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

Characteristics of Case Study States

EXHIBIT 4
Characteristics of Case Study States

Source: CCSSO, 1997 (poverty data). U.S. Department of Education, 1997 (all other data).

AIR staff conducted the first round of case studies in the spring and summer of 1997. At this time, most of the States visited had issued requests for proposals from local school districts, the districts had submitted applications for TLCF money, and States were in the process of awarding funds. These first visits focused entirely on the initial implementation and administration of the TLCF at the State level. Typically, a number of people were interviewed, including the State technology coordinator, professional development coordinator, curriculum specialist, persons involved in the administration of other technology programs, and other technology stakeholders (e.g., associations or commissions dealing with technology issues at the State level).

The second wave of case studies, conducted in the fall and winter of 1997-98, focused on three to five school districts that had been awarded TLCF grants within each of the five States. These districts were selected to represent diversity in location within the State, size of the district, and the way the TLCF was used. Districts that did not receive sub-grants, either because they had applied for the TLCF but did not receive an award, or because they did not apply at all, were not visited. During the site visits, which typically lasted 4 to 5 days, AIR staff interviewed a broad range of individuals that included district and school technology coordinators, superintendents, principals, and teachers. In addition, AIR staff observed many classrooms and talked informally with students. In many cases, samples of student work that used technology were reviewed and documents that described how schools were using or planning to use technology were examined.

This report summarizes observations from these five State case studies. Observations about the implementation of the TLCF in these States are organized in response to three general research questions:

1. What were the experiences of States and districts in implementing the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund?

2. How were States and districts using the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund?

3. How did Technology Literacy Challenge Fund activities relate to other technology and reform efforts?

In addition, this report highlights a number of issues that could determine the success or failure of the initiative over time.

Case Study Findings

What Were the Experiences of States and Districts in Implementing the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund?

The TLCF is a program of tremendous flexibility by design. The program offers States an opportunity to provide school districts, especially those with high rates of poverty and technology needs, with funds for appropriate and effective uses of technology.

This type of flexibility is necessary given the variation across States and school districts in the use of technology in the classroom. Results of a survey conducted by Market Data Retrieval, for example, indicate that the number of students per multimedia computer ranged from 20 in Illinois and Texas to 28 in Mississippi in 1996-97. Furthermore, while fewer than half of all schools in Mississippi-44 percent-reported having access to the Internet, 80 percent of the schools in Washington State had Internet access (MDR, 1997, as reported in Education Week, 1997). A "one size fits all" program would certainly not fit the needs of the five States visited, nor would it work for the other 45 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the territories, and Bureau of Indian Affairs that the TLCF serves.

The different ways that Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Texas, and Washington chose to implement the TLCF illustrate the program's flexibility. Exhibit 5 provides a brief overview of how each of these States adapted the TLCF requirements to their needs.

The TLCF allocations of the five case study States ranged from $2.8 million in Washington to $16.3 in Texas. The number of awards within these States also varied, from eight in Washington to 121 in Massachusetts. It is worth noting that while the allocations were relatively similar in these

EXHIBIT 5

Overview of State TLCF Awards

two States-$2.8 million and $3.5 million-the ways in which Washington and Massachusetts distributed the TLCF money were radically different. Washington's eight awards all went to consortia of school districts, while Massachusetts' 121 awards often tended to be relatively small, ranging from $3,000 to $280,000. Furthermore, Illinois and Massachusetts indicated that less than half of their awards went to districts defined as high poverty, while the three other States awarded all of their TLCF money to districts they defined as high poverty. Finally, Massachusetts was the only State that appeared to award some of its TLCF money to districts not defined as having high technology need. While this variation in implementation of the TLCF reflects its flexibility, the spirit of the TLCF was perhaps compromised by the rather small awards that Massachusetts distributed in its first year. This issue is discussed later in the report.

Illinois

Illinois had considerable experience implementing statewide technology initiatives. In place at the time Illinois received TLCF funding were a State telecommunications backbone; regional learning technology hubs; a competitive grant program focused on innovative uses of technology and its integration into the curriculum; and a formula grant program that aimed to provide districts with funds to build their technology infrastructure. In addition, Illinois had received four Technology Innovation Challenge Grant awards. Many of the technology initiatives in the State were aimed at fostering engaged learning, an approach that emphasizes student responsibility for learning and collaboration.

