The Educational Technology Local...The Educational Technology Local Assis tanceprogram,authorizedbyCh1133/83(AB 803), provides support for educational tech nology inthe public schools

The Educational Technology,

Local Assistance Program

A Sunset Review

Office of the Legislative Analyst

August 1988

Introduction 1

Executive Summary 3

Chapter IProgram Description 7

Purpose and Goals of Program 8History of Legislative Action 8Funding History ..........................................................• 9

Chapter II

~:al~:~~':~~:z~r:~~.~~~~~ 13Findings 14

Program Implementation 14Need for Program 17Program Effectiveness 18Summary 19

Recommendations 20Continue Program in Revised Form 20Develop Estimates of Funding Needs 20

~d~~;~~:~og:F:o~;;~~.~.~! 21Address Equity in Grant Funding Formulas 21Reestablish Regional Support ServiceDelivery Centers 23Clarify Ambiguous Provisions of Current Law 24Summary 24

Chapter IIIComments on Recommendations ofThe State Department of Education 25

Adoption/Expansion Grant Program 25Local Educational Technology Plans 26Model Technology Schools 27Staff Development 28Pre-Service Training of Teachers 28Software Development Partnerships 29Telecommunications Pilot Project 29Ongoing Software Reviews 30Technical Amendments to Chapter 1133/83 30

Table ofContents

Introduction

Introduction

This report is submitted pursuant to the"sunset" review procedures enactedby Chapter 1270, Statutes of 1983 (Senate Bill 1155).

The Educational Technology Local Assistance program, as amended by Chapter 1133,Statutes of 1983 (Assembly Bill 803), providessupport for the use of technology in the classroom. Chapter 1133 provides for terminationof the Educational Technology program onJune 30, 1989 unle~s the Legislature continuesthe program following the sunset reviewprocess prescribed by Chapter 1270.

As part of the sunset review, Chapter 1133(1) required the State Department of Education (SDE) to prepare a report on the Educational Technology program, (2) required theEducational Technology Advisory Committee to review the report for submittal to theState Board of Education, and (3) directed theState Board of Education to transmit the report to the legislative fiscal committees byMarch I, 1987.

The State Board of Education transmittedthe report in March 1987. Chapter 1270 alsorequires the Legislative Analyst to review thedepartment's report andsubmit her own findings, comments, and recommendations regarding the program to the Legislature.

Specifically, Chapter 1270 directs the SDEand the Legislative Analyst to address asmany of the following issues as possible:

Introduction

(1) The appropriateness of formulas usedto identify children who have specialneeds.

(2) The appropriateness of formulas usedto allocate funds and the adequacy offunding levels for the program.

(3) The effectiveness of the program.(4) The appropriateness of local control.(5) The appropriateness of state involve-

ment in monitoring, reviewing, andauditing to assure that funds are.beingused efficiently, economically, and legally.

(6) The appropriateness of the administrative costs of these programs.

(7) The appropriateness of placing administration of these programs under SDE.

(8) The interrelationships among state andfederal categorical programs providingthis type of assistance.

(9) The characteristics of the target popula-tion being served by the program.

(10) The need for the program.(11) The purpose and intent of the program.The law also requires that the report submit-

ted bySDE include, but not be limited to, all ofthe following topiCS:

(1) A description of the program, includinga description of how the program is

Pagel

/administered at the state and local level.(2) The history of the program and previ-

ous legislative action.(3) Relevant statistical data.(4) Related federal programs.(5) Whether there is an unmet need for the

intended purposes of the program and,if any, an estimated cost of serving theunmetneed.

(6) Findings regarding the program, including comments on whether anyidentified problems are implementation issues that require revision of lawor regulations.

(7) Recommendations of ways to improvethe program while maintaining its basicpurposes.

Chapter I of this report provides a description of the Educational Technology program,including a summary of its funding history.Chapter IT contains (1) our findings regarding

Introduction

the program's implementation and effectiveness and (2) our recommendations for improving the program, based on both our ownand SDE's findings regarding the program.Chapter ill contains our responses to recommendations made by the SDE in its sunsetreview report.

This report, as specified by law, is basedlargely on our review of SDE's report. Someinformation contained in that report, such asan in-depth description of the program, is notrepeated here. We suggest, therefore, that thisreport be read in conjunction with the SDEreport in order to obtain a more completeunderstanding of the program and our comments on SDE's findings and recommendations.

