Education today is about meeting students’ short-term needs while preparing them for the long term. School leaders must not only ensure they are preparing students for standards-based testing, advancement and higher education admittance, but must also equip them with the critical skills they will need to thrive in a con-stantly evolving workforce.

Technology is an enabler. The Converge Special Report on Classroom Technologies, which accompanies this Education Funding Report, highlights the technologies being integrated into classrooms around the country to tend to students’ short-term and long-term needs. The Special Report focuses on those classroom technologies that enable teachers to more effectively engage student interest, develop lifelong learning skills, deliver content relevant for each student and efficiently assess student understanding. These classroom technologies are identified in Figure 1 on the following page, grouped according to their functions.

The Special Report also details the state of techno-logical adoption. Despite diverse classroom technologies becoming widely adopted throughout educational systems, leveraging funding streams to optimize the learning environment remains a challenging endeavor.

That’s where this Education Funding Report comes in. We’ll explore various sources and mechanisms campuses can utilize to fund their classroom technology initia-tives — including federal, state and local government funding streams, bonds, taxes, alumni giving, direct budget allocations, donations and fundraising.

But first, a word about the importance of planning. Classroom technologies are often thought of as a magic bullet or cure-all that can be placed into a classroom and immediately have a positive impact on test scores,

student involvement and teacher effectiveness. However, the truth is that it’s just not that easy.

As stated in the Special Report, we must remember that technologies are only tools that can enable improved educational outcomes under the right circumstances. It is important that campuses strategically plan their technology and curriculum goals and have a clear understanding of educational outcomes.

Importance of StrategIc plannIngWhen crafting a budget for information technology,

campuses seek and receive funds from a wide array of sources. Additionally, campuses may elect to charge service fees, raise tuition or dip into available trust funds. Oftentimes, campuses will use a combination of funding streams to procure technology. By doing so, campuses are able to move ahead with technology plans and initiate their projects sooner.

Q2 - 2010

center for d ig i tal educat ion ’ s

Education Funding Report

While it is well known that there are significant advantages to using information technology for pro-viding services and tools to students, strategic plans are a critical component of determining specific needs and connecting technology with the desired educational outcomes.

The importance of strategic IT planning is demon-strated by the fact that an overwhelming 81 percent of respondents to the Center for Digital Education’s Digital School Districts and Digital Community Colleges survey have strategic IT plans in place. Additionally, 8 percent of respondents are currently developing their plans; only 11 percent still do not have a plan in place.

Decision-making during the strategic planning process can involve input from numerous constituents from the campus to ensure that everyone’s needs and outcomes are achieved. Oftentimes, a campus will set up a planning committee that is convened to evaluate and prioritize the IT needs of the campus. The decision-makers involved in this process can include faculty, chief

information officers, technology coordinators, campus executives, students and members of the general public.

As part of the overall planning process, technology should not only be viewed as back-end office solutions and systems, but as a tool that should be integrated into the development of curriculum, teaching, learn-ing and decision-making. Additionally, numerous funding streams require that schools have a formal technology plan in effect to qualify for funding.

The strategic planning process enables schools to identify needs, problems and potential opportunities. This process puts the data into the hands of the deci-sion-makers so that they can make informed decisions about which IT solutions align to educational pro-grams and outcomes. Once they have defined their IT solutions, campuses ensure that they have dedicated resources for professional development and training to achieve the desired outcomes.