In setting up its sub-grant competition, Illinois divided the State allocation into seven parts based on geographic regions; Chicago formed one of these regions. This structure was chosen, because without it, Chicago's sheer size and poverty would have made it eligible for the lion's share of funds for programs like the TLCF intended to target need. School districts could apply for the TLCF within their region (in Chicago, schools competed against each other) for a single district award, or districts could partner with other districts in their region or another region for a regional award. In addition, districts could partner with other districts in more than one other region for a statewide award-this was considered a separate competition. This system allowed the many rural one-school districts throughout the State to compete for funds.

Illinois also required that districts spend at least 25 percent of their award on professional development and not more than 50 percent on hardware. Although need was not listed in the sub-grant application as an official criterion, the

Illinois is unique among the five case study States for its emphasis on engaged learning.

State Department of Education expressed that need was considered in the award decisions. According to officials in several districts, however, need was a relatively small factor. Some at the district level also believed that needier districts were doubly disadvantaged since some wealthier districts hired professional grant writers.

Illinois received 664 applications for its $9.1 million TLCF grant, which were reviewed in 2 days. Fifty-one awards were made, the majority of which went to single-school districts. The minimum award amount was $34,094, for districts of less than 1,000 students; the maximum was $340,000, which was provided to consortia comprised of not less than three districts from across the State.

Massachusetts

The State of Massachusetts was in the midst of implementing a number of educational reforms at the time the TLCF was announced. One major activity that was underway was the continued implementation of the Massachusetts Educational Reform Act (MERA). MERA was a $6 billion formula grant program that assisted districts in meeting their Foundation Budget, a State-determined funding level to ensure school financial equity across the State. The State Department of Education had also been busy developing a statewide professional development program, new State curriculum frameworks, and an accompanying statewide assessment program. The two major technology initiatives in Massachusetts were the Information Management System, that was to modernize administrative processes, and the Educational Technology Bond Bill, that provided $30 per pupil to all districts with a local technology plan (while requiring districts to match State dollars on a 3 to 1 basis). While these two initiatives represented well over $30 million dollars of investment, funding for technology in Massachusetts had historically been more limited.

At the time of the TLCF announcement, Massachusetts did have a State technology plan in place that focused on hardware, Internet connections, and professional development. Underlying that plan was the belief that the best way to maximize limited resources was to use them at the State level to create economies of scale. As such, Massachusetts used its $3.4 million first-year TLCF allocation to support four types of sub-grants, with predetermined funding levels:

1. Need-Based Professional Development Grants. The largest of the programs, these grants supported quality professional development for teachers and administrators across the Commonwealth, particularly those who were in school districts that had high percentages of students in poverty and need for technology, in using new technologies to improve education.

2. Lighthouse Technology Sites. This grant was used to identify and recognize school districts that were using innovative technologies in a classroom, school building, or across the school district, and to enable them to share their expertise with other school districts in the commonwealth. Selected recipients were to serve as models, mentors, and supporters for other school districts in the creative and effective use of innovative technologies.

3. Teacher Sabbaticals. This program identified two talented educators to serve a 1-year sabbatical as statewide technology leaders to work with other teachers and administrators through posts at the State Department of Education.

4. Projects with Statewide Impact. Representing the largest single award, this program supported school district(s) to form partnerships with higher education institutions, business communities, and others in order to foster statewide impact in the use of technology in the classroom.

Mississippi

Although in recent years Mississippi had made gains in the level of technology in its schools-rising from 48^th to 34^th in student-to-computer ratio (QED, 1997)-it still lagged behind many other States. Because of high poverty levels across the State, the vast majority of its districts were still in the initial hardware-purchasing stages of technology implementation in 1997.

In 1994, the Mississippi legislature passed the Education Technology Enhancement Act. This landmark bill called for the development of Mississippi's Master Plan for Education Technology; established the Council for Education Technology (an advisory group made up of representatives from public education, various State agencies, and private business and industry); and earmarked $30 million to spend on building the State's data backbone, which would bring Internet access to every school in the State. This legislation also included the development of standards for technology and professional development.

The TLCF brought to Mississippi an additional $3.5 million to help local districts purchase the hardware necessary to connect to the State backbone. The TLCF in Mississippi was designed to support sub-grants ranging in award size from

Mississippi was the only State among the case study sites to award exclusively single-district grants. Mississippi was also the case study State with the greatest need for technology in its schools.

$100,000 to $200,000. Similar to Illinois, Mississippi required that districts spend at least 20 percent of the TLCF grant on professional development. According to State officials, extra consideration was given to districts with above average student-to-computer ratios and higher poverty levels.

