last 3 years of the grant.  The district has organized groups of
teachers and staff at the schools to participate in planning and
deciding what equipment to buy. 

In school years 1995-97, the district technology program also
received about $80,000 in private grants and corporate cash and
in-kind donations such as cable from the Hitachi Corporation.  In
addition, it used about $300,000 in federal program funding,
including titles I, II, IV, VI, and VII of ESEA. 

The district has two full-time technology educators:  one for grades
kindergarten through 8 (who was part of the original district
technology team) and one for the high schools.  These educators
provide technology training support to teachers and students.  The
district also offers teachers about 35 technology training workshops
per semester after school and on weekends.  In addition, the district
has created a group of about 60 teacher experts to train and help
other teachers and provide technical support for the district such as
sending and receiving messages over the network.  Equipment and
system maintenance is provided by part-time contracted staff
supplemented by the efforts of the technology director and her staff. 


--------------------
\21 Now title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
of 1965, as amended. 

\22 The Manchester school district is a department of the City of
Manchester.  The district does not raise its own revenues but
receives its funding from the city. 


      ISSUES RAISED BY DISTRICT'S
      TECHNOLOGY PERSONNEL
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.1

The district's technology personnel raised the following issues about
school technology:  government structure as a barrier to obtaining
funds, competing education needs, taxpayer resistance, and staffing
needs. 


         GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2.1.1

District officials said the school district's status as a city
department is a barrier to securing technology funding.  The school
district budget requires the approval of both the school board and
the city Board of Mayor and Aldermen.  Consequently, the district
competes with other city departments for local funding.  Officials
reported that this has been a funding barrier because the city Board
does not always understand how budget actions affect district
programs, including technology.  One official said that considerable
turnover in district leadership positions, including superintendent,
assistant superintendent, and business manager, had made it hard for
the district to focus on whether to make technology a priority.  In
addition, one official said the school board has the misperception
that the Challenge Grant is completely paying for district technology
and that therefore no additional budget funding is needed. 


         COMPETING NEEDS
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2.1.2

District officials also reported that many important district needs,
including Special Education and English as a Second Language
programs, compete with technology for available district funds. 
Special Education costs made up 26 percent of the total 1997 district
budget and are expected to increase to 27.5 percent in 1998.  The
district must spend more than $800,000 over the next 2-1/2 years on
its English as a Second Language program as part of an Office of
Civil Rights compliance agreement.  According to one official, the
immigrant population in the district is growing rapidly--at about 3
percent a month for the past 6 months--and 50 languages are spoken in
the schools. 


         TAXPAYER RESISTANCE
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2.1.3

District officials said that the district has strong voter resistance
to raising community property taxes, and elected officials such as
the School Board and Board of Mayor and Aldermen are sensitive to the
voters' demands.  One official noted that the large retiree
population may not understand classroom uses of technology, and
another said that many in the population are on fixed incomes and are
struggling to keep their homes.  Another official noted that local
taxes currently fund most of the district's budget, and it is
unlikely that voters will approve higher rates. 


         STAFFING NEEDS
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2.1.4

Staffing issues surfaced in two areas.  Officials reported lack of
time and staff to seek additional funds outside the district and
write grants.  For example, one member of the technology staff noted
that when the district applied for the Challenge Grant, the
technology staff had to drop everything for a month to fulfill the
grant requirements, including creating a consortium of 40 businesses
and community organizations.  The official noted that if they had
adequate lead time to complete grant applications, they would be more
likely to be able to apply.  Officials also reported maintenance
staff shortfalls (with just one part-time contract technician) but
reported plans to add a full-time technician beginning in fiscal year
1997-98.  A technology official reported that classroom computer
downtime is sometimes more than 2 weeks and at one time this year a
backlog of more than 50 repairs existed.  The official reported that
the district technology staff have been filling in by doing most of
the troubleshooting, which interferes with their other job
responsibilities such as teacher training.  One official said that
two district technology trainers would probably be sufficient if they
could spend all their time on training rather than on technical
support activities. 


   SUMMARY OF SCHOOLS VISITED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3

In each district, we examined two schools' technology programs in
depth to determine how local schools were implementing technology
programs and what, if anything, they were doing to supplement the
funding provided through the district.  We asked the district's
technology director to select two schools for us to visit--one
considered more advanced in its implementation of technology than
other schools in the district and one considered more typical of the
district's schools. 

When we visited Manchester, it had completed implementation of its
Challenge Grant at its three high schools.  Elementary school
implementation had not yet begun.  We visited Memorial High School to
observe the full implementation of the program.  We also visited
Wilson Elementary School that was suggested as an elementary school
considered relatively well equipped with technology; Webster
Elementary School was suggested as an elementary school more typical
of the district. 


      MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.1

Memorial High School has about 1,600 students in grades 9 through 12. 
About 6 percent are racial or ethnic minorities, and 7 percent are
eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.  Computer technology
arrived at Memorial in the mid-1980s, and in 1988 the district bought
25 computers for the school's computer laboratory. 

