School Technology: Five School Districts' Experiences in Financing
Technology Programs (Stmnt. for the Rec., 01/29/98, GAO/T-HEHS-98-83).

GAO discussed how school districts obtain funds for the acquisition of
education technology, focusing on: (1) sources of funding school
districts have used to develop and fund their technology programs; (2)
barriers districts have faced in funding the technology goals they set,
and how they attempted to deal with these barriers; (3) components of
districts' technology programs that have been the most difficult to
fund, and what the consequences have been; and (4) districts' plans to
deal with the ongoing costs of the technology they have acquired.

GAO noted that: (1) the five districts it studied used a variety of ways
to fund their technology programs; (2) four types of barriers seemed to
be common to several districts: (a) technology was just one of a number
of competing needs and priorities, such as upkeep of school buildings;
(b) local community resistance to higher taxes limited districts'
ability to raise more revenue; (c) officials said they did not have
enough staff for fund-raising efforts and therefore had difficulty
obtaining grants and funding from other sources such as business; and
(d) some funding sources had restrictive conditions or requirements that
made funding difficult to obtain; (3) to overcome these barriers,
officials reported that their districts used a variety of methods to
educate and inform the school board and the community about the value of
technology; (4) these ranged from presentations to parent groups to the
establishment of a model program at one school to showcase the value of
technology; (5) the parts of the technology program that were hardest to
fund, according to those GAO interviewed, were components such as
maintenance, training, and technical support, which depend heavily on
staff positions; (6) for example, in two locations special levy and bond
funding could be used only for capital expenditures--not for staff; (7)
in several districts GAO visited, officials said that staffing
shortfalls in maintenance and technical support had resulted in large
workloads for existing staff and in maintenance backlogs; (8) most said
this resulted in reduced computer use because computers were out of
service; and (9) as these districts looked to the future to support the
ongoing and periodic costs of their technology programs, they typically
planned to continue using a variety of funding sources despite
uncertainties associated with many of these sources.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-HEHS-98-83
     TITLE:  School Technology: Five School Districts' Experiences in 
             Financing Technology Programs
      DATE:  01/29/98
   SUBJECT:  Public schools
             Computers
             School districts
             Educational grants
             Intergovernmental fiscal relations
             Information technology
             Federal/state relations
             State/local relations
             Aid for education
             Computer networks
IDENTIFIER:  Technology Innovation Challenge Grant Program
             Davidson County (NC)
             Gahanna (OH)
             Roswell (NM)
             Manchester (NH)
             Seattle (WA)
             
******************************************************************
** 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


Before the Education Task Force, Committee on Budget, U.S.  Senate

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 2:00 p.m.
Thursday January 29, 1998

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

Statement for the Record by Carlotta C.  Joyner, Director
Education and Employment Issues
Health, Education, and Human Services Division

GAO/T-HEHS-98-83

GAO/HEHS-98-83T


(104920)


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


SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY:  FIVE SCHOOL
DISTRICTS' EXPERIENCES IN
FINANCING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Education Task Force: 

We are pleased to contribute this statement for the record, which
discusses the experiences of five school districts in obtaining
funding for their education technology programs. 

Many of the nation's more than 16,000 school districts are investing
in computer technology.  Although questions still remain about how
best to use such technology to improve students' education, many
believe that it has an important role to play.  As a result, schools
are moving forward, as business and industry have, with plans for
computer networks, Internet connections, and other technology.  Doing
so, however, can be costly.  For example, a recent study has
estimated that placing one networked computer laboratory in each
school nationwide would cost $11 billion up front and $4 billion in
annual operating costs.\1

The Congress has taken steps to provide support for education
technology in fiscal year 1998,\2 for example, by appropriating $425
million to fund the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and $106
million for the Technology Innovation Challenge Grant program. 

Relatively little is known, however, about how districts fund the
technology they acquire.  To obtain more information about how
districts obtain this funding, our study focused on the following
questions:  (1) What sources of funding have school districts used to
develop and fund their technology programs?  (2) What barriers have
districts faced in funding the technology goals they set, and how did
they attempt to deal with these barriers?  (3) Which components of
districts' technology programs have been the most difficult to fund,
and what have the consequences been?  (4) How do districts plan to
deal with the ongoing costs of the technology they have acquired? 