One hundred twenty-six districts applied for TLCF money and four teams of three reviewers evaluated the applications. In the end, 21 districts were awarded sub-grants.

Texas

One of the first States to develop a technology plan (Texas had a plan in place since 1988), Texas had invested heavily in its technology infrastructure. One of the first outgrowths of the plan was the Texas Education Network (TENET), the text-based network and communications backbone to which all teachers were connected. Additionally, there was a satellite system, T-STAR, that connected all school districts and a high-speed Intranet connection linking the Texas Education Agency with 20 regional service centers. Together, these systems were used for meetings, disseminating information, and training via videoconferencing. More recent technology initiatives focused on the curriculum, adding a required high school course in technology applications. Texas legislators also had considered replacing textbooks with laptops. Texas, relative to other case study States, was thus ahead of the technology implementation curve when the TLCF was announced.

Texas used its $16.3 million TLCF allocation to fund the Technology Integration in Education program. The State focused on four areas with its competitive sub-grants: teaching and learning, educator preparation and development, administration and support services, and infrastructure. Districts were required to specify which of the four areas their sub-grant addressed, although there was no preset monetary distribution among the four focal areas. One sub-grant selection criterion was classification as rural or emphasis on collaboration in project designs.

Two hundred sixty-one applications

Texas awarded the largest sub-grants of any case study State. The average award was over $850,000.

were submitted and determined eligible, the bulk of which were from single districts. Five reviewers evaluated each application; the 65 top-rated proposals were selected as finalists. After further deliberation, the State awarded 19 sub-grants to districts or consortia, with the majority ranging from $43,000 to $1,600,000. One large consortium received $4,500,000.

Washington

With 88 percent of its schools connected to the Internet and an average of 23 students per multimedia computer, Washington fared somewhat better in terms of technology availability than some of the other case study States. In Washington, like in Illinois and Texas, the State was divided into eight Educational Service Districts (ESDs), or "hubs," that provided technical assistance to each region of the State. The ESDs helped districts to implement their technology plans. Some districts also received financial assistance from the State competitive grant program for technology. This program provided about $20 million per year via a competitive process. The State competitive grants also required that one-fifth of the award be spent on professional development. Finally, Washington was in the process of establishing the "K-20 Backbone," which would connect every school in every district to the ESDs, the State Education Agency, 2- and 4-year colleges and universities, and libraries.

As required, Washington used its TLCF allocation-$2.8 million-to fund a competitive grant program for which all districts that had submitted a technology plan were eligible. However, what was unique about Washington State was the way it tied some additional requirements to the grant application and its approach to targeting poor districts. The grant program required (a) that districts form consortia with other districts and partners and (b) that 60 percent of all funds be distributed to districts designated as "high need." It was hoped that these two requirements would encourage districts of varying levels of need to partner together, so the wealthier, presumably more advanced, districts could mentor the needier districts.

Altogether, Washington received 30 applications, representing over 100 districts. Within 1 week, six reviewers read each application. The review panel then discussed the top-rated proposals and awarded grants to eight consortia that served over 40 districts. The awards ranged in size from $115,000 to $588,000.

Cross-Case Observations

The U.S. Department of Education distributed TLCF funds to States very expeditiously. The program was announced in October 1996, applications were received and reviewed during the period January to May 1997. In order to distribute TLCF money in the necessary timeframe (see exhibit 2), the U.S. Department of Education recognized that application requirements had to be kept relatively simple. To receive TLCF funds, States were asked to submit a technology plan that included long-term strategies for financing educational technology, the role of businesses and other community agencies in supporting educational technology, and methods for targeting funds to the neediest districts. All case study States had technology plans at the time the TLCF was announced and if these plans included these key elements, applying was, in the words of one State technology coordinator, "a breeze."

Interviews at the State level revealed that, generally, States appreciated the speed with which the U.S. Department of Education awarded the TLCF money. However, the speed with which districts were required to submit applications, implement the program if funded, and confusion regarding the amount of time they had to spend the TLCF funds, posed some difficulties for the school districts visited.