Implementation of the district Challenge Grant initiatives was
completed at Memorial in 1996.  About 65 percent of the school's 220
computers are now in classrooms and the student-to-computer ratio is
about 7 to 1.  The school has two computer labs:  one for students to
use individually to complete assignments and the other for classes. 
All classrooms have been wired for Internet access--mainly through a
wide area network with high-speed lines--and about 80 percent of the
classrooms have computers. 

The school has no full-time school technology staff.  Two teachers,
however, spend about one-eighth of their time troubleshooting for the
computer labs, and six teachers serve as technology mentors providing
training to other interested teachers within and outside the school. 
The school principal reports that about 95 percent of the faculty and
staff use computer technology and many can provide additional
troubleshooting and other assistance.  District staff perform major
maintenance. 

According to the school principal, the school has performed no fund-
raising for technology.  The parent-teacher organization typically
provides funding for noninstructional projects, such as student trips
and athletics, but has not yet provided technology funding. 


      WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.2

Wilson Elementary School has about 476 students in kindergarten
through grade 4, about 25 percent of whom are racial or ethnic
minorities.  In school year 1996-97, it was one of two district
schools with schoolwide title I\23 programs, and about 73 percent of
the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.  The
families of students tend to be transient:  in school year 1996-97,
the student turnover rate was over 100 percent. 

The school prepared its first technology plan in school year 1994-95
as part of its title I schoolwide plan.  It basically follows the
goals and objectives of the district plan.  In school years 1994-95
and 1995-96, the school received $19,146 in title I funds for
technology.  Challenge Grant initiatives have not yet been
implemented at Wilson or other district elementary schools. 

During the principal's first year at Wilson (school year 1996-97),
she included technology as one of four school goals, emphasizing
integrating the use of computers into the educational curriculum. 
Eighty-five percent of the school's 27 computers are in classrooms,
and the student to computer ratio is 18 to 1. 

School officials said that they have little time to devote to
fund-raising and most school efforts have focused on getting students
gloves and socks for the winter and other basic needs.  They believe
the poverty level of the students' families also limits the school's
ability to raise funds.  The school has not been able to sustain a
parent-teacher organization.  Officials report that in September of
each year, parents of kindergarten students are enthusiastic about
supporting school activities and fund-raisers but, by about November,
parent attendance completely drops off.  Officials believe that
parents are contributing as much as they can by participating in
activities such as multicultural week and love-to-read week.  One
official observed that while the socioeconomic level of school
families has limited fund-raising efforts, it has made the school
eligible for title I funding with which it has been able to purchase
technology. 


--------------------
\23 A schoolwide program permits a school to use funding provided
under title I of ESEA and other federal education funds and resources
to upgrade the entire education program of the school in contrast
with title I targeted assistance through which funds are used only
for educational services for eligible children. 


      WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.3

Webster Elementary School has about 720 students in kindergarten
through grade 6.  About 16 percent are eligible for free or
reduced-price lunches.  About 10 percent of the students are racial
or ethnic minorities.  The school has served mainly an upper and
middle income group of families; however, recent redistricting has
added a central city area, increasing the school's economic and
cultural diversity.  Challenge Grant initiatives have not yet been
implemented at Webster or other district elementary schools. 

Webster has 46 computers; 91 percent are located in classrooms.  None
of the classroom computers has Internet access. 

In school year 1995-96, the principal organized Partners in
Education, a committee of parents, teachers, and local business
representatives to address the school's technology needs.  The
committee developed a plan to raise $27,000 over 1 year to equip the
first and second grades with eight new computers and software. 

The plan focused on involving parents and businesses in finding
funding sources and other support.  The committee initiated many
large and small fund-raising efforts, for example, applying for
several corporate grants.  The committee received $6,900 in matching
funds from one company, contingent on the school's obtaining the rest
of the $27,000, and was awarded an additional $15,000 in grant funds. 
A number of smaller efforts included "Pennies for Technology," which
has raised $600 by placing jars for contributions in local
businesses.  In addition, the parent-teacher association and other
school fund-raisers provided $3,500, and the principal and committee
members made presentations to local businesses to solicit their
support.  The committee also received supplemental funding from the
district to help them reach their goal. 

The school principal said that the committee had originally hoped to
fund computers for the third and fourth grades the same way but noted
that fund-raising on this scale is a daunting effort.  He noted that
seeking grants and funding sources beyond the school is difficult
because school staff do not typically have the time and expertise to
do so.  School officials also reported concern about parent burnout
from fund-raising efforts because of the many school requests for
help and participation in fund-raising activities. 


ROSWELL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT, NEW MEXICO
=========================================================== Appendix V

Roswell Independent School District is located in rural southeastern
New Mexico approximately 200 miles from any major city.  This
community of about 50,000 is largely agricultural, but its varied
economy also includes manufacturing and oil production. 

The district's overall technology goal is a completely networked
school district that provides students with adequate access to the
technological tools to complete collaborative research and learning
projects.  The district has developed one model technology school to
help it discover the possibilities and generate the questions that
need to be addressed to achieve this goal.  Schools in this district
use both Apple and IBM platforms, and each school has developed its
own technology implementation plan.  The district, however, approves
each school's plan and provides maintenance and technical support for
each school.  In 1997, the district reached a significant milestone
in its overall technology plan by connecting all schools to the
district's wide area network.  Table V.1 shows additional summary
information about the district, including the extent to which
technology has been implemented. 