Strategic planning also helps address the total costs of maintaining and operating technology. Classroom

computer technologIeS

Desktops

Virtualized Desktops

Laptops

1-to-1 Initiatives

Tablets

Netbooks

Printers

2 E d u c at i o n F u n d i n g | Q 2 - 2 0 1 0

fIgure 1: claSSroom technologIeS

handheldS

E-Readers

Mobile Devices

Calculators

Portable Media Devices

audIo/VISual

Displays

Interactive Whiteboards and Software

Wireless Slates

Interactive Pens

Projectors

TVs and Monitors

Video and Lecture Capture

Sound Enhancement

Videoconferencing

aSSeSSment

Student Response Systems

Scanners

Multi-Function Printers

Plagiarism Software

lab technologIeS

Scientific Devices

Math and Technology

Gaming

Virtual Labs

Wet Labs

Language Labs

collaboratIon toolS

learnIng management SyStemS

technology expenditures can result in capital costs for things such as hardware, and operational costs dedicated to staffing, training and license fees. It is essential that strategic plans address the total cost of ownership and ensure sustainability by accounting for future maintenance, upgrades and replacements.

Given the high level of scrutiny on public spending tied to performance, strategic plans must also include a justification or business case that links these tech-nology investments to the desired student educational outcomes. Stakeholders are seeking data on mile-stones met, metrics achieved and positive outcomes to justify investments. Moving forward, we can expect greater demands from the public as well as the govern-ment to be held accountable for meeting educational outcomes through the use of taxpayer dollars.

federal goVernmentThe federal government is a primary source of

funding to K-12 schools in the purchase of classroom technologies and the Department of Education awards billions of dollars to state and local education agen-cies through either a competitive or formula grant process. The federal government recently showed a strong commitment to reforming education with the release of a draft version of the National Education Technology Plan (NETP), which outlines steps to transform education by leveraging technology on a greater scale. A breakdown of key funding streams is listed below.

Federal Education Technology FundingSince 1994, K-12 campuses have benefited from the

Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT)

program, which has provided direct federal funding for technology. President Obama’s proposed Fiscal Year 2011 budget recommends dismantling EETT and integrating technology funding into a much broader program titled “Effective Teaching and Learning for a Complete Education.”2 According to the White House, this new program is expected to enable the infusion of technology across a wider range of programs.

Title I Within the plan, $14.5 billion is proposed for Title I

funding that assists local education agencies that have a high number of low-income students to ensure all children have equal opportunities to a high-quality education.

Race to the TopIn addition to the $4.35 billion in funding as part

of the Stimulus package, the 2011 budget proposal in-cludes a $1.35 billion increase to the Race to the Top program that would flow directly to local schools and fund various aspects of improving assessments, data systems and teacher effectiveness.

3c E n t E r F o r d i g i ta l E d u c at i o n

fIgure 2: eStablIShment of It StrategIc planS

“thE collEgE utilizEs gEnEral Funds and tEchnology FEEs to Fund most oF thE it initiativEs. thEsE arE EmbEddEd in our budgEt dEvElopmEnt procEss and thE planning is also part oF thE collEgE-widE plans.”1 dick hamann, sEminolE statE collEgE

Yes No In Development

4 E d u c at i o n F u n d i n g | Q 2 - 2 0 1 0

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)The Individuals with Disabilities Act is projected to

benefit from a funding increase and total $11.75 bil-lion. This funding stream ensures a service to children with disabilities and governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special educa-tion and related services to children with disabilities. Funds can be used to provide assistive technologies to students with disabilities.

Investing in Innovation (i3) In the 2011 proposed budget, $500 million in fund-

ing has been proposed for the Investing in Innovation Fund, which provides grants to school districts and

nonprofit organizations to support the development of innovative approaches in education. The grants have three buckets, including:•developmentgrantswhichsupportnewideasthat

are worth studying;•validationgrantswhichsupportideasthathave

shown results; and•scale-upgrantswhichsupportexistingprograms

that are worth expanding.