One difficulty was that some districts did not have sufficient time to thoughtfully develop technology plans, according to district and State officials. Federal guidelines required that LEA applications to States had to include "a strategic 3- to 5-year plan that addresses the types of technologies to be acquired, how they will be integrated into the curriculum, collaborative efforts to maximize the use of technology, professional development, existing sources of supporting resources, projected costs, and mechanisms to coordinate all technology funds" (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). Generally, in the States visited, competitions for funds were announced in the spring of 1997 and districts prepared their applications in a matter of weeks. Yet, many of the local school districts did not have technology plans at the time the TLCF was announced. In Illinois, this meant that about 250 districts did not apply for TLCF funds, most likely because they did not have approved technology plans, according to the State coordinator. In other States, this short time period meant that some of the districts that decided to apply to States for funding had to scramble to put together plans.

Some plans reflected this limited time; some were sketchy, superficial, and lacked a long-term vision. In one district visited, for example, a school that had received TLCF funding as part of its district's TLCF sub-grant, shared a list of its projected equipment purchases over the next 2 years. This list, with minimal discussion of the proposed uses of the equipment, or other rationale for the configuration of equipment, comprised the school's technology plan. Officials in Washington State felt that it was unreasonable to require districts to provide a technology plan in the TLCF sub-grant application. Officials in this State said that most districts did not have plans at the time of the announcement, and had to put something together within 6 weeks to meet the proposal deadline. These officials felt that, realistically, technology plans require a good year to develop, and constantly evolve.

In addition to having to apply for funds quickly, districts in the case study States had relatively little time to spend their TLCF funds. In a number of cases, States did not award local TLCF sub-grants until the end of 1997, and many districts were required by their States to complete their projects by the end of the school year, a 5-month period. For some of the larger projects, like the $4.5 million Texas Panhandle Consortium sub-grant, allowing the project to expend this sizeable amount of funds beyond the single school year would have given the project's staff more time to reflect on implementation issues, and make mid-course corrections. This would have been particularly helpful to this sub-grant, which was using new telecommunications technologies to provide teachers in rural areas with professional development regarding technology integration in their classrooms. Because funds were not received until the end of 1997 and the grant began with purchasing and setting up equipment, the professional development itself was planned for a relatively short time frame-6 to 8 weeks. The literature suggests a more extended time frame is needed if the professional development is to be effective (e.g., Stiles, Loucks-Horsley, and Hewson, 1996).

A number of districts visited recognized that their activities could benefit from continued funding. While the Federal government allowed and encouraged multi-year awards, the States visited varied with regard to whether they would allow districts to reapply for funding. In Mississippi, districts that had received TLCF sub-grants in the first-year of funding could not reapply the following year. In all of the other States that were visited, districts that had received funding in the first-year could reapply.

However, the odds that districts would actually apply for and receive second-year funds appeared to be limited because of the timing of the FY98 and FY99 grants, the desire of State coordinators to provide funding to districts that had not yet benefited, and the inconvenience of having to apply for funds a second time. In Texas, for example, because the grants ran on overlapping cycles, some districts that had received awards for FY98 were in the midst of implementing their projects and trying to decide whether to take time and resources away from this process to apply for a continuation of funds. The State coordinator in Texas also indicated that, while districts were free to reapply for second-year funding, they might be considered to need the funds less than applicants who had not yet received funds from the program. In contrast, the State coordinator in Washington felt that districts should be able to receive continuation funding through the TLCF; she felt that it was necessary for districts to receive TLCF funding over a period of longer than 1 year to really show an impact. Consequently, she felt that districts that had received first-year funds and were doing well should not have to compete for a second year of funding.

As discussed earlier, a key purpose of the TLCF program was to enable the States to assist school systems that had the highest numbers or percentages of children in poverty and demonstrated the greatest need for technology. However, needier districts sometimes appeared to be at a disadvantage in the competitive process. Some districts that perhaps needed technology the most did not have technology plans they could take off the shelf, according to State officials. These districts also appeared less likely to have staff knowledgeable and available to develop them. In a number of the case study States, the officials that were interviewed believed that this gave less needy districts an unfair advantage. Indeed, some districts with the resources to do so even hired professional grant writers.

The competitive process appeared to be particularly difficult in cases where LEAs, consisting of individual schools, applied for funds. In a number of rural areas in Texas, for example, many districts consisted of single schools. The district superintendent was also the school principal, and in some cases, a teacher as well. These individuals were often overworked and lacked both the time and energy to put together a winning application for TLCF funds. Individual schools sometimes were required to apply for funds within large urban districts as well. (Note that in these cases the district still applied to the State for funding. School-level application allowed these large districts to identify schools needs for technology). In Chicago, for example, because the city was one of seven Hubs in Illinois, schools competed with one another for TLCF resources. Yet, less than 200 of the city's 557 schools had approved technology plans at the time interviews were conducted; since schools often did not have the expertise to put together a high-quality technology plan or application, they could not take advantage of the TLCF, according to district officials.