This report was prepared by Ray Reinhardunder the supervision of Jarvio Grevious andHal Geiogue. It was typed by Maria Ponceand formatted for publication by Suki O'Kaneand Patricia Skott. .:.

Page 2

ExecutiveSummary

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Program Description

• The Educational Technology Local Assistance program, authorized by Ch 1133/83 (AB 803), provides support for the useof educational technology in the publicschools. The authorizing legislation defines the term"educational technology"to include instructional television, videotapes and discs, computers, and any"emerging state-of-the-art equipment"used for classroom instruction.

• Unlike many categorical education programs in which funds are directed toward a single activity or goal, funding forthe Educational Technology programsupports a variety ofactivities, including(1) grants to schools and school districts,(2) grants for regional support services,(3) grants for staff development, and (4)state leadership activities.

Purpose and Goals of Program• Neither the authorizing legislation (Ch

1133/83) nor the State Department ofEducation's (SDE's) sunset review reportexplicitly states specific goals and objectives for the Educational Technologyprogram. Along-range educational technology plan adopted by the State Boardof Education (SBE) in November 1986contains general program goals, but failsto provide (1) an assessment of schools'

current needs for educational technologyfunding, in light of their existing resources, (2) specific, measurable goals andobjectives related to the identified needs,and (3) a timetable and funding plan forachieving the goals and objectives. Assuch, our review indicates that the plan isof limited assistance to the Legislature indetermining the effectiveness of variouscomponents of the program and theappropriateness of funding levels forthem.

Funding History• Over the four-year period from 1984-85

through 1987-88, the Educational Technology program received General Fundappropriations totaling nearly $80 million. Almost two-thirds ($53 million) ofthis funding has been allocated as grantsto schools and districts; the bulk of thisamount ($49 million) has gone to support"adoption and expansion" grants. Thesegrants, which range from $8,000 to$17,000 for elementary schools and from$12,000 to $24,000 for secondary schools,provide modest amounts of "seedmoney" for the purchase of computerand/or video equipment, software, andteacher training.

Page 3

Executive Summary

Legislative Analyst's Findings and Recommendations

Findings Regarding ProgramImplementation

• The SDE estimates that, through 1987-88(four cycles of grant awards), a total of4,914 schools will have received adoption/expansion grants. These schoolsrepresent two-thirds of the total numberofschools statewideand enroll 78 percentof the state's students. (For purposes ofthese calculations, a "schoof' includesprograms operated by such entities ascounty offices of education and regionaloccupational centers.)

• Although demand for funds has exceeded theavailable amount in each year,a significant number of schools have notapplied for adoption/expansion grants.The SDE estimates that, as of the end ofthe fourth grant funding cycle, 1,287 (17percent) of the state's eligible schools hadnot applied for grants. According to asurvey of nonapplicant schools conducted by SDE, the most important reasons for not applying all relate to thedifficulty of the grant application process.

• Current law does not specify how available Educational Technology programfunds are to be allocated; instead, thisfunction is assigned to SBE "upon theadvice of" the state Educational Technology Committee. In the case of the adoption/expansion grants, the fundingmechanism adopted by the board provided for (1) the allocation of funds toTeacher Education and Computer Centers (TECCs) in proportion to the share ofstatewide average daily attendance(ADA) located within each and (2) thedistribution of funds by the TECCs on aper-school basis, using a competitivegrant award process.

• The allocation of adoption/expansiongrant funds on a per-school basis hasresulted in some inequities: (1) a smallerpercentage of schools in rural TECC regions have received grants than in moreurbanized regions, (2) those rural schoolsthat have received funding have tendedto receive more funding per average dailyattendance (ADA) thanurban schools, and(3) the amount of funding per black andHispanic student-on a statewide basis-hasbeen less than that per white student.

• As a result of the Governor's eliminationof funding for the TeacherEducation andComputer Centers in 1987-88, there currently exist no entities to provide thekinds of regional support services previously provided by the TECCs. Thesesupport services included (1) the administration of the adoption/expansion grantapplication process and (2) the provisionof technical assistance to schools indeveloping educational technology plans andapplying for adoption/ expansiongrants. At the sametime, there appears tobe a continuing need for these kinds ofservices, as evidenced by the number ofschools citing the difficulty of the grantapplication process as an obstacle toprogram participation.

