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

Introduction

In February 1996, President Clinton announced a new technology initiative, the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF). Authorized in Title III, Part A, Subpart 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Improving America's School Act (IASA) of 1994, the TLCF is the U.S. Department of Education's largest, single investment dedicated specifically to increasing the effective use of technology in elementary and secondary education, particularly for those communities with high-levels of poverty or with the greatest need for technology. In 1997, the first year of operation of the TLCF, this formula grant program provided $200 million to all States, territories, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Resources provided by the program are intended to serve as a catalyst to encourage States and a number of other parties-local communities, companies, universities, and others-to work together toward fully integrating technology into the curriculum and improving teaching and learning.

President Clinton articulated four national technology goals, or pillars, upon which the Technology Literacy Challenge is based. This challenge encompasses the TLCF, as well as the Technology Innovation Challenge Grant (TICG) program, an initiative that invites school districts, institutions of higher education, and private businesses to develop partnerships to foster innovative ways to use technology in schools. The four pillars upon which the TLCF and TICG programs are founded are:

• All teachers will have the training and support they need to help all students learn through computers and through the information superhighway;

• All teachers and students will have modern computers in their classrooms;

• Every classroom will be connected to the information superhighway; and

• Effective and engaging software and online resources will be an integral part of every school curriculum.

In December 1996, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) funded a formative evaluation of the first-year implementation of the TLCF. The purpose of the evaluation was to provide information to program managers and policymakers about how the TLCF was operating in its early stages. This report describes findings from a major component of this effort-case studies of five States' early experiences in operating the program. Based upon observations in these States and a select number of districts within each of them, this report describes (a) the initial implementation of the TLCF in these States and districts, focusing on how these States and districts were designing TLCF-funded activities and distributing funds to local school districts; (b) the types of activities the TLCF was supporting; and (c) the relationship between the TLCF and other technology and education initiatives.¹ In addition, this report examines a number of emerging issues that could shape the future of the TLCF and other efforts to bring technology into America's schools and classrooms.

The TLCF in Context

Reflections on American education in the 1990s will certainly recognize the rapid growth in the use of technology in the classroom. In fact, between the 1991-92 and 1996-97 academic years, schools' inventories of computers grew 186 percent, with an additional 1.2 million computers added in 1996-97 alone (MDR, 1997). In addition, in 1996-97, there were an estimated 6.3 million computers in virtually 100 percent of the nation's schools (MDR, 1997); in 1998, 89 percent of schools maintained connections to the Internet (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Yet, the integration of technology into teaching and learning is far from complete. A large proportion (two-thirds) of computers in schools and classrooms are not multimedia-compatible and thus only have limited capabilities to run new software and to take full advantage of resources, such as those offered through the Internet (MDR, 1997). Although the percentage of classrooms with Internet connections has been increasing dramatically, from 3 percent of all classrooms in 1994 to 51 percent in 1998, the percentage of classrooms linked to the Internet is considerably lower than the percentage of schools (U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

Many policymakers and researchers applaud this burgeoning expansion of technology applications in the nation's classrooms, because they believe that students will benefit. Researchers have documented that technology, when properly used, can facilitate the acquisition of basic and advanced skills in core academic subjects; provide opportunities for authentic learning experiences with access to experts, resources, and information beyond the classroom; can increase students' connections to life beyond the classroom and to the world of work; and can address the needs of all students by accommodating individual differences (Levin, Stephens, Kirshstein, and Birman, 1998; Means and Olson, 1997). While many believe that computers-and other technologies-will improve schooling, others are skeptical of this assertion (e.g., Noble, 1997; Oppenheimer, 1997; Stolls, 1995). Nonetheless, there is a growing consensus that technology has become so embedded in society and the workplace that students who do not have access to the latest technologies will be at a distinct disadvantage.

Concern over this possible disadvantage, sometimes referred to as the "digital divide," lies at the heart of the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund². No single program can be expected to fill all of the identified needs for technology; the $200 million that the TLCF provided in fiscal year (FY) 1997 represented an extremely small proportion of even the lowest dollar estimates for providing an optimal level of technology in American schools³. Recognition of the enormity of the need for technology, as well as the inequities in the current distribution of technology in American schools, homes, and communities, is reflected in a number of the TLCF's key provisions. The program emphasizes using the award "to leverage additional support from business and industry and other public and private entities, including museums, libraries, and institutions of higher education to use technology to improve America's schools" (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). Furthermore, the non-regulatory guidance for the TLCF explicitly states that a "key purpose of the program is to enable 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). The TLCF's dual emphasis on leveraging other resources and targeting funds to school districts with the greatest need, recognizes both the relatively limited resources the TLCF represents in relation to overall technology needs and the concern over issues of equity with regard to the availability and use of technology in the nation's schools.