My testimony today is based on work we conducted in the past year to
answer these questions at five school districts.\3 We selected these
districts to provide insight into what districts may be experiencing
as they try to fund their technology programs.  We identified these
districts by asking state education officials to suggest candidates
that have had interesting experiences.  In addition, we asked the
officials to exclude districts that had benefited from extraordinary
assistance such as those receiving the major portion of their funds
from a company or individual. 

The districts we studied are Davidson County Schools, a rural
district in North Carolina; Gahanna-Jefferson Public Schools, a
suburban district northeast of Columbus, Ohio; Manchester School
District, the largest district in New Hampshire; Roswell Independent
School District, which serves a city of 50,000 in southeast New
Mexico; and Seattle Public Schools, a large and ethnically diverse
district in the state of Washington. 

In summary, 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. 
Districts typically had one primary source supplemented with a
combination of several others.  For example, two districts used
special levies or bonds for over half of their technology funding as
well as other sources such as their operating budgets and federal
funds. 

Officials we spoke with cited a number of barriers they faced in
obtaining the needed funds for their technology programs.  Four types
of barriers seemed to be common to several districts.  First,
technology was just one of a number of competing needs and priorities
such as upkeep of school buildings.  Second, local community
resistance to higher taxes limited districts' ability to raise more
revenue.  Third, officials said they did not have enough staff for
fund-raising efforts and therefore had difficulty obtaining grants
and funding from other sources such as business.  In addition, some
funding sources had restrictive conditions or requirements that made
funding difficult to obtain.  To overcome these barriers, officials
reported that their districts used a variety of methods to educate
and inform the school board and the community about the value of
technology.  These ranged from presentations to parent groups to the
establishment of a model program at one school to showcase the value
of technology. 

The parts of the technology program that were hardest to fund,
according to those we interviewed, were components such as
maintenance, training, and technical support, which depend heavily on
staff positions.  For example, in two locations special levy and bond
funding could be used only for capital expenditures--not for staff. 
In several districts we visited, officials told us that staffing
shortfalls in maintenance and technical support had resulted in large
workloads for existing staff and in maintenance backlogs.  Most said
this resulted in reduced computer use because computers were out of
service. 

As these districts looked to the future to support the ongoing and
periodic costs of their technology programs, they typically planned
to continue using a variety of funding sources despite uncertainties
associated with many of these sources. 


--------------------
\1 Connecting K-12 Schools to the Information Superhighway, McKinsey
& Company, Inc.  (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
through standard telephone lines. 

\2 We have reported on a number of issues relating to 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). 

\3 This work is further described in the report, School Techology: 
Five School Districts' Experiences in Funding Technology Programs
(GAO/HEHS-98-35, Jan.  29, 1998). 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

The use of computer technology in schools has grown dramatically in
the past several years.  Surveys conducted by one marketing research
firm\4 estimated that in 1983 schools had 1 computer for every 125
students; in 1997, the ratio had increased to 1 computer for every 9
students.  Meanwhile, many education technology experts believe that
current levels of school technology do not give students enough
access to realize technology's full potential.  For example, schools
should have a ratio of four to five students for every computer or
five students for every multimedia computer, many studies suggest. 
In addition, concern has been expressed that aging school computers
may not be able to run newer computer programs, use multimedia
technology, and access the Internet. 

A computer-based education technology program has many components, as
figure 1 shows, which range from the computer hardware and software
to the maintenance and technical support needed to keep the system
running.  Although technology programs may define the components
differently, they generally cover the same combination of equipment
and support elements. 

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

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Computer-based technology can be used to augment learning in a number
of ways.  These include drill-and-practice programs to improve basic
skills; programs providing students with the tools to write and
produce multimedia projects that combine text, sound, graphics, and
video; programs providing access to information resources, such as on
the Internet; and networks that support collaborative and active
learning.  Research on school technology has not, however, provided
clear and comprehensive conclusions about its impact on student
achievement.  Although some studies have shown measurable
improvements in some areas, less research data exist on the impact of
the more complex uses of technology.  Our work focused on funding for
school technology.  We did not evaluate district goals or
accomplishments or assess the value of technology in education. 