• Under current law, it is unclear whichentity-the State Board of Education orthe Educational Technology Committee-has the ultimate authority to determine the allocation of Educational Technology program funds. This ambiguityhas resulted in disputes between thecommittee and the board, and should beclarified in any legislation to reauthorizethe Educational Technology program.

Page 4

Findings Regarding Need forProgram

• There currently exist no good estimatesof the overall level of state fundingneeded for the various components oftheEducational Technology program, because there has been no attempt to defineschools' needs for educational technology in light of (1) measurable goals andobjectives and (2) the availability of localresources. Because neither the department's sunset review report nor anyother documentation addresses theseissues, we are unable to determine an appropriate level of state funding for theprogram.

Findings Regarding ProgramEffectiveness

• An independent evaluation of the adoption/expansion grant component citedtheprocess of local planning for the use ofeducational technology, required as partof the grant application process, as one ofthe program's more significant benefits.This evaluation, however, was unable todevelop any conclusions regarding theimpact of the program in terms of educational outcomes.

• Thereare no state-level data to determinethe impact of the Educational Technology program in terms of educationaloutcomes. Our review indicates that responsibility for failing to compile suchdata lies with SDE, and constitutes a significant weakness in the department'sadministration of the program.

Legislative Analyst'sRecommendations

We recommend that the Educational Technology program be continued, with the following modifications:

Executive Summary

• The Educational Technology Committee,in conjunction with the State Board ofEducation, should revise the state longrange educational technology plan inorder to develop more specific estimatesof funding needs, and a timetable formeeting those needs;

• The Legislature should (1) require allrecipients of Educational Technologyprogram funds to perform programevaluations based on educational outcomes, using models developed by SDEand (2) require SDE to use these evaluation results to identify cost-effectiveuses of educational technology;

• The Legislature should explicitly addressthe issue of "equitable access" to Educational Technology program funds, by (1)clarifying the meaning of this term, as it isusedin the enabling legislation, (2) specifying funding allocation mechanisms foreach grant program, based on the definition of equity adopted, and (3) indicatingwhether grant funds may be "targeted"to particular uses;

• The Legislature should reestablish a network ofregional support service deliverycenters, in order to administer the adoption/expansion grant process and provide local education agencies withneeded technical assistance; and

• The Legislature should amend ambiguous provisions of current law to clarifythe responsibilities of the EducationalTechnology Committee and the StateBoard of Education in establishing abudget for the Educational Technologyprogram.

Page 5

Comments on Recommendations ofThe State Department of Education

• In its sunset review report, SDE makesnine recommendations. For the mostpart, these recommendations proposethe continuation of existing aspects of theEducationalTechnology programand donot suggest ways in which it may beimproved. In cases where a change issuggested, the proposal is usually described in general terms and is not supported by any analysis presented in thereport. Consequently, we are unable tocomment on four of the nine recommendations, because they lack sufficientspecificity.

• We concur that, on grounds of equity, it isreasonable to continue the adoption/expansion grant process until all schoolsthat wish to participate in the programhave had an opportunity to receive funding. We further recommend, however,that the Legislature address the issues of(1) whether the adoption/expansiongrant program should continue once allsuch schools have been funded and (2) ifit should continue, the mechanism thatshould be used to distribute the funds.

• We generally concur with SDE's plans toexpend up to $900,000 of EducationalTechnology funds in 1988-89 for the purpose of contracting with regional agen-

cies to (1) provide technical assistance toschools receiving adoption/expansiongrant funding in 1987-88 and 1988-89, (2)assist nonapplicant schools in the development andsubmission of grant applications, and (3) assist schools in conductingprogram evaluations.

• We concur that research and development activities begun through an existing, multi-year "model technologyschools" project should be continued tocompletion.

• We generally concur that "EducationalTechnology Summer Institutes," whichtrain teachers in uses of educational technology and prepare them to train otherteachers, should be continued. We further recommend, however, that SDEevaluate the cost-effectiveness of thevarious summer institutes, and comparethem to other approaches to trainingeducators in the uses of educational technology.