                               Table V.1
                
                  Summary Data for Roswell Independent
                            School District

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
District context
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of schools                                                   22
Enrollment on or about October 1, 1996                          11,132
Total district budget for school year 1996-97                   $63,29
                                                                 4,000
Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch        49

Technology in place
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of students to computer                                      5:1
Schools connected to wide area network                              22
Number of schools with at least one connection to the Internet      22

Technology funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding obtained for technology from all sources since school   $8,478
 year 1993-94                                                     ,600

Percent of funding obtained from local, state, federal, and private
and other sources\a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
District operating budget\b                                         22
Local bond or special levy\c                                        54
State funding--specifically for technology                           4
State funding--other\d                                               3
Federal funding--specifically for technology                         0
Federal funding--other\e                                            13
Private and other\f                                                  3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

\b District budgets may include state funding.  State funding
constituted more than 99 percent of this figure. 

\c Local bonds and special levies are district property tax
initiatives sometimes, but not always, specifically targeted for
technology. 

\d These include state funding programs not targeted for technology
but available for technology use if it fulfills the goals of the
funding program. 

\e These include federal funding programs not targeted for technology
but available for technology use if it fulfills the goals of the
funding program. 

\f These include foundation and other private grants and corporate
and in-kind donations.  Parent-teacher organization funds raised at
individual schools are excluded from these totals. 


   STATE'S ROLE IN PROVIDING
   FUNDING AND TECHNICAL
   ASSISTANCE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1

New Mexico provides funding earmarked specifically for education
technology.  The state also provides on average about 74 percent of
its public schools' revenues, and these funds are considered
noncategorical, allowing school districts to determine how they are
spent.  Because the state plays a significant role in meeting basic
funding costs and provides great flexibility to districts in using
these funds, the state's overall role in funding technology may be
understated in table V.1. 

According to a New Mexico state official, the first major New Mexico
legislative action directly affecting education technology in public
schools was a 1984 appropriation of $2.1 million to establish New
Mexico Technet, a statewide telecommunications network.  The next
major action occurred in 1993, when the New Mexico Legislature
requested that the State Department of Education develop a state plan
for the technology use in prekindergarten through twelfth grade
classes.  In 1994, the state passed the Technology for Education Act,
providing $3 million in technology funding--an amount equal to $9.64
per student.  A significant feature of this appropriation was the
inclusion of training among the items that could be purchased with
the funds.  The act also established a technology fund in the State
Treasury, an Educational Technology Bureau in the Department of
Education, a process of local and school district planning, and a
formula for distributing state-provided education technology funds. 
In addition to the $3 million in per pupil funding, another $3
million was appropriated for computer-based language arts literacy
programs for elementary school students, and $1.9 million was
appropriated in special technology funding earmarked for certain
schools and districts. 

Since 1994, New Mexico has continued its per pupil technology funding
for districts in the amount of about $3 million per year.  Special
appropriations funding targeted to specific districts to purchase
education technology has also continued and has ranged from $1.1
million to $2.2 million each year.  In 1997, the legislature provided
$4.4 million for technology for New Mexico students.  As with
previous state appropriations, this funding was provided on a per
pupil basis and amounted to $12.50 per pupil.  Specially earmarked
funding was not appropriated in 1997 because the bill containing
these funds died under a legislative filibuster.  In addition to this
state funding, the state of New Mexico received $1.6 million from the
federal Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, which it distributed to
districts on a competitive grant basis for the 1997-98 school year. 

State support for education technology has included more than
funding.  The state Educational Technology Office's staff of four
handle statewide technology planning and broker school district
planning efforts.  This brokering role, according to one state
official, involves efforts to help school districts by identifying
funding and partners that could help districts fund their technology
needs.  The small number of staff in the state education technology
office limits the direct assistance the office can provide to school
districts, according to one state official.  The office does organize
statewide professional development and training, however, and, in
conjunction with Los Alamos Labs, sponsors a regional technology
support group that assists districts statewide. 


   DISTRICT EXPERIENCE IN FUNDING
   TECHNOLOGY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2

Serious consideration of technology use in the Roswell Independent
School District began in the late 1980s as district officials debated
the value of technology and how to implement it.  By school year
1993-94, these efforts culminated in a district technology plan
developed by a committee of representatives from each school,
district staff, and some community members.  Shortly thereafter, as
district officials were planning a bond measure to seek funding for a
variety of capital projects, including technology, several local
business and community members approached district officials,
expressing interest in the district's approach to implementing
technology.  These community members were part of a local nonprofit
educational foundation, the Roswell Educational Achievement
Foundation, and they hoped to help the district avoid the mistakes
that the business sector had made in implementing technology. 