--------------------
\4 Quality Education Data (of Denver). 


   DISTRICTS USED A VARIETY OF
   FUNDING SOURCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

Each of the districts we visited used a combination of funding
sources to support technology in its schools (see table 1).  At the
local level, districts allocated funds from their district operating
budgets,\5 levied special taxes, or both.  Districts 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 and other purposes.  Finally, districts
obtained private grants and solicited contributions from businesses. 
Although some individual schools in the districts we visited raised
some funds, obtaining technology funding was more a district-level
function than a school-level function, according to our study. 



                                         Table 1
                         
                           Technology Funding Sources (Percent)

                                        State funding        Federal funding
                                     --------------------  --------------------
                              Local                                               Private
                 District   bond or  Technology            Technology                 and
                 operatin   special   -specific     Other   -specific     Other     other
District         g budget      levy    programs  programs    programs  programs   funding
---------------  --------  --------  ----------  --------  ----------  --------  --------
Davidson County        27         0          22        43           0         6         2
 Schools,
 Davidson
 County, N.C.
Gahanna-               77         0          19         0           0         1         3
 Jefferson
 Public
 Schools,
 Gahanna, Ohio
Roswell                22        54           4         3           0        13         3
 Independent
 School
 District,
 Roswell, N.M.
Manchester             18         0           0         0          66        12         3
 School
 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. 

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


--------------------
\5 District operating budgets include locally generated revenues used
to finance the daily operations of the school district, including
instruction and administration, and they 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. 


      LOCAL FUNDING
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.1

All five districts chose to allocate funds for technology from their
operating budgets.  The portions allocated ranged widely from 16 to
77 percent of their total technology funding.  Two districts--Seattle
and Roswell--also raised significant portions of their technology
funding using local bonds or special levies. 


      FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
      TECHNOLOGY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.2

Manchester and Seattle won highly competitive 5-year Technology
Innovation Challenge Grants for $2.8 million and $7 million,
respectively.  The grant provided the major source of funding for
Manchester's technology program--about 66 percent of the funding. 
The $1.5 million in grant funding Seattle has received so far
accounted for about 4 percent of the district's technology funding. 


      OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL
      FUNDING
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.3

All five districts reported using federal and state program funding
that was not specifically designated for technology but could be used
for this purpose if it fulfilled program goals.  For example, four
districts reported using federal title I\6 funds for technology.  In
Manchester, a schoolwide program at a title I elementary school\7 we
visited had funded many of its 27 computers as part of its title I
program.  Three districts used state program funds, such as textbook
or instructional materials funds, to support their technology
programs.  In Davidson County, for example, the district has directed
about $2 million in such funds, including those for exceptional and
at-risk children as well as vocational education, to education
technology. 


--------------------
\6 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as amended. 

\7 A schoolwide program permits a school to use title I and other
federal education funds and resources to upgrade the entire school's
education program, 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. 


      PRIVATE FUNDS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.4

All districts received assistance, such as grants and monetary and
in-kind donations, from businesses, foundations, and individuals. 
Such funding constituted about 3 percent or less of their technology
funding.  It is important to note, however, 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.\8 Officials we spoke with attributed the
limited business contributions in their districts to a variety of
reasons, including businesses not fully understanding the extent of
the schools' needs and businesses feeling overburdened by the large
number of requests from the community for assistance.  Some said
their district simply had few businesses from which to solicit help. 
Nonetheless, all five districts noted the importance of business'
contribution and were cultivating their ties with business. 


--------------------
\8 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 accounted for 15 percent of public school technology
funding, with local funding accounting for 40 percent; state funding,
20 percent; and federal funding, 25 percent. 