• We concur that software developmentpartnerships, in which SDE and softwaredevelopers team up to produce highquality video and computer software forareas of the curriculum in which it islacking, should be continued.•:.

Page 6

Chapter I

Chapter I: Program Description

Chapter I

Program Description

The Educational Technology Local Assistance program, authorizedbyCh 1133/83 (AB803), provides support for educational technology in the public schools. As used in theauthorizing legislation, the term "educationaltechnology" includes instructional television,video tapes and discs, and computers, plusany other "emerging state-of-the-art equipment," used as instructional devices for classroom instruction.

Chapter 1133:• Requires the State Board of Education

(SBE) to adopt rules and regulationsgoverning the administration of theEducational Technology program, andrequires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to administer the program accordingly;

• Establishes the Educational TechnologyCommittee to advise SBE on issues relating to educational technology policies,and allocations of Educational Technology program funds; and

• Authorizes the expenditure of programfunds for a variety of uses, includinggrants to schools to support the acquisition ofcomputer hardware and software,the purchase of statewide software andinstructional television (lTV) licenses,and various resource and support services and projects that support the use oftechnology in the classroom.

Unlike many categorical education programs in which funds are directed toward asingle activity or goal, funding for the Educational Technology program supports a varietyof activities, including:

• Grants to schools and districts,• Grants for regional support services,• Grants for staff development, and• State leadership initiatives.The distribution of funds among these ac

tivities, described more fully below, is determined by SBE with the advice of the Educational Technology Committee.

Pagel

Purpose and Goals of Program

Neither the authorizing legislation (Chapter1133) nor the State Department ofEducation'ssunset review report explicitly states specificgoals and objectives for the Educational Technology local assistance program.

In November 1986, SBE adopted a LongRange Educational Technology Plan for California Schools, which sets forth the goals forthe Educational Technology program as follows:

• Technology-Infused DemonstrationSchools. To develop technology-infuseddemonstration schools to evaluate theappropriate use of technology in sitemanagement, instructional materials,and delivery of instruction;

• Leadership. To provide a long-rangevision and to stimulate broad commitment to the achievement ofa comprehensive implementation plan which promotes utilization of technology as an effective educational tool;

• Staff Development. To assist teachersand administrators to develop skillsneeded to use technology effectively inthe classroom;

• Instructional Materials. To assure thedevelopment of the highest quality technology-based instructional materials,including video programming, computer software, interactive video and

History of Legislative Action

Chapter 94, Statutes of1982 (Assembly Bill2190) deleted provisions of law relating toclassroom instructional television and established in their place authorization for an"Educational Technology Local AssistanceProgram." In so doing, it broadened the definition of educational technology to includecomputers, rather than just television. Thestatute did not specify how the program was


printed support materials, in all areas ofthe curriculum and at all grade levels in acost-effective manner;

• Hardware. To promote acquisition andintegration oftechnological hardware formaximum effectiveness in Californiaschools; and

• School Facilities. To ensure that thestate's policies on aid for school facilitiessupport local education agency initiatives to construct technology-infusedschool environments.

Our review indicates that, while SBE'sLong-Range Plan provides a general framework for the development of the EducationalTechnology program, it fails to provide (1) anassessment of schools' current needs for educational technology funding, in light of theirexisting resources, (2) specific, measurablegoals and objectives related to the identifiedneeds, and (3) a timetable and funding planfor achieving the goals and objectives. Assuch, the plan is of limited assistance to theLegislature in determining the effectivenessof various components of the EducationalTechnology program and the appropriateness of funding levels for these components.(We address this issue in greater detail inChapter IT of this report in our discussion ofthe need for the program.)

to be administered, but required the StateBoard ofEducation to develop rules and regulations for this purpose. Chapter94also established the Educational Technology Committee, to apprise the Superintendent of PublicInstruction of developments in informationtechnologies and their application to education and, in conjunction with the State BoardofEducation, to allocate available grant funds.

Page 8

The measure declared legislative intent thatfunding for its purposes be provided in the1982 Budget Act, which appropriated$870,000 for educational technology localassistance. Of this amount, however, only$16,000 was expended in 1982-83, and the remaining $854,000 was carried over for use in1983-84.