Effective Teaching and Learning for a Complete Education

A new $1 billion program is being proposed that aims to support college and career readiness standards,

K-12 SchoolS SeeKIng claSSroom technologIeS

12

10

4

5

6

7

1. oostburg school district, Wisc.: computers for 2010-11

2. Michigan Public schools, Mich.: district-Wide Printers

3. tyrrell county school district, n.c.: laptops and carts

4. asheville city schools, n.c.: interactive Boards & a/V equipment

5. Boulder Valley Public schools, colo.: computer equipment

6. texas education agency, texas: digital audio textbooks

7. ravenswood city school district, calif.: student laptops

8. Wicomico county Board of education, Md.: audio Visual equipment

9. anchorage school district, alaska: individual education Plan software

10. colorado department of education, colo.: data Management system for special education

11. san francisco unified school district, calif.: interactive Whiteboards

Source: Center for Digital Education (2010)

3

9

118

5c E n t E r F o r d i g i ta l E d u c at i o n

which will use technology to deliver high-quality con-tent. This program will focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and literacy. According to the proposal, investments could include online curriculum development and innovative uses of technology for teaching and learning.

E-RateE-Rate is the largest single funding source for IT

in K-12 education in the United States. This funding stream provides $2.25 billion annually to support connectivity in the classroom and public libraries. This program is administered by the Federal Com-munications Commission and is funded from fees collected on telecommunications bills so it is not subject to the annual federal budgeting process.

Outside of the Department of Education, several other federal agencies provide funding that impacts educa-tion, such as the Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Labor, the National Science Foundation, Centers for Disease Control and NASA. Each agency funds grants that align to their mission statements, however they do result in opportunities for broadband, networks, scientific tools, laboratories and classroom infrastructure.

Given the federal government’s commitment to transform education and meet the needs of the global economy, we can expect technology to play a larger role in the various funding streams that flow down to campuses in the future.

State and local goVernment Outside of the federal government, each state De-

partment of Education has a variety of grant opportu-nities available to schools and school districts. States also have taken steps to streamline procurement by enabling campuses to leverage their statewide tech-nology contracting vehicles and drive down overall costs on hardware, software and services.

Bonds/TaxesCampuses can utilize bonds or tax increases to

deploy large-scale modernizations that are strict-ly technology related — such as a networking/

telecommunications deployment — or that are tied to the construction of campus buildings. As an example, Los Rios Community College in Sacra-mento, Calif., was awarded $475 million in fund-ing through a general obligation bond in late 2008. Typically, bonds are funded through an increase on the amount homeowners pay on their assessment property values. This bond measure was dedicated to classroom and facility improvements, including upgrading the high-tech and health career training facilities, adding academic and vocational courses and breaking ground on new construction. The district has been able to successfully use bonds to embark on an aggressive plan that has resulted in several new large-scale buildings with technology being a key component.

Similarly, voters in New Mexico passed a $616 million school improvement plan in February. The effort in New Mexico passed with no new tax in-creases, only the continuance of current tax rates. The main focus of this plan is to renew, refurbish and rebuild old schools and invest over $148 million in educational and instructional technology. The passage of the bond will stimulate the local econ-omy by creating jobs and improving educational facilities.3

The use of bonds depends on the political and fis-cal climate of each community. However, an impor-tant thing to note is that the American Recovery

6 E d u c at i o n F u n d i n g | Q 2 - 2 0 1 0

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 created a new category of Qualified School Construction Bonds available to schools that may make it easier to gain the public’s approval. The ARRA allocated $11 billion available this year for non-interest bearing bonds that may cost the taxpayer less than traditional bonds.

Forest Grove School District in Oregon has pro-posed a $65 million bond measure to be added to the ballot attempting to take advantage of the new bond framework. The bond will be used for various expansions and remodels to buildings and includes

$670,000 in technology funding for initiatives such as wireless audio-visual solutions.4

It is important to note that while bonds are a very powerful funding stream that can be used for class-room technologies, they may not address long-term operational and capital expenses associated with some technology solutions. Additionally, given the economic climate, districts may find it more dif-ficult to obtain voter support for bond measures as the public faces greater personal financial stress and may not vote in favor of tax increases.