Some of these problems could possibly have been ameliorated through technical assistance to sub-grantees. Indeed, most States that were visited provided assistance to local districts in developing technology plans. Mississippi, for example, ran workshops for all districts. State officials also offered to meet one-on-one with district technology coordinators to assist them in writing a technology plan and completing the TLCF application. In Illinois, the seven Hubs were responsible for assisting the districts (or in the case of Chicago, the schools) to write technology plans. It was not possible to ascertain, however, whether this assistance was sufficient to enable districts with minimal resources and experience to apply for funds.

The State of Washington had a unique approach to overcoming needy districts' competitive disadvantage. In that State, districts had to apply as part of a consortium of districts and other partners, with 60 percent of funds going to districts with high needs. This strategy enabled needy districts to receive funds without having to compete directly with less needy districts.

In requiring that funds be awarded competitively within States, the TLCF program set up a tension for State officials. State officials, while they wanted to ensure that students and districts with the greatest need gained access to technology they may not otherwise have had, also wanted to ensure that funds were used wisely and well.

States generally targeted TLCF funds to needy districts by establishing a definition of need, and giving some priority to high-need districts in scoring sub-grant applications. Each of the case study States appeared to have interpreted targeting differently. Thus, the priority placed on need varied across the case study States, as did the manner in which need was defined.

Overall, in the States visited, the measurements used to define need considered both financial need (poverty) and need for technology. The specific ways each of the case study States treated need in awarding TLCF sub-grants is summarized in exhibit 6. The selection of TLCF recipients

EXHIBIT 6
Treatment of Need in Awarding Sub-grants

depended on the priority assigned to need as compared to other criteria in the sub-grant applications. Mississippi and Washington can be found on one end of the continuum. In Mississippi, where the poverty level is one of the highest in the nation and the level of technology infusion among the lowest, targeting funds to districts in need was not a major difficulty or source of debate. In Washington, 60 percent of the TLCF was designated for high-need districts, and future plans indicated that subsequent years' funding would be set aside entirely for this type of district.

On the other end of the continuum are Illinois and Massachusetts. In Illinois, the Department of Education sought an allocation approach that did not rely too heavily on need. In the case of Illinois, TLCF funds were allocated to seven hubs around the State. This enabled funds to be distributed around the State and not just to the Chicago area which, with its depth of poverty and sheer number of students, would otherwise have received the lion's share of the State's $9.1 million allotment. In designing the State TLCF program, Massachusetts divided its allocation into four separate pots of money, only one of which included need as a criterion for award. The overall de-emphasis on need in the State TLCF program was intentional, since the State Department of Education felt that the needy districts were receiving substantial State support through pre-existing reform initiatives.

Texas fell somewhere in between the cases described above. Since districts that were above the statewide poverty median could have received TLCF funds, Texas chose to emphasize the need for technology more than poverty. State officials supported the notion that the most impoverished districts have access to more external resources than less poor districts.

According to several State and district officials, however, the demonstration of poverty, in particular, was not as straightforward a matter as one might think. Some administrators described concerns with the standard use of the "free and reduced price lunch" indicator, suggesting that it could sometimes mask the actual level of poverty-although there was no evidence of the magnitude of this problem. For instance, one district official in Washington noted that many secondary students in his district did not claim the free-lunch benefit, because it was socially embarrassing for them to do so. Some States anticipated this problem and allowed their districts to include narrative descriptions of their particular needs.

Due in part, perhaps, to these tensions and the caveats with which some States addressed the targeting issue, the characteristics of the recipients indicated that a wider variety of districts received TLCF sub-grants than perhaps would have been expected.

Observation 4:

Leadership at the State, district, and school levels was critical to the implementation and operation of the TLCF.

Many different factors influenced the ability of States and districts to implement technology programs in their schools and many factors appeared to determine how smoothly States and school districts were able to apply for TLCF sub-grants and implement them once awarded. How do you explain the difference between two school districts that appeared similar on paper with regard to their poverty status, test scores, and per pupil expenditures, yet the implementation of technology in one of these districts proceeded much more smoothly than in the other? People made the difference!