In addition to this carryover balance, thelocal assistance program received $870,000 inthe 1983 Budget Act and $552,000 in SB 813(Chapter 498, Statutes of 1983). Of this latteramount, however, $300,000 was redirected inChapter 1133 to the State Department ofEducation for its start-up costs associatedwith administering an expanded EducationalTechnology program.

Chapter 1133, Statutes of1983 (AB 803) repealed and recast the provisions of Ch 94/82,

Funding History


and established the current EducationalTechnology Local Assistance program. Specifically, Chapter 1133 authorized a variety ofgrant programs, including grants to schooldistricts and county offices of education forimplementing applications of educationaltechnology; grants to Teacher Education andComputer Centers (TECCs) for providingassistance in implementing technology programs; and grants for research. This measurealso revised the composition of the Educational Technology Committee and expandedthe provisions ofChapter94 relating to educational technology. Finally, it declared legislative intent that funding for the EducationalTechnology Local Assistance program beprovided in the annual Budget Act, commencing in 1984-85.

Over the four-year period 1984-85 (the first ceived General Fund appropriations totalingyear of "full funding" for the program estab- nearly $80 million. Table 1 displays theselished by Chapter 1133) through 1987-88, the funds for each of these years, by expenditureEducational Technology program has re- category.

Page 9


Table 1Educational Technology Program

Distribution of Expenditures1984-85 through 1987-88(dollars in thousands)"

Expenditure Category 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 Total Percent ofTotal

1. Grants to Schools and DistrictsAdoption and Expansion Grants $8,925 $17,024 $16,056 $6,590 $48,595

Developmental/Dissemination ProjectsDevelopmental Projects 984 927 64 1,975

Dissemination Projects 390 500 890

VCR Distribution 1,755 5 1,760

Subtotals, Local Grants $11,664 $17,420 $17,483 $6,654 $53,221 67.2%

2. Grants for Regional Support ServicesTeacher Education/ComputerCenters $554 $563 $1,088 $2,204

Instructional TV Regional Agencies 996 1,369 1,702 $1,751 5,819

Subtotal, Support Services $1,549 $1,932 $2,790 $1,751 $8,023 10.1%

3. Grants for Staff DevelopmentSummer Training Institutes $2,903 $996 $2,004 $5,903

Mechanical Universe 77 77

Subtotal, Staff Development $2,903 $1,073 $2,004 $5,980 7.6%

4. State Leadership InitiativesModel Technology SchoolsLevell $1,000 $1,500 $2,500

Level II 790 790

Instructional MaterialsSoftware Development 504 520 1,024

Technol01£: in Curriculum(TIC) Gui es $1,330 $398 1,091 132 2,950

Statewide Licenses/Acquisitions 403 2,809 561 57 3,830

Teachin& Videotape PilotProject B 2130) 275 275

Statewide CommunicationsTelecommunications 49 49

Videosource Newsletter 18 60 50 127

Committee EXlfenses, ConsultantServices, New nitiatives 75 77 144 77 373

Subtotals, State Leadership $1,825 $3,343 $4,464 $2,286 $11,917 15.1%

Totals, Educational Technology $15,038 $25,599 $25,810 $12,694 $79,141 100.0%

" Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

Table 1 shows that Educational Technology lion-has been allocated as grants to schoolsfunds have been distributed as follows: and districts. Of this amount, the bulk ($48.6

Grants to Schools and Districts. Since 1984- million) has gone to support the "adoption

85, nearly two-thirds of funding-$53.2 mil- and expansion" grants, and the remainder has

Page 10

supported "critical needs developmental anddissemination projects" ($2.9 million) and aone-time distribution of one videocassetterecorder (VCR) to each school in the state ($1.7million).

The adoption and expansion grants, which areawarded directly to schools through a competitive process, provide modest amounts of"seed money" for the purchase of computerand/or video equipment. (Funds may also beused to purchase software and to supportteacher training.) During the first two years ofthe program, elementary schools were eligible for grants of $8,000 and secondaryschools for grants of $12,000. In subsequentyears, the maximum grant level for largerschools was raised to $17,000 for elementaryschools and $24,000 for secondary schools,using an incremental scale based on schoolsize.