The Foundation got involved with the district's technology plans and
participated in establishing the district's technology development
and funding policy.  In addition, the Foundation provided significant
funding through a competitive grant process for one elementary
school--Military Heights--in implementing a model technology program
that other district schools could copy.  The Foundation intended for
Military Heights to be a showcase for technology use in schools
districtwide.  Both district and Foundation officials believe that
the Foundation's efforts were instrumental in helping the district to
pass a bond measure in 1995. 

Passage of the bond and proceeds from 2-mill levies\24 that included
some funds dedicated for technology helped considerably in
implementing the district's technology program, according to district
officials.  Together these sources, along with about $290,000 in
state matching funds, provided the district with about $4.9 million
for technology through school year 1996-97.  The district further
funded the technology program using district operating funds and
state technology funds to help pay for items that the bond or levy
could not fund, such as staff salaries and training. 

In addition, the district has also obtained significant funding for
software through a negotiated agreement with the local teachers
union.  This agreement allowed the district to use some funds for
software that otherwise would have been included as part of a salary
increase for teachers.  The agreement provides for a one-time
allocation of $65,000 for software to each district school.  In the
first 2 years of the agreement, over $1 million has been provided to
16 of Roswell's 22 schools for software purchases. 

Federal and private funds provided the remaining sources for the
technology program.  Of the federal funds, title I money was the
largest source, supplying almost $1 million to pay for salaries and
hardware.  Private funding was split between a monetary donation from
the Roswell Educational Achievement Foundation and in-kind donations
from the IBM Corporation.  Almost all of the private funds received
by the district for technology went to the district's model
technology school, Military Heights Elementary. 


--------------------
\24 A 2-mill levy is a property tax that assesses $2 for every $1,000
of assessed property value. 


      ISSUES RAISED BY DISTRICT'S
      TECHNOLOGY PERSONNEL
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.1

The district's technology personnel raised the following issues about
school technology:  staffing shortages, competing education needs,
and the uncertainty of future funding. 


         STAFFING SHORTAGES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.1.1

District officials had major concerns about staffing shortages in the
technology area.  They cited staffing shortages as affecting the time
technology staff had to search for and complete grant applications as
well as their ability to provide technical support and perform needed
maintenance.  The district's technology director position is only a
one-third time position because the technology director is also
responsible for several other district programs.  The district has
almost six full-time equivalent positions supporting its technology
program (such as technical support and maintenance staff), but the
technology director believes this staffing level is not adequate,
noting the long work hours and high stress levels of some support
staff.  As a result, the technology director believes the number of
district technology staff needs to be at least doubled. 


         COMPETING NEEDS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.1.2

The technology director also had concerns about competition for funds
at the local level (that is, competing with the city and county for
bond funds) and at the state level.  In addition, several district
officials cited building maintenance and facility needs as another
competing demand.  One official said that the district had decaying
buildings and needed additional classroom space.  Another official
noted that the district had $62 million worth of facilities needs. 
Furthermore, officials noted that requirements to meet state or
federal mandates, such as asbestos removal, meant that less funding
was available for other programs such as technology.  While
recognizing the value of these other needs, district officials
expressed concern about the ability to fund technology given limited
resources. 


         UNCERTAINTY OF FUTURE
         FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.1.3

District officials also expressed uncertainty about handling some
future technology costs, especially for ongoing personnel-related
matters such as maintenance and technical support.  The technology
director also had concerns about the district's ability to upgrade
equipment and replace hardware.  However, he was more optimistic
about funding software (because state instructional material funds
can be used for this purpose) and about funding telecommunications
access charges (because this is a relatively low-cost item for the
district).  The anticipated increases in these costs associated with
the development of the district's wide area network and the aging of
current equipment heightened district officials' concerns about
hardware and personnel.  Although some uncertainties remained,
district officials were optimistic about funding future ongoing
technology costs through such sources as local levy funds, state
funds, and district operational funds. 


   SUMMARY OF SCHOOLS VISITED
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3

In each district, we examined two schools' technology programs in
depth to determine how local schools were implementing programs and
what, if anything, they were doing to supplement the funding provided
through the district.  We asked the district's technology director to
select two schools for us to visit--one considered more advanced in
its implementation of technology than other schools in the district
and one that was more typical of the district's schools.  Military
Heights Elementary was suggested as a school making widespread use of
technology.  Valley View Elementary was suggested as a more typical
school for the district. 


      MILITARY HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY
      SCHOOL
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.1

Military Heights Elementary has about 450 students in kindergarten
though grade 6.  Almost 60 percent of the students are eligible for
free or reduced-price lunches, and almost half of them are racial or
ethnic minorities. 

In 1994, after winning a competitive grant from the Roswell
Educational Achievement Foundation, Military Heights implemented a
model technology program according to the grant's specifications. 
The grant required all teachers and administrators at the school to
implement technology using a "full commitment model" that involved
integrating computers into instruction and the curriculum.  It also
required an after-school technology program and the involvement of
parents in the technology program. 

The Foundation provided funding to implement the model program
($123,000), and the district provided matching funds ($123,000).  In
addition, IBM got interested in this project and provided software,
technical support, and training valued at over $150,000.  Currently,
Military Heights has five computers in each regular instruction
classroom, plus additional computers in the school's library and in
special education classrooms.  The school's computers have been
networked from the outset, and students have access to about 160
software programs.  After the school received its grant funding, all
teachers took a 2-week summer training program to prepare them to
integrate the computers into their classroom instruction as outlined
by the full commitment model.  Teachers have received additional
technology-related training since then to improve their skills. 