      SCHOOL FUND-RAISING
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.5

As part of our review, we also examined individual schools'
activities to raise money for technology.  Obtaining technology
funding was primarily a district- rather than a school-level
function, however, according to our review.  The majority of school
technology funding came from the school district.  In some cases,
this was supplemented with funds from parent-
teacher organization activities and other school fund-raisers.  Such
supplemental funding amounted to generally less than $7,000 annually
but did range as high as $84,000 over 4 years at one school.  Staff
at two schools reported that teachers and other staff used their
personal funds to support technology in amounts ranging from $100 to
over $1,000. 


   FOUR TYPES OF FUNDING BARRIERS
   MOST COMMON
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

Officials in the districts we visited identified a variety of
barriers to obtaining technology funding.  Four types of barriers
were common to most districts and considered by some to be especially
significant.  (See table 2.)



                                         Table 2
                         
                           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 district
official. 


      COMPETING NEEDS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.1

Officials in all of the districts we visited reported that
district-level funding was difficult to obtain for technology 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 in deferred maintenance needs.  Some districts had
mandates to meet certain needs before making funding available for
other expenditures like technology.  Manchester officials noted, for
example, that required special education spending constituted 26
percent of their 1997 district operating budget, a figure expected to
rise to 27.5 percent in fiscal year 1998. 


      COMMUNITY TAX RESISTANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.2

Officials from all districts said that resistance to higher taxes
affected their ability to increase district operating revenue to help
meet their technology goals.  For example, in Davidson County, the
local property tax rate is among the lowest in the state, and
officials reported that many county residents were attracted to the
area because of the tax rates. 

In addition, two districts--Roswell and Seattle--did not have the
ability to increase the local portion of their operating budgets
because of state school finance systems that--to improve
equity--limited the amount of funds districts could raise locally. 
Officials in three districts reported that the antitax sentiment also
affected their ability to pass special technology levies and bond
measures.  Although all districts identified an environment of tax
resistance in their communities, most said they believed the
community generally supported education. 


      LACK OF FUND-RAISING STAFF
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.3

Many officials reported that they did not have the time to search for
technology funding in addition to performing their other job
responsibilities.  They said that they need considerable 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.  The technology director in
Manchester said that when the district applied for a Technology
Innovation Challenge Grant, two district staff had to drop all other
duties to complete the application within the 4-week time frame
available. 


      FUNDING SOURCE CONDITIONS OR
      REQUIREMENTS ARE RESTRICTIVE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.4

In three districts we visited, technology officials said that some
funding sources had conditions or requirements that made obtaining
the funding difficult.  For example, one official was concerned about
state restrictions associated with levy funds--such as minimum voter
turn-out requirements, a 60-percent majority approval requirement,
and a restriction prohibiting the district from involvement in a levy
campaign
--which made it harder for the district to obtain funds from this
source.  An official in Roswell said a requirement to form a
consortium of businesses, universities, and the like made it
difficult for geographically isolated districts like his to apply for
some grants.  An official in another district characterized her
district as not disadvantaged enough overall to qualify for some
funding, although the district student population included many
students from lower income families.  She further stated that
corporations and foundations typically like to give funds to schools
where they can make a dramatic difference. 


   VARIOUS INFORMATIONAL AND
   LEADERSHIP EFFORTS DIRECTED AT
   OVERCOMING FUNDING BARRIERS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

Districts have employed general strategies to overcome funding
barriers rather than address specific barriers.  The strategies have
involved two main approaches--efforts to inform decisionmakers about
the importance of and need for technology and leadership efforts to
secure support for technology initiatives. 

In their information efforts, district officials have addressed a
broad range of audiences about the importance of and need for
technology.  These audiences have included school board members, city
council representatives, service group members, parents, community
taxpayers, and state officials.  These presentations have included
technology demonstrations, parent information nights, 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 and used it to demonstrate the use
of technology in school classrooms. 