According to the State Department of Education, the "typical" elementary school usedits $8,000 grant to purchase five computers,about $1,300 worth of instructional materials(mostly computer software), $500 for videoequipment (TV monitors and VCRs), and $550for staff training. The technology and trainingwas likely to have been focused on teachingwriting in grades 3 through 6. The typicalsecondary school, in contrast, used a grantaveraging $16,000 to purchase seven computers, $2,300 worth of instructional materials,$1,000 worth of video equipment, and $250 instaff development. This technology was alsolikely to have been focused on a specific curriculum area, such as writing, math, or computer awareness.

The State Department of Education estimates that, over the four-year period, a total of4,914 schools received adoption/expansiongrants. These schools represent about twothirds of the total number ofschools statewide,and over 80 percent of the number of schoolsthat have applied for funding. (For purposes ofthis calculation, a "school" includes programsoperated by such entities as county offices ofeducation and regional occupational centers.)


The critical needs developmentaland dissemination projects, funded through grants to schooldistricts and county offices of education,developed models for (1) the integration ofeducational technology into various aspectsof the curriculum and (2) technology-basedstaff development activities. Of 28 such projects funded in 1983-84 and 1984-85, 11 werejudged effective by panels convened by theState Department of Education and receivedfunding for dissemination during 1985-86. In1986-87, one of these projects was discontinued and the remaining 10 projects receivedfunding for further dissemination activities.Funding for the critical needs projects wasdiscontinued in 1987-88.

Grants for Regional Support Services. Overthe four-year period, a total of $8 million (10percent of funding) has been allocated to regional support services provided throughTeacher Education and Computer Centers(TECCs) and Instructional Television (lTV)Regional Agencies. Until recently, a statewide network of 17 TECCs provided staffdevelopment services to school districts on aregional basis. The TECCs also administeredthe adoption and expansion grants, and provided technical assistance to schools wishingto participate in the Educational Technologyprogram. The Governor, however, vetoed allfunds for the TECCs-$12.7 million-fromthe 1987 Budget Act. The seven lTV regionalagencies continue to receive funding to provide greater consistency in the provision ofinstructional television services throughoutthe state.

Grants for Staff Development. A total of$6.0 million (7.6 percent of funding) has beenallocated from 1984-85 through 1987-88 forstaff development purposes. Nearly all ofthese funds have been used to support Educational Technology Summer Institutes inwhich selected teachers receive a month ofintensive training in the use of technology.These teachers then return to their respectiveschools to train other teachers in the use ofeducational technology.

Page 11

State Leadership Initiatives. A total of$11.9million (15 percent of funding) has been allocated in 1984-85 through 1987-88 to four stateleadership initiatives: (1) $3.3 million for"model technology schools," (2) $8.1 millionfor instructional materials, (3) $0.2 million forstatewide communications projects, and (4)$0.4 million for various expenses, consultantservices, and unsolicited projects.

Under the model technology schools initiative,grants were awarded in 1986-87 and 1987-88to study two approaches to introducing technology into schools. The first approach provided grants of $500,000 to each of five schoolcomplexes for in-depth study of the application of technology in all phases of the schools'operation. The second approach providedsmaller grants (approximately $80,000) to 10


schools to develop applications of technologyin a single subject area, across all grade levels.

In the area of instructional materials, the program has supported the Technology in theCurriculum (TIC) guides. The TIC guidesidentify computer software and video programs that support the state curriculumframeworks and model curriculum standards. The program has also (1) purchasedlicenses for the distribution of software andvideo programming to schools at reduced costand (2) contracted directly for the development of specific computer software and videoprogramming in areas where it is lacking.

A more complete description of the Educational Technology program is provided in thedepartment's sunset review report. -:.

Page 12

Chapter II

Chapter II: Findings and Recommendations

Chapter II

Legislative Analyst'sFindings andRecommendations

As detailed in the introduction to this report,the sunset review legislation (Ch 1270/83)specifies seven items that the State Department of Education's (SDE) report must address, and 11 items that it may address. Ourreview indicates that, of the 7 required items,the department's report fails to address-oraddresses incompletely-5 items. Of the 11optional items, the department's report doesnot address 8 items, and only partially addresses the remaining 3 items. Topic areas inwhich we believe the department's report isparticularly deficient include:

• the need for the program;• the effectiveness of the program;• the appropriateness of formulas used to

allocate funds and the adequacy of funding levels for the program; and

• whether there is an unmet need for theintended purposes of the program and, ifany, an estimated cost of serving thatneed.

