A r c h i v e d    I n f o r m a t i o n

Conclusions

Observing five States' efforts to get the TLCF off the ground provided a unique opportunity to understand how a broad-based program gets translated to meet a wide range of very different educational and technology needs. Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Texas, and Washington, are certainly very different States with regard to their educational histories. The States also were in fairly different places with regard to technology when the TLCF was announced. Each State shaped its use of the TLCF differently, in order to address its own perceived needs and to further implement its own technology plans.

Multiple visits to these five States revealed considerable promise with regard to technology's role in education. Children in impoverished school districts were observed using computers for the first time in their lives. Special education students became the envy of other children in their schools, because they had access to "neat" computers. Children in a rural Mississippi school district were working on a project with students in New England via Internet. High school students proudly described how they wired their local elementary school. And teachers who had been teaching for many years expressed a belief that their newly acquired technology was improving how they taught and how students learned.

This is not to say that all was positive. As noted earlier, also observed was a classroom of kindergarten children huddled around the teacher and their one computer, being called to the front of the class to "push the right button." Teachers and other staff who had not yet had professional development in the use of technology were interviewed. Frustrations resulting from school buildings so old that infrastructure issues hindered even the most basic use of technology emerged in many districts.

At the time of the site visits, it was too early in the course of the TLCF to determine what impact it would have on education. The TLCF's ultimate goal, as well as that of other technology initiatives, is relatively simple: to improve teaching and increase student learning. States and selected districts were visited at a very early stage in the program, just as States were receiving funds from the U.S. Department of Education and districts were attempting to implement their recently awarded sub-grants from their States. But it was not too early to identify the program areas that could, in the end, determine the success or failure of the nation's use of technology in K-12 education. Thus, although these observations occurred at an early point in the implementation of the program, a number of areas that warrant close attention could be identified.

Those who developed the TLCF were well aware that the program's financial contribution to even the most conservative estimates of technology needs in our nation's schools would be, to use the term of one State technology coordinator, a mere "drop in the bucket." The TLCF does not intend to provide the resources needed to cover all educational technology needs-from hardware, software, infrastructure improvements, professional development, connectivity costs, and technical assistance-but rather to fund those schools and students who were being left behind and to stimulate other contributions. Thus, the TLCF legislation and guidelines recognize the need to concentrate the TLCF's limited resources so that they would make a difference.

Most of the States visited appeared to be taking seriously the U.S. Department of Education's guidelines that States should make awards of "sufficient duration, size, scope, and quality" to make a difference. Typically, States awarded a limited number of sub-grants to districts, and districts themselves generally focused their awards on specific schools or groups of students (e.g., special education, kindergarten students, and students in grades 4 to 6). The way one State handled the TLCF, however, provides a good illustration of why the TLCF guidelines emphasized that funds not be spread too thin. Massachusetts, one of the smaller States visited with regard to the number of students, awarded 121 sub-grants, some as small as $3,000. The U.S. Department of Education, in reviewing Massachusetts plan for distributing the funds, asked that the State target its TLCF money more on the basis of poverty in subsequent years. Spreading limited amounts of money to numerous recipients not only goes against the program's guidelines, but dilutes any potential impact the program could have.

However, making a judgment about whether TLCF funds were being spread too thin is not straightforward; such a judgment can only be made in the context of other funding for technology within a State. Several States that were not among the five case-study States also appeared to spread their TLCF funds across many districts in relatively small amounts. In at least one case, however, TLCF sub-grants were awarded in conjunction with State money and the two sources together appeared to be well designed and sufficient to make a difference in the districts. There could be circumstances where the TLCF may initially appear to be spread too thin, but upon further examination, its distribution would be sufficient in combination with other available resources.

The rationale of the TLCF incorporates not just the notion of concentrating funds so that limited resources could have an impact, but also the notion of targeting funds to students who need it the most. What is meant by need, and operationalizing the concept, raises questions about the implementation of the legislation.

The non-regulatory guidance for the TLCF states: "A key purpose of the program is to enable the States to assist school systems that have the highest numbers or percentages of children in poverty and demonstrate the greatest need for technology" (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). Thus, need becomes a double-pronged concept: it is based on economics, as well as some unspecified lack of technology. This notion raises some interesting issues. One of the States visited suggested that they did not necessarily target the TLCF to the poorest districts, because the technology needs of the poorest districts had been taken care of through other funding. Officials in this State argued that school districts whose students may be poor may not necessarily have the greatest need for technology. Indeed, a district was visited where an extremely creative and energetic technology coordinator pooled resources across many programs (e.g., Title I, Eisenhower, Goals 2000). Classrooms observed in his district often had as many computers and other related equipment as some wealthier districts.

