The use of computer technology in schools has grown dramatically in the past several years. Surveys conducted by one marketing research firmestimated that in 1983 schools had 1 computer for every 125 students; in 1997, the ratio had increased to 1 computer for every 9 students. Meanwhile, many education technology experts believe that current levels of school technology do not give students enough access to realize technology’s full potential. For example, schools should have a ratio of four to five students for every computer or five students for every multimedia computer, many studies suggest. In addition, concern has been expressed that aging school computers may not be able to run newer computer programs, use multimedia technology, and access the Internet. A computer-based education technology program has many components, as figure 1 shows, which range from the computer hardware and software to the maintenance and technical support needed to keep the system running. Although technology programs may define the components differently, they generally cover the same combination of equipment and support elements. Computer-based technology can be used to augment learning in a number of ways. These include drill-and-practice programs to improve basic skills; programs providing students with the tools to write and produce multimedia projects that combine text, sound, graphics, and video; programs providing access to information resources, such as on the Internet; and networks that support collaborative and active learning. Research on school technology has not, however, provided clear and comprehensive conclusions about its impact on student achievement. Although some studies have shown measurable improvements in some areas, less research data exist on the impact of the more complex uses of technology. Our work focused on funding for school technology. We did not evaluate district goals or accomplishments or assess the value of technology in education. Each of the districts we visited used a combination of funding sources to support technology in its schools (see table 1). At the local level, districts allocated funds from their district operating budgets, levied special taxes, or both. Districts also obtained funds from federal and state programs specifically designated to support school technology or from federal and state programs that could be used for this and other purposes. Finally, districts obtained private grants and solicited contributions from businesses. Although some individual schools in the districts we visited raised some funds, obtaining technology funding was more a district-level function than a school-level function, according to our study. Although districts tapped many sources, nearly all of them obtained the majority of their funding from one main source. The source, however, varied by district. For example, in Seattle, a 1991 local capital levy has provided the majority of the district’s education technology funding to date. In Gahanna, the district operating budget has provided the majority of technology funding. All five districts chose to allocate funds for technology from their operating budgets. The portions allocated ranged widely from 16 to 77 percent of their total technology funding. Two districts—Seattle and Roswell—also raised significant portions of their technology funding using local bonds or special levies. Manchester and Seattle won highly competitive 5-year Technology Innovation Challenge Grants for $2.8 million and $7 million, respectively. The grant provided the major source of funding for Manchester’s technology program—about 66 percent of the funding. The $1.5 million in grant funding Seattle has received so far accounted for about 4 percent of the district’s technology funding. All five districts reported using federal and state program funding that was not specifically designated for technology but could be used for this purpose if it fulfilled program goals. For example, four districts reported using federal title I funds for technology. In Manchester, a schoolwide program at a title I elementary school we visited had funded many of its 27 computers as part of its title I program. Three districts used state program funds, such as textbook or instructional materials funds, to support their technology programs. In Davidson County, for example, the district has directed about $2 million in such funds, including those for exceptional and at-risk children as well as vocational education, to education technology. All districts received assistance, such as grants and monetary and in-kind donations, from businesses, foundations, and individuals. Such funding constituted about 3 percent or less of their technology funding. It is important to note, however, that our selection criteria excluded districts that had benefited from extraordinary assistance such as those receiving the majority of their funding from a company or individual. Officials we spoke with attributed the limited business contributions in their districts to a variety of reasons, including businesses not fully understanding the extent of the schools’ needs and businesses feeling overburdened by the large number of requests from the community for assistance. Some said their district simply had few businesses from which to solicit help. Nonetheless, all five districts noted the importance of business’ contribution and were cultivating their ties with business. teacher organization activities and other school fund-raisers. Such supplemental funding amounted to generally less than $7,000 annually but did range as high as $84,000 over 4 years at one school. Staff at two schools reported that teachers and other staff used their personal funds to support technology in amounts ranging from $100 to over $1,000. Officials in the districts we visited identified a variety of barriers to obtaining technology funding. Four types of barriers were common to most districts and considered by some to be especially significant. (See table 2.) Officials in all of the districts we visited reported that district-level funding was difficult to obtain for technology because it was just one of many important needs that competed for limited district resources. For example, a Gahanna official reported that his district’s student population had grown, and the district needed to hire more teachers. A Seattle official reported that his district had $275 million in deferred maintenance needs. Some districts had mandates to meet certain needs before making funding available for other expenditures like technology. Manchester officials noted, for example, that required special education spending constituted 26 percent of their 1997 district operating budget, a figure expected to rise to 27.5 percent in fiscal year 1998. Officials from all districts said that resistance to higher taxes affected their ability to increase district operating revenue to help meet their technology goals. For example, in Davidson County, the local property tax rate is among the lowest in the state, and officials reported that many county residents were attracted to the area because of the tax rates. In addition, two districts—Roswell and Seattle—did not have the ability to increase the local portion of their operating budgets because of state school finance systems that—to improve equity—limited the amount of funds districts could raise locally. Officials in three districts reported that the antitax sentiment also affected their ability to pass special technology levies and bond measures. Although all districts identified an environment of tax resistance in their communities, most said they believed the community generally supported education. Many officials reported that they did not have the time to search for technology funding in addition to performing their other job responsibilities. They said that they need considerable time to develop funding proposals or apply for grants. For example, one technology director with previous grant-writing experience said she would need an uninterrupted month to submit a good application for a Department of Commerce telecommunications infrastructure grant. As a result, she did not apply for this grant. The technology director in Manchester said that when the district applied for a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant, two district staff had to drop all other duties to complete the application within the 4-week time frame available. corporations and foundations typically like to give funds to schools where they can make a dramatic difference. Districts have employed general strategies to overcome funding barriers rather than address specific barriers. The strategies have involved two main approaches—efforts to inform decisionmakers about the importance of and need for technology and leadership efforts to secure support for technology initiatives. In their information efforts, district officials have addressed a broad range of audiences about the importance of and need for technology. These audiences have included school board members, city council representatives, service group members, parents, community taxpayers, and state officials. These presentations have included technology demonstrations, parent information nights, lobbying efforts with state officials, and grassroots efforts to encourage voter participation in levy or bond elections. Roswell, for example, set up a model technology school and used it to demonstrate the use of technology in school classrooms. In the districts we visited, both district officials and the business community provided leadership to support school technology. In all districts, district technology directors played a central leadership role in envisioning, funding, and implementing their respective technology programs over multiyear periods and continued to be consulted for expertise and guidance. In some districts, the superintendent also assumed a role in garnering support and funding for the technology program. Beyond the district office, business community members sometimes assumed leadership roles to support technology by entering into partnerships with the districts to help in technology development efforts as well as in obtaining funding. All five districts we visited had developed such partnerships with local businesses. In Roswell and Seattle, education foundations comprising business community leaders had helped their school districts’ efforts to plan and implement technology, providing both leadership and funding for technology. Other districts we visited continued to cultivate their ties with the business community through organizations such as a business advisory council and a community consortium. Nearly all districts reported maintenance, technical support, and training— components often dependent on staff—as more difficult to fund than other components. Officials we interviewed cited several limitations associated with funding sources that affected their use for staff costs. First, some sources simply could not be used to pay for staff. Officials in Roswell and Seattle noted that special levy and bond monies, their main sources of technology funds, could not be used to support staff because the funds were restricted to capital expenditures. Second, some funding sources do not suit the ongoing nature of staff costs. Officials noted, for example, that grants and other sources provided for a limited time or that fluctuate from year to year are not suited to supporting staff. Most districts funded technology staff primarily from district operating budgets.