In general, we find that the department'sreport presents a great deal of descriptiveinformation regarding the Educational Tech-

nology local assistance program, but provideslittle or no information regarding the need forthe program, the program's goals, or its effectiveness in meeting those goals. Moreover,most of the department's recommendationseither (1) are not supported by any analysispresented in its report or (2) merely call for acontinuation ofthe status quo. As a result, ourreview indicates that the department's reportprovides little analytical assistance to theLegislature in determining whether the program should be continued and, if so, how itmay be improved.

This chapter contains (1) our findings concerning the Educational Technologyprogram's implementation and effectivenessand (2) our recommendations for improvingthe program, based on both our own andSDE's findings regarding the program. In thediscussion which follows, we focus primarilyon the adoption/expansion grant component ofthe Educational Technology program, as thisaccounts for the largest single category ofprogram expenditures in any year.

Page 13


Legislative Analyst's Findings

This section presents our findings, organized in three categories: (1) findings regardingthe implementation of the Educational Technology program, (2) findings regarding theneed for the program,and (3) findings regarding its effectiveness.

Program ImplementationLevel of Participation. The State Depart

ment of Education estimates that, through1987-88 (four cycles ofgrant awards), a total of4,914 schools will have received adoption/expansion grants, totaling $48.6 million.These schools represent about two-thirds ofthe total number of schools statewide, andover 80 percent of the schools that have appliedfor funding. In total, 78 percent of the state'sstudents are enrolled in schools that havereceived adoption/expansion grants. (Forpurposes of these calculations, a "school"includes programs operated by such entitiesas county offices of education and regionaloccupational centers.)

In each of the cycles of grant awards, moreschools applied for funds than could be accommodated within the level of fundingavailable. Through the fourth funding cycle(1987-88), SDE received a total of 10,020 applications (including applications from the sameschool submitted in more than one year) requesting a total of $97.7 million. During thissame period, 4,950 schools received adoption/expansion grants, totaling $46.7 million.

Although demand for funds has, exceededthe available supply in each year, there were asignificantnumber ofschools that chose not toapply at all for an adoption/expansion grant.The SDE estimates that, as of the end of thefourth grant funding cycle, 1,287 (17 percent)of the state's 7,386 eligible schools had not

applied for grants. These schools' inability orunwillingness to apply is probably influencedby their relatively small size, compared toschools that have applied for grants. (In 1987,for example, the median enrollment amongschools that had never applied for anadoption/expansion grant was 289; among schoolsthat had applied, in contrast, it was 531.)These schools' smaller size results in feweradministrative and teaching staff and, therefore, fewer resources with which to completethe application process. Based on a survey ofa sample of nonapplicant schools, SDE concluded that "[t]he perceived difficulty of theapplication, the level of effort involved toprepare one, and lack of assistance in preparing the application were clearly the mostimportant reasons for not applying."l

Appropriateness of Administrative Costs.The department's report contains no information about the amount of funding provided atthe state level for overall administration of theEducational Technology program, or for theadoption/expansion grant component inparticular. We have subsequently been advisedbythe department that, in 1986-87,statelevel administrative expenses for the Office ofEducational Technology totaled $852,000.About 75 percent ($628,000) of this amountcame from federal funds, and the remainder($224,000) came from the state General Fund.The department is unable to determine howmuch of these administrative expenditureswas specifically attributable to the adoption/expansion grant component.

The department's sunset review report,however, provides information on theamount of funds allocated to the TeacherEducation and ComputerCenters (TECCs) foradministering the adoption/expansion grant

1 Attachment G in a letter from Superintendent ofPublic Instruction Bill Honig to Assembly Members Sam Farr RichardKatz Teresa Hughes andLucy Killea, dated December 23, 1987. ' , ,

Page14

/

award process and providing technical assistance to districts and schools applying forgrants. In 1986-87, a total of approximately$1.1 million was provided TECCs for thesepurposes, which equals about 8.4 percent ofthe total amount of adoption/expansiongrant funds awarded in that year. (As a resultof the Governor's veto of funding for theTECCs, the State Board ofEducation allocatedno funds for administration and. technicalassistance related to the adoption/expansiongrants in 1987-88.)