Does this mean, however, that students who reside in impoverished districts have less need? One could easily argue that students in these districts are less likely to have access to computers and other technology at home (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1998), and therefore need even more access at school than students in wealthier districts. Simple counts of students-per-computer without considering other circumstances would dictate practices that could increase disparities rather than alleviate them.

It was certainly the case that the five case study States treated the issue of need differently, ranging from essentially ignoring it altogether to explicitly giving extra points to districts with both poor students and limited numbers of computers. Given the potential tension between definitions of need that focus on district poverty rates and those that focus on availability of technology, States may need more information about Federal intent. Given the diversity of State needs and circumstances, the Department of Education may wish to work closely with States to clarify ways to target funds on districts with the greatest need, taking into account each State's unique circumstances.

The TLCF legislation implicitly recognizes that it is providing a relatively small share of the total amount of money needed for educational technology; it therefore acknowledges that a number of features must be in place if the program is to have a lasting impact. The applications themselves required a description of "(1) long-term strategies for financing educational technology in the State," and "(2) how business, industry, other public and private agencies, including libraries, library literacy programs, scientific and cultural institutions, and institutions of higher education can participate in the ongoing planning, implementation, and support for the plan" (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). Furthermore, the non-regulatory guidance describes how the TLCF relates to other Federal technology and school reform initiatives. Sustainability of the program beyond TLCF funding, therefore, requires that a number of features be in place: support from local school districts; support from the local community-its businesses as well as its social, cultural, and other educational institutions; connections to other education programs, even if their focus is not specifically technology; and connections to other technology initiatives.

A few of the schools and districts visited had in place all of these features of a sustainable program. However, a number of signs indicated that sustaining the TLCF beyond its funding cycle would be a problem for many of the districts in these case studies. Several of the poorer districts lamented over the problems of obtaining community support when their communities themselves were poor. In some cases, the businesses that were there were struggling themselves. One interviewee commented: "There are no businesses in this community (at least not the kind that are inferred when we speak of 'community partnering'). Who am I supposed to partner with, the liquor store on the corner?" The economic situation in these communities also translated into less support for school budgets and therefore less support for technology initiatives. Furthermore, the single year of funding that most sub-grantees receive from the TLCF does not last long enough to establish long-lasting community initiatives.

Examples of poorer districts taking advantage of a variety of other Federal and State programs that allowed them to bring technology into their schools were observed. In these cases, the impetus for this typically came from the vision of creative leaders.

What is the best way to ensure that the TLCF assists schools to use technology effectively? Although it may appear to be a simple response, one answer is "leadership." Reflecting upon the variations observed across States, districts, and schools, one common element in the more promising programs tended to be the person or persons responsible for designing and implementing the program. Two districts within the same State could, and did, appear vastly different despite somewhat similar social and economic circumstances. The difference was often the person or persons leading the effort to bring technology into the district's schools.

Leadership is not innate. It can be taught and cultivated. The Federal government itself has vehicles for supporting technology leaders. The work of the Regional Technology Education Centers (R*TECs), the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC), and the Regional Educational Laboratories all could help foster local technology leadership. The development of leadership should also be focused on districts with the greatest need, providing them with technical assistance in grant writing and helping them to develop their own technology leaders. If the TLCF is to succeed, attention will need to be focused on developing leadership, not just at the State level, but also at the district and school levels.

These case studies revealed almost as many adaptations of the TLCF as there are States and districts. The flexibility of the program allows States, districts, and schools to fit the TLCF into its ongoing technology and educational reform initiatives. While this flexibility is certainly one of the program's strengths, it also has the potential of being one of its downfalls. For although most of the States and districts visited appeared committed to implementing the TLCF in the spirit in which it was intended-concentrating awards, identifying districts with need, and integrating technology into the curriculum-several contrary examples were found. Programs emphasizing flexibility require careful monitoring; otherwise almost any practice can be justified as acceptable.

It will be important to monitor how States distribute funds to local districts. Not spreading limited resources too thin is important to the program's success. Yet it will remain important to examine the context in which decisions are made regarding the distribution of funds.

Monitoring how States define and operationalize need under such a flexible program will also require careful monitoring and attention to the State context. As observed, there are multiple ways of thinking about need, any of which could be appropriate depending upon the presence or absence of other technology initiatives. Ignoring need, however it may be defined, does not seem appropriate. Flexibility should not become an excuse for adopting any practice that seems convenient.

In this context, the Federal government will have to adopt creative approaches to communicating the intent of the TLCF, while at the same time adapting to local circumstances. Monitoring a program as flexible as the TLCF is indeed a challenge, but one that could serve as a model for many other Federal programs as well.

[ Case Study Findings ]

[ References ]