The school's technology coordinator is a full-time teacher who is
also responsible for running the network and troubleshooting problems
that arise.  The coordinator helps teachers whenever time is
available (such as during lunch), conducts some training sessions,
and performs activities such as backing up the network and loading
software.  For serving as technology coordinator, the teacher
receives a small stipend. 

This biggest technology concern of officials at Military Heights is
identifying funding to maintain their model program.  Because
Military Heights is technologically ahead of other district schools,
school officials believe they may get lower priority for future
district funding.  This situation, combined with difficulties in
identifying alternative funding sources, has them concerned about
their ability to upgrade and replace equipment in the future. 
Although the school receives some assistance or equipment from other
activities, such as school and parent-teacher organization
fund-raising programs, business partnerships, and a local grocery
store's program (that allows exchanging grocery receipts for
equipment), these sources are inadequate to fund the more significant
technology costs that the school will probably face in the future
when system upgrades and replacements are needed. 


      VALLEY VIEW ELEMENTARY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.2

Valley View Elementary has about 400 students in prekindergarten
through grade 6.  Fifty-six percent of the school's students are
eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, and about half are racial
or ethnic minorities. 

Valley View developed its first technology plan in school year
1993-94; it had a 3- to 5-year implementation time frame.  However,
the school accomplished the first 2 years of the plan's objectives in
the first year, according to the principal.  He attributed this
success to staff cooperation and input and to the priority the school
has placed on technology.  Currently, the school has a
student-to-computer ratio of about 6 to 1, and the school is moving
away from a computer lab concept to putting technology into the
classrooms.  Every classroom can access portable multimedia
equipment, including a computer, television, and video cassette
recorder.  According to Valley View's principal, the school's
computer equipment is ready to go online when the district gets its
network operational. 

Valley View has financed its technology program mainly with district
and state funds, although the school and the parent-teacher
organization have also contributed funding for the technology program
in the past 2 years.  The school has raised funds mainly through ice
cream and school picture sales, while the parent-teacher organization
has had community fund-
raisers.  These funds have helped to pay for technology-related
supplies such as paper, printer cartridges, and ribbons, among other
things.  Like Military Heights, Valley View has also received a few
computers and other equipment by participating in the local grocery
store's receipts-for-equipment program. 

Although Valley View has received significant technology funding from
the district, school officials remain concerned about the decline in
district-
provided operating funds in the last few years and restrictions on
bond funds that limit what they may buy.  The expected rise in
technology costs as technology changes and develops heightens this
concern.  These funding issues, combined with the anticipated
maintenance cost increases associated with aging school buildings
districtwide, concern the principal as he considers the district's
ability to keep up with technology costs.  Officials also raised
concerns about the tradeoffs that school officials have had to make
to fund technology by using school activity funds previously used for
other needs, including eyeglasses, clothing, and shoes for some
students. 

As at Military Heights, Valley View's technology coordinator teaches
full time and receives a small stipend to perform the additional
technology duties.  In the spring of 1997, the technology coordinator
devoted much more time to the school's technology program because she
had a student teacher who could perform many of her classroom duties. 
The technology coordinator believes, however, that as the technology
program grows, the school will need a full-time technology
coordinator. 


SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WASHINGTON
========================================================== Appendix VI

Seattle Public Schools is the largest school district in Washington
state, with about 47,000 students.  In this urban school district,
about 60 percent of students are racial or ethnic minorities, and 21
percent have non-English-speaking backgrounds.  The district also has
a high proportion of children from poor families; 43 percent are
eligible for free or reduced-
price lunches. 

The school district developed a districtwide technology plan in 1991
that included, for each district school, a 30-station networked
computer lab or networked computers for each classroom.  A special
technology levy for about $22 million passed in November of that
year, providing the major portion of the district's technology
funding to date.  Levy funds were used to acquire significant amounts
of hardware, including take-home computers for slightly more than 50
percent of the teachers.  Failure of a second levy 5 years later has
slowed planned goals, although most schools currently have at least
one Internet connection and about one-third are on a wide area
network.  Table VI.1 shows additional summary information about the
district, including the extent to which technology has been
implemented. 



                               Table VI.1
                
                Summary Data for Seattle Public Schools

--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
District context
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of schools                                                  100
Enrollment on or about October 1, 1996                          47,075
Total district budget for school year 1996-97                   $414,4
                                                                00,000
Percent of students on free or reduced-price lunch                  43

Technology in place
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of students to computer                                      7:1
Schools connected to wide area network                              17
Number of schools with at least one connection to the Internet      90

Technology funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding obtained for technology from all sources since 1991     $35,17
                                                                 5,000

Percent of funding obtained from local, state, federal, and private
and other sources\a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
District operating budget\b                                         16
Local bond or special levy\c                                        67
State funding--specifically for technology                         0.8
State funding--other\d                                               3
Federal funding--specifically for technology                         4
Federal funding--other\e                                             6
Private and other\f                                                  3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

\b District budgets may include state funding.  State funding is
estimated to be about 66 percent of this figure. 

