In recent years, much discussion about education technology has focused on the use of computers, networks, and connections to the Internet to augment learning. These technologies can be used in a variety of ways: Drill-and-practice programs can provide a way for students to improve basic skills (such as addition or spelling) and may be used by teachers to track and tailor student learning. Other software programs can provide students with powerful tools to facilitate writing, analyze and manipulate data, simulate physical and social science processes, and produce multimedia projects, combining text with sound, graphics, and video. Reference applications can give students and teachers quick access to a broad range of learning resources, such as encyclopedias available on CD-ROM. Modem or network connections can provide access to resources beyond the immediate reach of the classroom such as library card catalogs and Internet information. Networks can support collaborative and active learning by allowing many students, teachers, parents, experts, and others to share resources and communicate with each other both locally and over great distances. A computer-based education technology program has several components that range from the computer hardware and software to the training and support needed to use and maintain the technology (see fig. 1). Although technology models define components somewhat differently, they generally cover the same equipment and support elements. Although more complete data are needed, surveys conducted by Quality Education Data note a dramatic growth in computer-based technology in schools. In school year 1983-84, schools had 1 computer for every 125 students; in school year 1996-97, they had 1 for every 9. Nearly all schools now use personal computers, with the average school owning 86 computers for instructional use. Access to multimedia computers that have graphics, sound, and video capabilities important to taking advantage of learning opportunities on the Internet has also grown to about 1 such computer for every 22 students. In addition, schools are using computer networks more. The percentage of schools with local area networks grew more than twelvefold in just 5 years, from 5 percent in school year 1991-92 to 63 percent in school year 1996-97. Meanwhile, many education technology experts believe that current levels of school technology do not give students enough access to realize the technology’s full potential. For example, schools should provide a ratio of four to five students for every computer or five students for every multimedia computer, many studies suggest. These ratios are much lower than the ratios at most schools. Concern has also been expressed that aging school computers may not be able to run newer computer programs, use multimedia technology, and access the Internet. In school year 1995-96, 35 percent of installed computers used for student instruction comprised aging Apple II computers, which cannot run most software designed today. Furthermore, although the percentage of schools with Internet access quickly increased from 35 to 65 percent between 1994 and 1996, just 14 percent of instructional rooms (classrooms, computer or other labs, and library media centers) have this access. Policymakers want to know whether computer-based technology contributes to improved student achievement. In fact, some studies of traditional, tutorial-based applications, such as drill-and-practice software to improve basic skills (such as reading or arithmetic), have shown measurable improvements in student learning. Studies also note improvements in writing and other subject areas as well as improvements in students’ motivation and attitudes about learning resulting from classroom technology use. In addition, the benefits of computer-based instruction appear to be greater for educationally disadvantaged or low-achieving students. Although much research has focused on traditional, tutorial applications of technology, many are interested in technology’s potential to support fundamental changes in approaches to teaching. Such approaches involve environments in which students assume a central role in their own learning, learn to think critically, and collaborate with others. Students working together to research a topic on the Internet is one example of such an application. Research data on these more complex uses of technology are few, however, and are not as well organized as research on more traditional applications. Without other research, analysts often cite anecdotal reports of the positive experiences of schools that extensively use technology. On the other hand, some analysts have questioned whether technology can significantly benefit schools. Concerns have been raised, for example, about whether schools can use technology effectively and about the extent to which schools might shift resources from other important education needs to support technology investments. In addition, some researchers have questioned the methodologies used to evaluate technology’s impact on student achievement. For example, the influence of contextual factors in a number of studies has raised concern as have the persistence of the measured effects and the independence of those responsible for the research. Schools have also increasingly introduced technology as part of broader reform efforts, making it difficult to isolate the effects of technology alone. Our review did not address these issues; rather, our report describes how some districts found the funds to implement technology programs. School districts that want to provide students with continuing and effective access to education technology may require substantial amounts of money for acquiring computers and maintaining their investment. Quality Education Data has reported that public schools spent an estimated $4.3 billion on technology in school year 1996-97 and are projected to spend $5.2 billion this school year. A 1996 study by the RAND Corporation estimated the cost of providing technology-rich learning environments in all schools as between $10 and $20 billion per year, depending on the level of technology. This amounts to about 3.2 to 8 percent of current expenditures for public elementary and secondary education for the 1994-95 school year. In contrast, school district expenditures on technology in 1994-95 were estimated to be 1.3 percent of current education expenditures. The researchers note that financing such costs would be difficult for some districts because of current fiscal pressures and may require them to significantly restructure their budgets, a difficult task. Several federal, state, and private initiatives are helping school districts acquire and use technology. At the federal level, substantial funding increases have been provided recently for several programs supporting education technology, including the Technology Innovation Challenge Grant program, which was appropriated $106 million for fiscal year 1998.The Congress also appropriated $425 million to fund the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund in fiscal year 1998 in support of state efforts to integrate technology into school curricula. Another major source of financial assistance was provided for in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under this act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted an order stating that schools should receive discounts ranging from 20 to 90 percent on all telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal connections, depending on the school’s level of economic disadvantage and its location in an urban or rural area and subject to an annual cap of $2.25 billion. The funds to support these discounts will come from collections from interstate telecommunications and other service providers. A number of federal agencies provide funding for education technology, including the Departments of Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and Energy; the National Science Foundation; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Through these agencies, funding has been provided for technology and supported such activities as educational television programming, distance learning, assistive technologies for disabled learners, and more recently, assistance for telecommunications networks and technology planning. Other federal funding, though not specifically provided for technology, may be used for this purpose. For example, funds from ESEA programs—such as title I, which provides grants for educationally disadvantaged students, and the Eisenhower Professional Development program, which supports activities to strengthen teachers’ skills—may be used to support education technology efforts to reach these programs’ goals. Similarly, under the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, districts may use the education reform funds to acquire technology and implement technology-enhanced instruction. The federal government provides several hundred million dollars annually to support education technology, according to estimates. Much of this funding is provided through federal programs for which technology is not the direct focus. In addition, states have provided various levels of funding and other types of assistance for education technology. Many states have provided some funding to support technology in schools: New Jersey, for example, provided a total of $10 million in grants to every school district in the state in fiscal year 1997; and Georgia provided over $50 million in lottery funds to school districts for technology in fiscal year 1997. Other assistance provided by states includes negotiating statewide hardware and software purchase agreements, establishing technology training or support centers, providing school access to statewide networks, and easing regulations to allow schools to use state textbook funds to purchase software. In addition, some states have encouraged their public utility commissions to provide schools with telecommunication services at reasonable rates. 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. A recent example is NetDay, a national volunteer effort to install basic wiring in schools to give them Internet access. Businesses and individuals nationwide have contributed funds, technical expertise, or materials and joined with thousands of community volunteers to sponsor NetDay activities. Each district we studied used a combination of funding sources to support technology in its schools (see table 2). At the local level, districts allocated funds from their district operating budgets, levied special taxes, or both. They 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 purpose, among others. Finally, districts obtained private grants and solicited contributions from businesses. Although some individual schools raised funds in the districts we studied, obtaining technology funding was more a district-level function than a school-level function, according to our review. Although districts tapped many sources, nearly all districts obtained the majority of their funding from one source. This source, however, varied by district. For example, in Seattle a 1991 local capital levy has provided the majority of its education technology funding to date. In Gahanna, the district operating budget has provided the majority of technology funding.