At the district and school levels, the implementation of the TLCF projects that were observed were often tied to the leadership of those who had written the TLCF sub-grant and who were administering the project at the local level. The commitment of superintendents and principals also influenced implementation. In one district, a superintendent was interviewed who did not use a computer (he did not even have one in his office). In more than one district, district-level technology coordinators also assumed a myriad of other responsibilities; they were the curriculum coordinator, the Title I coordinator, and the Eisenhower coordinator. At the same time, the numbers of computers in the classroom in some of the smaller and poorer school districts rivaled wealthy districts, and their use could have served as models for other classrooms across the nation. These districts tended to have technology coordinators whose primary responsibility was that of administering the technology programs and who were creative in using a variety of grants (e.g., Title I, Eisenhower) to purchase computers and other technology for their schools.

All programs depend upon the people who design, implement, and administer them, but programs as flexible as the TLCF rely even more on leadership. Those sub-grants that appeared to be most successful in implementing their projects were those with some type of leadership-whether it was the superintendent, principal, or technology coordinator-who could look beyond the TLCF award and creatively and energetically think beyond the confines of their schools and districts.

How Were States and Districts Using the TLCF?

The flexibility of the TLCF was perhaps illustrated most clearly when examining the many ways local school districts and schools were using the TLCF sub-grants. The five case study States provided considerable variety in the ways one can think about the use of technology in schools and classrooms: the districts visited were using the TLCF to support new ways of teaching and learning, to reach a wide variety of students, to purchase different kinds of equipment, and to help teachers learn how to use technology effectively.

Observation 5:

The TLCF was being used to support teaching and learning in a variety of different ways.

Districts in the States visited were using the TLCF in a variety of ways to support improved teaching and learning. Projects' activities ranged from providing professional development activities to developing new assessments with technology, from increasing students' access to information resources via Internet connection to supporting the integration of technology into a particular course's curriculum. For instance:

• In Columbia, Mississippi, the TLCF was used to train teachers in the use of portfolio assessment, which would allow students to take an active part in the evaluation of their academic progress. The grant also provided an Internet connection that allowed middle school students to participate in collaborative projects with students in New England-in the spring of 1997, the students were going to take a field trip to meet their cyber-classmates.

• On an Indian reservation in Washington, the TLCF put a variety of hardware and software tools in the hands of a special education teacher for use with her 30 special education students to improve their writing and communication skills. One notable aspect of the grant was allowing students to "check-out" portable computers for use at home, the efficiency of which inspired many students to complete more schoolwork outside the classroom.

• In Western Massachusetts, the TLCF was used to support an Internet Academy, required for every eighth-grade student, which taught about networks and how to navigate the Internet. This approach was an attempt to ensure that all students would have the skills necessary to take advantage of the resources of the Information Superhighway.

• In Texas, the TLCF was used in one district to provide intensive professional development on the integration of technology into the curriculum during "Summer Institutes." The grant also provided for ongoing support-the often-forgotten piece of professional development-throughout the school year.

• In a rural district in Illinois, the TLCF was used to support a hands-on science project in which students used portable, durable Apple E-mates and attachments to study local water quality.

This variety in the ways States were using the TLCF reflects the spirit of the program. The TLCF was designed to help States implement their technology plans. The educational and technology needs of States varied, and this was reflected in State technology plans and in the uses of the TLCF.

Observation 6:

The TLCF was being tailored to specific groups of students within districts.

Just as the States were targeting the TLCF sub-grants to districts within their States, the districts themselves were targeting their sub-grants to specific groups of students. Rarely did a district use its TLCF award to provide technology to all of its students. Some of the ways districts tailored their awards to specific students include:

• In Clarksdale, Mississippi, the TLCF award was being used to provide hardware and software to kindergarten and special education students.

• A consortium in Washington State also provided technology to special education students in three districts (see box below).

• In a school in Massachusetts, funds were used to help provide resources for deaf and hard of hearing students.

• TLCF money was targeted to students in grades 4-6 in Columbia, Mississippi, so that they could use multimedia technology to develop portfolios.

• In a small district in Washington, the TLCF was used to support social studies students in selected classrooms, through the purchase of multimedia presentation stations.

• In Hudson, Massachusetts, the TLCF was used to support teacher professional development relative to the Virtual High School program, targeting high school students in Hudson and across the country. This program provided many students with access to a full array of advanced courses that would not otherwise be available.

• In Texas, the TLCF was used to connect one elementary school to the school system's LAN.

