How Can School Systems Receive More Money for Technology Funding?

While speaking with a technology and social studies teacher, several ideas were discussed that educators embrace and struggle with regarding technology. First, it is important to understand the background of this teacher. She graduated at the end of the fall 2007 semester with a bachelor’s degree in secondary education, social sciences, not computers or technology. After interviewing for a position, she was offered a different job: technology teacher for a semester as an emergency hire. The lack of technology educators and coordinators proved to be one of many issues with technology in schools today. Because many schools lack trained technology teachers, students are not receiving as much technology training as possible. Also, we discussed how many classrooms lack the resources to operate a proper technological classroom of the twenty-first century. Often classrooms are left with out-of-date or damaged technological equipment. Several classrooms in her school lack a VCR or DVD player, or even a television. Also, this teacher discussed that because much of the resources are out-of-date, the students are suffering later in their schooling. At school, the students operate Microsoft Word 2003 for creating documents, while all the University of Alabama’s computers use Microsoft Word 2007. This setback is a disadvantage because students planning to attend the University will have to learn to use the 2007 program while other UA students already have this knowledge. This learning curve makes the transition from high school to college or a work environment more challenging because students have not been properly trained with the most current forms of technology.
In the article “Make It Stretch,” Rama Ramaswami (2008) challenges school systems to take full advantage of their financial resources to promote technological uses. Although educators and legislators declare that technology is essential in 21st century education, the funding continues to be cut. “According to the 2008 ‘National Trends’ report from the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA; www.setda.org), funding through the No Child Left Behind Act plunged 45 percent--from $461 million to $253 million--between fiscal years 2005 and 2006.” (Ramaswami, 2008) Most states use money from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to fund their educational technology, so school systems have suffered as more cuts have been made. Schools systems have to take the initiative to use these financial resources and extend them as far as possible. Many school systems, such as Idaho’s Fremont Joint School District 215, are creating programs so they can make the most of the funding they receive on both state and federal levels. The majority of the money they receive is allocated for networking, buying only a few new computers each year. This school system has teaming up with a low-cost virtualization software company, NComputing, which enables several students to share one computer simultaneously. In Pennsylvania, Gerry Balbier, the vice president of Apangea Learning and developer of SmartHelp, has been helping local school systems, too. His company works with schools to obtain state and federal grants, and then they will match the grant. As the schools succeed with new programs, Apangea turns over the financial responsibilities to the school system. As federal funding deteriorates, schools like in Idaho and Pennsylvania must investigate similar financial opportunities to enhance their technological resources.
“10 Technology Funding Sources in NCLB” by Charles Blasche (2003) offers suggestions for how school systems can use NCLB to fund the purchases of technology to meet NCLB standards. While the implementation of NCLB does not require technology, it is almost impossible to execute these provisions without using technology. First, technology-based instruction resources have been proven successful to improve student achievement in both math and reading. Studies have found that integrated learning systems have formed significant academic increases, especially in math, science, and reading. Second, school systems have to align their curriculum to correlate with state assessments and standards. Using technology can assist with better technology based alignment and teacher monitoring resources. This cannot be done easily without computer assistance. Third, diagnosis, prescription, and intervention are essential to cover the requirements for Title I. Intervention strategies have increased the need for an instructional management system. Funding can be used for both the systems and teacher training. Fourth, computer based testing is important for creating accommodations for special needs students. Computers can help integrate all the requirements to report data. Fifth, NCLB technology funding can be used for administrative tracking, reporting, and data activities. Title I money has not been allowed for these purchases in the past. Sixth, this funding can relieve many of the unintentional negative Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) penalties. Data tracking programs could eliminate these errors. Seventh, NCLB has focused on school-parent contact, so technology funding can be used for such things as student and school report cards, e-mail, web sites, and proper telephone equipment. Eighth, supplying proper training for aides and teachers to make sure they are highly qualified can promote technological funding. Professional development opportunities can be offered through the Internet to give information and mentoring. Ninth, NCLB allows that up to fifty percent of funds may be transferred to any title as long as the funding is tracked and reported, which can be difficult without a proper technology program. Finally, the tenth prospective way to gain access to NCLB funds is to use the funding for The Individual Disabilities and Education Act (IDEA). Purchasing technology programs for non-special education students can fall into this funding. Overall, taking advantages of these ten opportunities to meet NCLB standards can increase technological funding in school systems around the country.
As the funding for technological resources continues to decrease, there are ways for school systems to gain access to additional finances. As suggested by “Make it Stretch,” many school systems around the country are finding alternate ways to increase their technological funding, such as through private companies and federal or state grants. Also, taking advantage of the ten points offered in “10 Technology Funding Sources in NCLB” can allow students to receive more money.
 
References
Blaschke, C. (2003). 10 technology funding sources in NCLB. T H E Journal, 30(10), 22. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.libdata.lib.ua.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9927679&site=ehost-live

Ramaswami, R. (2008). Make it stretch. T H E Journal, 35(8), 32-33. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.libdata.lib.ua.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ809950&site=ehost-live; http://www.thejournal.com/the/magazine/archives/viewissue/?issdate=8%2f1%2f2008