\c Local bonds and special levies are district property tax
initiatives sometimes, but not always, specifically targeted for
technology. 

\d These include state funding programs not targeted for technology
but available for technology use if it fulfills the goals of the
funding program. 

\e These include federal funding programs not targeted for technology
but available for technology use if it fulfills the goals of the
funding program. 

\f These include foundation and other private grants and corporate
and in-kind donations.  Parent-teacher organization funds raised at
individual schools are excluded from these totals. 


   STATE'S ROLE IN PROVIDING
   FUNDING AND TECHNICAL
   ASSISTANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:1

Seattle Public Schools relied on state funding for less than 5
percent of its technology expenditures, reflecting the state's
relatively limited role in technology funding.  The state's
technology plan, developed in 1994, outlined 12 recommendations
intended to provide a comprehensive, systemic approach to education
technology for the state.  The plan also estimated that it would cost
almost $500 million to implement these recommendations over a 6-year
period.  It also provided ideas, models, and examples of technology
implementation to the districts because in Washington much
decision-making about school policy is done by local districts. 

State funding for education technology has generally been provided as
one-time appropriations rather than as multiyear funding.  In 1994,
the state legislature chose to use windfall funding from the general
operating budget to provide about $19 million directly to schools for
the purchase of instructional materials or technology-related
investments.  In 1995, the legislature appropriated $10 million for
the 1995-97 biennium for technology to be distributed through
competitive grants to districts, and in 1997 it authorized another
$39 million in competitive grant funding for the 1997-99 biennium. 
In addition to these funds, another $8.5 million was provided during
these two biennia to support the state's Educational Technology
Support Centers (ETSC), which provide technology support to school
districts. 

Other state funding available to districts includes grants for staff
development, which are often used to provide technology-related
professional development for teachers.  Washington also received
about $2.6 million in federal Technology Literacy Challenge Fund
moneys to be distributed as competitive grants to consortia of school
districts in school year 1997-98. 

The state education agency's technology office (with a staff of five)
and nine regional ETSCs coordinate state education technology
efforts.  The state, through the ETSCs, tried to reduce the cost of
school technology by negotiating reduced software and hardware rates. 
In addition, the state is coordinating the development of a
high-speed network for Internet and interactive video that, when
completed, will link school districts, community and technical
colleges, and universities for a cost of about $54 million.  Other
state technology initiatives include the operation of the Washington
Television System and a data system called WedNet, used by 276 of the
296 school districts to transport administrative data.  The state
agency also provides some technical assistance and several online
resources, including a list of funding opportunities.  In addition,
the agency is involved in the STAR schools program and several grant
projects, including a partnership with the Washington Education
Association that provided laptop computers and training for 1 percent
of the state's teachers. 


   DISTRICT EXPERIENCE IN FUNDING
   TECHNOLOGY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:2

Seattle's initial use of computers began in the early 1980s with
early applications of the technology focusing on sharpening students'
basic skills.  In subsequent years, schools demonstrated additional
educational applications, including introducing online circulation
systems in libraries to aid research and communicating with students
in other countries.  In 1991, the district developed a comprehensive,
districtwide instructional technology plan outlining goals and
objectives for using school technology.  The $75 million plan
included a 30-station networked computer lab for each school or
networked computers for each classroom.  In addition, the plan
provided for other equipment, such as a television and video cassette
recorder, for each classroom.  The plan was intended to be
implemented over 6 years and funded in three phases using special
levies. 

Seattle voters passed an initial special technology levy to begin
implementing the technology plan but did not pass a subsequent levy
to fund the next phase.  The first levy passed in November 1991,
which provided about $22 million for instructional technology. 
Schools focused their portion of the levy funds heavily on acquiring
computers and peripherals.  Before the levy the ratio of students to
computers was 38 to 1.  By 1995, this ratio had been reduced to 8 to
1.  The district also used levy funds to automate school libraries
and to provide take-home computers for about half the teachers.  In
1996, the district approached voters with a $75 million levy proposal
for phase II of the plan.  The original plan had changed
significantly to include both district administrative and
instructional needs through one districtwide network, according to
the district's technology director, and a portion of it was to
address the district's network infrastructure.  Although the proposal
received more than 50 percent of the votes, it fell short of the
60-percent approval needed for school district levies in the state. 

With the failure of the 1996 technology levy, the district did not
reach its planned goals.  According to the district technology
director, the student-to-computer ratio, planned at 5 to 1, is now
about 7 to 1.  Most classrooms do not have Internet access, and
building infrastructure problems, such as inadequate electrical
power, continue to prevent some schools from using available
technology.  During our study, the district estimated its technology
needs to be about $120 million to $130 million because of changes in
technology since the last plan was developed and the need to replace
aging hardware in schools, much of which is now 5 years old.  The
district is considering a special capital levy measure for early
1998, and some of these funds will probably be used to further the
district's wide area network, update electrical power in buildings,
and provide money to schools to upgrade computers. 