Perhaps most pertinent, classrooms and schools were observed that had never had a computer or other modern technology until the TLCF came along. Students were thus given access to technology that they had never had before. Not surprisingly, they approached the new hardware and software enthusiastically, sometimes more so than their teachers who did not always have time to be trained.

Observation 7:

The TLCF was supporting a broad range of professional development efforts.

All States and districts that were visited were using some of their TLCF award to support professional development for teachers. In Mississippi, sub-grant applicants were required to allocate 20 percent of the funding to teacher training. In Illinois, no less than 25 percent of the allocation was to be dedicated to professional development. The competition in Massachusetts included two specific programs that focused on professional development: a need-based professional development grant that supported professional development for teachers and administrators, particularly those who were in school districts that had high percentages of students in poverty and need for technology; and a technology leader sabbatical that identified two educators to serve a 1-year sabbatical as statewide technology leaders to work with other teachers and administrators.

In addition, some States had developed statewide professional development programs that districts could use. In Mississippi, for example, "Teaching and Learning with Technology" was a professional development sequence that consisted of the following phases:

• Phase I: beginning level technology training for teachers who were "mouse illiterate." The workshops were conducted by expert teachers, and were held monthly throughout the State. At the time of AIR's visit to speak with State officials (late August 1997), 90 percent of the school districts had participated in the 4-day workshop, with teachers earning 2.4 continuing education unit (CEU) credits.

• Phase II: focused on topics such as multimedia, telecommunications, troubleshooting, and presentation tools. After completing the 5-day workshop, teachers earned three CEU credits and were believed to have the skills necessary to integrate technology into their classroom curricula.

• Phase III: the expert or "techie" level of training. This training provided in-depth, hands-on instruction in the design, installation, and configuration of Novell Networks. Participants earned eight CEU credits and had the opportunity to become Certified Novell Administrators.

In one of the districts visited in Mississippi, the State training program was considered too basic and the district provided its own training to teachers. In another district in the same State, teachers found themselves with computers for the first time and although the State training program was made available, many teachers had not yet participated.

Professional development in the Texas panhandle provided an interesting illustration of how technology itself could be used to deliver professional development. The Panhandle Consortium, comprising 34 districts in Texas' Education Service Center's Region XVI and headquartered in Amarillo, used its TLCF award to set up 15 videoconferencing sites for bringing professional development to this geographically vast region. The TLCF award allowed the Consortium to purchase the videoconferencing technology and laptops, as well as a professional development program for core teams of teachers from the participating districts that focused on the integration of technology into the curriculum.

In one district in Western Massachusetts, TLCF funds were used to support two professional development conferences related to the use of technology. Specifically, the Fund allowed technology leaders in the district to develop, market, and provide personnel and supplies for the two courses, which drew teachers both from within the district and from other districts in the State.

Observation 8:

The TLCF was being used to purchase a wide range of hardware and software.

In many districts, the TLCF was used to purchase hardware and software:

• In Washington, the grant purchased multimedia stations with oversized monitors that could be viewed by an entire classroom of students.

• In both Washington and Illinois, districts purchased Apple E-mates (durable, portable computers) that could be used by students in their homes, in any classroom, or for field work outside the classroom.

• In Mississippi, the TLCF allowed one district to purchase software designed specifically for pre-school and kindergarten students.

• In Washington, a variety of assistive technologies, such as voice-recognition software, was purchased with support from the TLCF.

• In districts in Mississippi and Texas, the TLCF supported schools in purchasing equipment necessary to connect to the Internet.

• In Texas, videoconferencing equipment and laptop computers were purchased for use by teachers in 34 districts.

• In Northeast Mississippi, the TLCF purchased multimedia carts, printers, and televisions for use with lower elementary school students.

How Did TLCF Activities Relate to Other Technology and Reform Efforts?

The TLCF does not operate in a vacuum, but rather is embedded in a variety of national, State, and local technology and reform efforts. The TLCF is one of many educational reform efforts that can also support technology. Furthermore, the non-regulatory guidance explicitly describes how technology can assist in school reform efforts. Proponents of technology rarely advocate that technology is an end in and of itself. The promise of technology's use in education lies in its potential to provide opportunities for students which they could not have without technology, to teach students technology skills that they will need in the workforce, and to improve basic academic skills. Thus, the success or failure of the TLCF will very much depend on its relationship to other technology and reform efforts.

Observation 9:

The TLCF appeared to function best when implemented in the context of other technology programs.