hIgher educatIon InStItutIonS SeeKIng campuS technologIeS

1

23

4

5

1. university of Minnesota, Minn.: Voice recognition software

2. Kingsborough community college, n.Y.: Projectors and interactive Whiteboards

3. community college of rhode island, r.i.: Multimedia Presentation system

4. Baltimore city college, Md.: online tutoring service

5. university of alabama, ala.: audio Visual equipment

6. texas state technical college system, texas: Performance Management software

7. durham technical community college, n.c.: audio Visual equipment and supplies

8. Ventura county community college district, calif.: audio Visual system

9. auraria Higher education center, colo.: interactive Whiteboards

6

7

8

9

campuS-leVelCampuses have also taken a hands-on approach to

funding their technology deployments by raising their own funds through sources such as bake-offs, events, sponsorships, partnerships and alumni-giving.

FundraisingCampuses can launch their own fundraising cam-

paigns to gather the funding needed to purchase classroom technologies. This is a method that comes with many challenges and relies on a coordinated approach and dedicated staffing to pursue fundrais-ing opportunities. Higher education campuses such as Missouri University for Science and Technol-ogy typically have more success in their fundraising activities. Missouri S&T launched a fundraising cam-paign in July 2003 to raise $200 million to improve its facilities and strengthen the research facilities. To date, the university has exceeded its $200 million goal.5

Other public and private entities have also helped schools implement education technology. Businesses, foundations, universities and other organizations have provided financial assistance or contributed expertise, shared resources, or donated equipment to support schools’ education technology needs.

Recently, a dozen foundations grouped together to provide over $500 million for education, matching federal government grants meant to spur innovation. A portion of the money is for a matching fund for the federal Investing in Innovation fund mentioned earlier in this report. School districts could apply for matching funds from all of the foundations through an Internet portal.6

Campuses may also seek out corporate sponsor-ships and/or private foundations for funding. Several technology companies sponsor technology or science-oriented programs within K-12 and higher education. Numerous corporations operate their own private grants or foundations that provide funding opportuni-ties to increase the use of technology in the classroom.

Education is transformed through the use of tech-nology and is already permeating all aspects of how teachers teach and how students learn. Technology no longer stands alone as a separate part of a campus; it is now an integral part of both assessing students and preparing them for advancement, as well as equip-ping them with the tools they need to be successful for the rest of their lives. In recognizing this evolution of technology, the federal government plans to make it a large focus area over the coming year and we can expect classroom technologies to be a large benefac-tor of that focus. While finding funding is always a challenge, the outlook is such that technology will be seen as a mission-critical tool to enable a knowledge-based economy.

7c E n t E r F o r d i g i ta l E d u c at i o n

1. From the 2009 center for digital Education community colleges survey2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/edtech%20final.pdf3. http://www.yfocf.org/pdFs/project%20list.pdf4. http://fgsd.schoolfusion.us/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=162909&sessionid=e8ca40b34ae648fa101d5a3d21eb8439&sessionid=e8ca40b

34ae648fa101d5a3d21eb84395. http://news.mst.edu/2010/04/buildings _ budget _ among _ state _ o.html6. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/28/ar2010042804712.html?nav=hcmodule

rEcEntly, a dozEn Foundations groupEd togEthEr to providE ovEr $500 million For Education, matching FEdEral govErnmEnt grants mEant to spur innovation.

© 2010 e.Republic, Inc. All rights reserved. | 100 Blue Ravine Road, Folsom, CA 95630 | 916.932.1300 phone | 916.932.1470 fax

the center for digital Education (cdE) is a national research and advisory institute specializing in k-12 and higher education technology trends, policy and funding. along with its research services, cdE issues white papers and conducts the annual digital district and digital community college survey and award programs. cdE also supports the converge media platform composed of the quarterly themed converge special reports, www.convergemag.com and events.

the converge media platform is composed of the quarterly themed converge special reports, converge online and nationwide events. converge provides strategy and leadership for technology use in the k-12 and higher education market.

SponSored by:

acKnowledgmentS:

Joseph morris is the lead analyst with the center for digital government and Education focused on market strategy. he works with center members providing market intelligence and analysis in the state and local government and education marketplace.