      ISSUES RAISED BY DISTRICT'S
      TECHNOLOGY PERSONNEL
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:2.1

The district's technology personnel raised the following issues about
school technology:  few alternatives to special levies, challenges of
funding through special levies, and obtaining other funding sources. 


         FEW ALTERNATIVES TO
         SPECIAL LEVIES
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:2.1.1

Seattle Public Schools has relied heavily on special levies to fund
technology partly as a result of the limited availability of other
major funding sources.  The district technology director reported
that most of the district operating budget is already being used for
critical needs, such as special education or reducing class sizes,
making it difficult to redirect these funds to technology.  The
district cannot increase its operating budget because state school
finance laws limit the amount of funding districts may raise locally. 
In fact, according to the district, it reduced programs and services
by about $15 million between 1995 and 1997 due to funding shortfalls. 
Regarding state funding, Seattle has received some state aid for
technology, but the amounts have been relatively small compared with
the district's needs and offered as one-time grants rather than as
multiyear funding.  The district technology director believes the
most significant barrier to funding school technology is that
although the state considers technology part of basic education,
state funding for basic education has not changed to accommodate the
additional cost of integrating technology into schools, forcing
districts to turn to less reliable sources of funding technology such
as special levies. 


         CHALLENGE OF FUNDING
         THROUGH SPECIAL LEVIES
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:2.1.2

Several features of special school levies in Washington state make
them a difficult funding source for school technology.  First, to
pass a school levy, state laws require a minimum turn-out equal to 40
percent of the number of people voting in the last general election,
and 60 percent of these voters must approve the measure.  According
to officials, these conditions can pose a challenge in Seattle, where
just 18 percent of voters have school-
aged children and where districts are prohibited from actively
campaigning for their own levy initiatives.  After a history of
passing both general operating and special levies, the district has
experienced some levy failures in recent years.  The district
technology director commented that levies had been affected by
taxpayer fatigue due to the many tax initiatives presented to voters,
including those for public transit, law enforcement, libraries, and
sports facilities.  The district also has other needs requiring
special levy funds, including about $275 million worth of deferred
maintenance needs, according to a Seattle official.  Relying on
special levies to fund technology also means having to appeal again
to voters every few years to ensure that schools have current
hardware and software. 

In addition, special levies have limitations on their use.  They are
restricted to capital expenditures and so generally may not be used
to purchase software, provide maintenance, or fund technical support. 
Levy funds, for example, may be used to install a telephone line but
not to pay the monthly charges.  These restrictions have required
districts to find other ways to support many of their noncapital
technology costs. 


         SUCCESS OBTAINING OTHER
         SOURCES
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:2.1.3

The district has sought other types of funding with some success. 
Most notably, it won a $7 million Challenge Grant in 1996.  These
moneys are helping to create new learning environments that connect
students, parents, and educators to workplaces through electronic
information systems and to develop a new career track for high school
students to prepare them for Microsoft certification and future
employment in technology. 

The district has also received about $1 million in funding and
in-kind donations from foundations and corporations.  Outside sources
of funding, however, have not necessarily been easy to obtain. 
Developing new sources of funds takes time, and the technology
director reported not having enough staff to identify and tap such
sources.  He also said that grant opportunities often provide limited
seed money for innovative new programs.  Seattle has used such funds
to establish model programs in some schools, but expanding the models
districtwide depends on the district's finding additional resources. 
The technology director also noted that businesses and foundations
tend not to support ongoing costs such as technical support or
telecommunications charges. 

One helpful partner for the district has been the Alliance for
Education, a private nonprofit educational foundation comprising
representatives of several major local corporations and others
interested in education.  The Alliance has helped Seattle develop new
sources of funds by engaging business and community support for
districtwide and school programs.  In the technology area, the
Alliance has helped channel equipment to schools as well as provide
training opportunities for teachers.  A recent major focus of the
foundation has been coordinating an effort to wire 63 of the
district's schools for high-speed Internet access.  Toward this end,
the Alliance has sought funds, grant opportunities, and in-kind
donations of equipment and training and has also helped to recruit
and deploy skilled volunteers.  The foundation hopes to complete this
project by the end of the 1997-98 school year.  The Alliance is still
exploring ways to support the district's technology efforts, but,
according to one representative, is not inclined to support ongoing
program costs such as for staff positions or maintenance. 


   SUMMARY OF SCHOOLS VISITED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:3

In each district, we examined two schools' technology programs in
depth to determine how local schools were implementing technology
programs and what, if anything, they were doing to supplement the
funding provided through the district.  We asked the district's
technology director to select two schools for us to visit--one
considered more advanced in its implementation of technology than
other schools in the district and one considered more typical of the
district's schools.  Nathan Hale High School was suggested as a
school making widespread use of technology; Wing Luke Elementary
School was suggested as a more typical school for the district. 


      NATHAN HALE HIGH SCHOOL
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:3.1

Nathan Hale High School is a 4-year senior high school with
approximately 1,100 students.  About 39 percent of these students are
eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, and about 58 percent of
the students are racial or ethnic minorities. 