The relative contribution of the TLCF can only best be understood when examined alongside other technology programs. In the case study States, the number and size of existing technology initiatives varied widely. In some States, the amount of TLCF funding represented a small portion of the total amount spent on technology. Indeed, one State technology coordinator described the financial contribution of the TLCF as "a drop in the bucket." In other cases, the TLCF was a primary source of technology funding. As an example, in Washington State, the TLCF was a small, but important part of technology funding, as it was one of the only grants that did not require districts to match funds. In Mississippi, local funding sources were scarce; thus the TLCF played a major role in some districts, introducing computers to schools and students for the first time. In Texas, the TLCF was relatively small compared to technology spending overall, but the State's decision to award a small number of large sub-grants resulted in major impacts in those districts receiving awards. Exhibit 7 presents some of the ongoing technology initiatives in the five case study States.

Many States were using TLCF funds to supplement ongoing technology projects. Hudson, Massachusetts received a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant to establish the Virtual High School, an online project that offered 29 different courses that students across the country could take. Hudson also received a TLCF sub-grant from the State to provide professional development to its teachers. In several of the sites in Texas, the TLCF awards operated alongside money from the State Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. Indeed, the two sources of funding worked so closely together that at times computers were purchased with one funding source and a component within it was purchased from the other.

Observation 10:

Other non-technology programs can also support technology needs.

There are many ways to fund technology needs that go well beyond Federal and local technology initiatives. Indeed, impressive amounts and uses of technology were observed in several relatively poor school districts. Creative technology coordinators used resources from a number of different programs to amass computers and other materials for their schools. In Columbia, Mississippi, for example, funds from a variety of Federal programs were pooled to provide four to six computers per classroom in a middle school. In the State of Washington, a school on an Indian reservation used resources from Federal Impact Aid, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Title I to fund a computer lab as well as provide computers in its classrooms. Also in Washington, Clarkston cited considerable support not only from the State, but also from the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Goals 2000, Title VI, and Title I. The intent of the TLCF is not to be the sole, or even primary, source of funds for educational technology. At least in the five States visited, the use of the TLCF appeared to be well coordinated with other possible sources of funding.

Observation 11:

The TLCF is best understood within the context of State and districtwide reform efforts.

Technology is not an end in and of itself, but rather a means to improve teaching and learning. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in situations where technology was well integrated into local school reform efforts.

In Illinois, a primary criterion for sub-grant funding was demonstration of "engaged learning." According to State documents, students are engaged learners when they are (1) responsible for their own learning; (2) energized by learning; (3) strategic learners; and (4) collaborative learners. The State used the TLCF to promote its belief in this learning philosophy. In Christopher, students selected research topics focusing on the community and used technology and community resources to complete the project. Using the Internet, they discovered considerable information about Christopher and the surrounding towns. They also interviewed community members and called a town meeting as part of the project.

EXHIBIT 7

Technology Initiatives of Case Study States

Los Fresnos, Texas, located in the Rio Grande Valley about 15 miles from the United States-Mexican border, implemented a number of reform initiatives in an attempt to improve student learning. The ultimate goal was to increase scores on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) and between 1993-94 and 1996-97, the percentages of students passing in reading, mathematics, and writing increased dramatically. A large TLCF sub-grant ($644,442) to Resaca Middle School supported a number of reform-related activities, that included acquiring hardware and software to assist students in improving their basic skills; developing a parent computer center that would both assist parents in obtaining the GED and job skills, as well as get them involved in their children's education; providing professional development for teachers; hiring a full-time technology facilitator; and connecting with wide area networks for purposes of accessing information, particularly from institutions of higher education.

Columbia, Mississippi is another example where TLCF funds supported a reform effort. Funds were directed to specific activities within the larger reform agenda, including training teachers to integrate technology into the curriculum and promoting the use of portfolio assessment. A town of about 11,000 in southeast Mississippi, Columbia developed a technology plan in 1995. Focusing on integrating the Internet and multimedia presentation tools into the curriculum, the plan consisted of three phases: (1) creating local area networks (LANs) in each of Columbia's schools; (2) creating multimedia computer labs in each of the elementary schools and in the libraries of the middle and high schools; and (3) establishing a districtwide network. The TLCF funds were being used to accomplish two main goals: training teachers in grades 4 through 6 to utilize multimedia technology and portfolio assessment to create and develop curriculum that fosters student growth and development; and assisting teachers in creating a technology portfolio using multimedia technology.

Introduction

Conclusions