In the districts we visited, both district officials and the business
community provided leadership to support school technology.  In all
districts, district technology directors played a central leadership
role in envisioning, funding, and implementing their respective
technology programs over multiyear periods and continued to be
consulted for expertise and guidance.  In some districts, the
superintendent also assumed a role in garnering support and funding
for the technology program.  Beyond the district office, business
community members sometimes assumed leadership roles to support
technology by entering into partnerships with the districts to help
in technology development efforts as well as in obtaining funding. 
All five districts we visited had developed such partnerships with
local businesses.  In Roswell and Seattle, education foundations
comprising business community leaders had helped their school
districts' efforts to plan and implement technology, providing both
leadership and funding for technology.  Other districts we visited
continued to cultivate their ties with the business community through
organizations such as a business advisory council and a community
consortium. 


   STAFF-RELATED COMPONENTS
   DIFFICULT TO FUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

Nearly all districts reported maintenance, technical support, and
training--
components often dependent on staff--as more difficult to fund than
other components.  Officials we interviewed cited several limitations
associated with funding sources that affected their use for staff
costs.  First, some sources 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, could not be
used to support staff because the funds were restricted to capital
expenditures.  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.  Most districts funded
technology staff primarily from district operating budgets.  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
because of a lack of sufficient support staff.  One result was
lengthy periods--up to 2 weeks in some cases--when computers and
other equipment were unavailable.  Several officials observed that
this can be frustrating to teachers and discourage them from using
the equipment. 

Teacher training was also affected by limited funding for staff
costs, according to officials.  In one district, for example, an
official said that the number of district trainers was insufficient
to provide the desired in-depth training to all teachers.  Most
district officials expressed a desire for more technology training
capability, noting that teacher training promoted the most effective
use of the equipment. 

A number of districts had developed mitigating approaches to a lack
of technology support staff.  These included purchasing extended
warranties on new equipment, training students to provide technical
support in their schools, and designating teachers to help with
technical support and training. 


   DISTRICTS PLAN TO USE SAME
   FUNDING SOURCES FOR ONGOING
   COSTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

Most of the districts we visited planned to continue funding their
technology programs largely as they had in the past, despite the
uncertainties associated with many funding sources.  The costs faced
by districts are basically of two types:  (1) regular annual costs
for maintenance, technical support, training, and telecommunications
services and (2) periodic costs of upgrading and replacing hardware,
software, and infrastructure to sustain programs. 

Most districts planned to continue funding ongoing maintenance,
technical support, training, and telecommunications costs primarily
from their operating budgets and to sustain at least current levels
of support.  Nonetheless, most districts believed that current levels
of maintenance and technical support were not adequate and that
demand for staff would likely grow.  Some officials talked about
hiring staff in small increments but were unsure to what extent
future district budgets would support this growing need. 

The periodic costs to upgrade and replace hardware, software, or
infrastructure can be substantial, and most districts faced
uncertainty in continuing to fund them with current sources.  For
example, Davidson County and Gahanna funded significant portions of
their hardware with state technology funding.  However, officials
told us that in the past, the level of state technology funding had
been significantly reduced due to the changing priorities of their
state legislatures.  In Seattle, special levies are the district's
primary funding source, but passing these initiatives is
unpredictable. 

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 also suggested ways
to accomplish this.  Some proposed including a line item in the
district operating budget to demonstrate district commitment to
technology as well as provide a more stable funding source.  One
official said that technology is increasingly considered part of
basic education and as such should be included in the state's formula
funding.  Without such funding, he said districts would be divided
into those that could "sell" technology to voters and those that
could not. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:7

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 just 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, but they also had to continue making that case
year after year. 

To develop support for technology, leaders in these five school
districts used a broad informational approach to educate the
community, and they formed local partnerships with business.  Each
district has developed some ties with business.  Nonetheless, funding
from private sources, including business, for each district,
constituted no more than about 3 percent of what the district has
spent on its technology program.  Other districts like these may need
to continue depending mainly on special local bonds and levies, state
assistance, and federal grants for initially buying and replacing
equipment and on their operating budgets for other technology needs. 

Lack of staff 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 visited had
not yet secured 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 piece together
funding from various sources to maintain their technology programs
and keep them viable. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:7.1

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement.  I would be
pleased to respond to any questions you or members of the Task Force
may have. 


*** End of document. ***