Initial efforts to develop the school's technology program began in
1991, when the school used some one-time state funding and some
windfall funding from the district to develop a technology lab.  When
the district's technology levy passed in 1991, a school committee
developed and the faculty approved a 5-year school technology plan. 
The school received about $300,000 in levy funds in 1992 to implement
the plan and an additional $150,000 in district funding in school
year 1993-94 to further build the program.  Since 1992, the
technology program at Nathan Hale has expanded to over 300 networked
computers with every classroom connected to the Internet and the
school's network linked to a high-speed telecommunications line.  In
1994, the district's printing and graphics center was moved to the
Nathan Hale campus, where students can use equipment for
instructional purposes and produce materials for the school and
district. 

Nathan Hale has had a full-time technology coordinator from early on
in its technology program.  In its first year, the position was
funded by sacrificing one teaching position.  Since then,
discretionary moneys in the school's budget have funded the
position--a decision that involves approval by the school's teachers. 
The technology coordinator has developed student and staff training
for computer technology in the building, managed the network, served
as head of the technology committee, supervised student network
assistants, and repaired computers and software.  In addition, he has
solicited funds and donations for the school's technology program. 
In part because of budget cutbacks, however, this position is being
funded as a half-time position in school year 1997-98. 

Obtaining funds to replace existing hardware appears to be the most
significant technology issue facing the school today.  According to
the technology coordinator, much of the equipment needs to be
replaced because it is now over 5 years old and is becoming obsolete. 
Because the cost of replacing technology is so high, however, the
technology coordinator does not know where to obtain the large sums
needed to continue with the technology program.  The school principal
stated that the school would seek the additional funding needed to
preserve the program through whatever means are available. 


      WING LUKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:3.2

Wing Luke Elementary School, located southeast of downtown Seattle,
serves about 270 children in kindergarten through fifth grade.  The
school has a high proportion of students who are racial or ethnic
minorities--a little over 40 percent are Asian and about one-quarter
are African American.  About 70 percent of its students are eligible
for free or reduced-price lunches.  The school has multi-age
classrooms and uses computers in the classrooms mainly for writing
and research. 

Key development of Wing Luke's technology program began in school
year 1991-92, when the school received a $200,000 federal magnet
grant to develop a technology program.  The grant funding, provided
to the school over a 2-year period, was used to buy equipment such as
computers, software, and furniture for the classrooms.  Additional
funding for the technology program came from about $85,000 in levy
funding received in 1992 and used to meet the needs that had not been
met by the magnet funds.  Additional funding from state, district,
and private sources has also been used for technology, but the
amounts have been small compared with the federal magnet and levy
funding.  Presently, the school has one computer for every five
students but does not have a building network linking the computers
together. 

During the federal grant period, Wing Luke had a full-time technology
coordinator paid for, in part, by grant funding.  This coordinator
played a large role in developing the technology program by making
program purchases, training teachers in using technology, and
providing technical support to maintain the system.  After the grant
period ended, the coordinator position became an added responsibility
for a full-time teacher rather than a separate position.  The teacher
now serving in this position receives a stipend to provide technical
support for the program but is not involved in training teachers as
the full-time technology coordinator had been.  Her main role is
troubleshooting problems and trying to fix broken computers or
printers.  She typically performs these duties whenever she can such
as after school and during lunch.  The school also receives technical
support from the district, and, as Wing Luke was bringing some of its
systems online, lack of support was an issue.  However, one school
official stated that current support is meeting the school's needs. 

Since the federal magnet grant and levy funding received 5 to 6 years
ago, Wing Luke has been able to secure little additional technology
funding.  As an elementary school with one of the highest poverty
rates in the Seattle district, located in a community with limited
resources, Wing Luke has found it difficult to obtain parent or local
business funding for its technology program.  These factors, coupled
with the limited time available for the principal to seek grant
funding sources, make the school reliant on district funding for some
technology.  However, with the district's budget cuts and with the
failure of the 1996 technology levy, district funds for technology in
the past few years have been limited at Wing Luke.  One recent
development that may provide some technology assistance has been an
offer by the Alliance for Education and the school district to help
Wing Luke get its building wired for a network connection to the
Internet.  According to one school official, without the district's
and Alliance's help in obtaining a corporate sponsor to provide
matching funding, Wing Luke would be unable to participate in this
program. 


GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================= Appendix VII

GAO CONTACTS

Eleanor L.  Johnson, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7209
Susan J.  Lawless, Evaluator-in-Charge, (206) 287-4792

STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made
important contributions to this report:  Linda Y.A.  McIver, Dawn E. 
Hoff, and Barbara A.  Billinghurst helped conduct the fieldwork and
write the report; Linda W.  Stokes helped conduct the fieldwork;
Andrew C.  Scott provided guidance on computer technology; Ellen K. 
Schwartz helped with the research design; Dora C.  Baltzell provided
advice on data collection instrument design; Stanley H.  Stenersen
guided the message development and report writing; Sylvia L.  Shanks
served as attorney advisor; and Marlene S.  Shaul and James R. 
Sweetman, Jr., served as technical advisors. 


*** End of document. ***