Key Features of the TLCF

The TLCF is a formula grant program that provides money to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the territories, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to accelerate the implementation of statewide technology plans. Funds are allocated to States proportionate to their share under Part A of Title I of ESEA-that is, proportionate to size and poverty level-but with a minimum allocation to any State of one-half of one percent of the amount appropriated. Additionally, one-half of one percent is distributed to the territories and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Although all States are eligible to receive TLCF money, States must meet certain requirements and, in turn, local education agencies (LEAs) within the States must comply with certain guidelines to obtain funds.

State plans and applications were reviewed and approved on a rolling basis through a collegial peer review process established by ED that involved State technology coordinators and other experts in the review process. Review criteria included State progress in addressing the national technology goals, as well as financing strategies, targeting of resources, and quality of plans to distribute resources to LEAs. Feedback to each State on its plan and application was provided through this process. Upon award of a grant, each State distributed sub-grants to LEAs on a competitive basis; these sub-grants were required to be of a sufficient duration, size, scope, and quality to carry out the purposes of the program.

Exhibit 2 presents the timeline for implementing the TLCF in its first year of operation.

Requirements of LEAs. Section 3135 of the authorizing legislation also required that LEAs applying for sub-grants meet a number of criteria (see exhibit 3).

Exhibit 1

Requirements for State TLCF Grant Applications

Source: Public Law 103-382, Section 3133. State Application.

Flexibility of requirements. Beyond these requirements, TLCF guidelines provided States and the LEAs with considerable flexibility in implementing the program. Distribution of funds to States and from the States to local districts was very much dependent on the technology plans that each participating State and LEA developed, presumably to address its unique context and needs. Money was awarded to States based on a formula that considered both size and poverty, and States, in turn, were asked to consider the poverty and technology needs of LEAs in awarding sub-grants. Even these guidelines for awarding sub-grants could be interpreted differently from State to State.

Exhibit 2

Timeline for Implementing the First Year of the TLCF

Furthermore, TLCF guidelines allowed funds to be used for a wide range of purposes. The program's non-regulatory guidance summarizes the legislation by citing five major purposes: (1) applying technology to support school reform; (2) acquiring hardware and software to improve student learning; (3) acquiring connections to telecommunication networks to obtain access to resources and services; (4) providing ongoing professional development in the integration of technology into improvements of the school curriculum; and (5) providing better educational services for adults and families (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). As long as TLCF funds were used consistently with State and local plans, funds could indeed support a very broad range of purchases and activities.

Evaluating the First-Year Implementation of the TLCF

In December 1996, the U.S. Department of Education funded the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to conduct a formative evaluation of the first-year implementation of the TLCF. Funded before States even submitted their applications to receive TLCF support, the evaluation was designed to provide the U.S. Department of Education, Congress, and State education agency technology coordinators with valuable information that could help program managers and policy makers. The evaluation launched a number of efforts to summarize and collect information about States' experiences implementing the TLCF, the nation's and each of the State's progress toward achieving the four national technology goals, and the impact of technology on education in general. In addition, the evaluation was intended to assist States and local school districts to evaluate the use of technology in their own schools.

Exhibit 3

Requirements for LEA TLCF Sub-Grant Applications

Source: Public Law 103-382, Section 3135. Local Application.

In addition to the national evaluation of the program, States and districts that received State TLCF awards were asked to evaluate their initiatives. At the time of AIR's site visits, both to the States and to the districts, very little was planned or underway with regard to local evaluations that would measure the projects' impacts on students.

This report summarizes a key element of the formative evaluation: case studies of the experiences of five States as they implemented the TLCF. During intensive visits to States at two points in time, AIR staff interviewed a host of individuals involved in implementing the TLCF in their States and schools, reviewed State technology plans, as well as those of local school districts, and observed teachers and students using technology in their teaching and learning. States selected as case study sites varied in their location, size, minority population, and poverty levels. In addition, States varied in their stages of using technology in their schools. Exhibit 4 presents an overview of these five States-Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Texas, and Washington.

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.

Endnotes

¹ Observations in this report are from a limited number of States and should not be generalized to all States.

² Although classroom access to the Internet has been increasing for both low- and high-poverty schools, the digital divide remains. In 1998, 62 percent of classrooms had Internet access in low-poverty schools (where less than 11 percent of students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch), compared to 39 percent of classrooms in high poverty schools (where 71 percent or more of students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch) (NCES, 1999).

³ Several groups have attempted to estimate what it would cost to provide instructional technology at some optimal level. These estimates, using varying assumptions, range from $6 to $28 billion per year (PCAST, 1997).

[Preface]

[Case Study Findings]