Allocation of Funds. Current law does notspecify how available Educational Technology program funds are to be allocated; instead, this function is assigned to the StateBoard of Education "upon the advice of' theEducational Technology Committee. In thecase of the adoption/ expansion grants, theboard determined that funding would be allocated among the TECCs in proportion to theshare of statewide average daily attendance(ADA) located within each.

Each TECC administered a competitivegrant award process for distributing the available funds. In order to receive funding, aschool had to (1) develop a plan for usingeducational technology support at the schoolsite, (2) describe how the adoption/expansiongrant would support the plan, and (3) providematching funds equal to 10 percent of thegrant amount. During the program's first twoyears, elementary schools were eligible forgrants of $8,000 and secondary schools forgrants of $12,000. In 1986-87 and 1987-88,however, elementary schools could receivegrants of $8,000 to $17,000, and secondaryschools grants of $12,000 to $24,000, using anincremental scale based on the school's size.

In 1987-88, the Governor vetoed over half ofthe funding for the Educational Technologyprogram-from a legislatively-approvedlevel of $26.1 million to an actual implementation level of $12.7 million-and, as noted earlier, eliminatedfunding for the TECCs. In distributing total Educational Technology funds


among various purposes, the State Board ofEducation reduced the amount budgeted foradoption/expansion grants from $12.7 million to $6.6 million. The department thenallocated this funding to the highest-rankingschools on lists compiled by the TECCs in thespring of 1987 and tentatively plans to use acomparable amount of funding to providegrants in 1988-89 to as many schools remaining on the list as possible.

As detailed in the department's report, theallocation mechanism used during the firsttwo years had the (presumably unintended)consequence of resulting in a smaller percentage ofschools in rural TECC regions receivingadoption/expansion grants than in moreurbanized regions. At the same time, thoserural schools that did receive funding tendedto receive a greater amount of funding perADA than did urban schools. This occurreddue to three factors:

• Funds were allocated to each TECC regionbased on its share ofstatewide ADA;

• Funds were distributed by the TECCs infixed increments of$8,000 and $12,000, sothat all schools of the same type receivedthe same amount of funding, irrespectiveof size; and

• Rural areas tended to have larger numbers of smaller schools, relative to urbanregions.

Thus, if two TECC regions were of relativelythe same size in terms of student population(thereby receiving the same amount of funding), they would both be able to fund approximately the same number of schools. With alarger total number of schools, however, therural region would be able to fund a smallerpercentage of its schools than would the urbanregion. But, because they were smaller in size,those rural schools which did receive fundingwould receive a greater amount of funds perADA.

Finally, because blacks and Hispanicstended to be concentrated more highly in

Page 15


urban areas, the amount of funding per black age amount of funding per ADA, brokenand Hispanic student-on a statewidebasis- down by racial/ethnic status, after the firstwas less than that per white student.2 This is three cycles of grant funding.illustrated in Table 2, which shows the aver-

Table 2Distribution of AdoptionlExpansion Grant Funds

By Student RaciallEthnic Category(Through Three Grant Funding Cycles)

1984-85 through 1986-87

ADA in Percent Grant Funds AverageStatewide Funded in Funded Allocated Grant

Racial/Ethnic Category Total ADA Schools Schools To Category" Per ADA

White 2,303,078 1,490,503 64.7% $21,957,208 $14.73

Hispanic 1,264,961 875,496 69.2 10,761,619 12.29

Black 422,311 281,578 66.7 3,597,170 12.78

Asian 289,754 205,369 70.9 2,449,492 11.93

Filipino 85,415 56,234 65.8 678,313 12.06Am. Indian 33,072 18,729 56.6 293,117 15.65Pacific lsI. 23,208 15,177 65.4 199,738 13.16

Totals 4,421,799 2,943,086 66.6% $39,936,657 $13.57

a Calculated as the sum, for all funded schools, of each school's racial/ethnic ADA times its total grant amount, divided by its total ADA.

As Table 2 shows, about 65 percent of thestate's white students attendschools that havereceived adoption/expansion grant funding,with an average of$14.73 per ADA in fundingattributable to them. In contrast, 67 percent ofblack students and 69 percent ofHispanic students attend schools that have received funding; these students account for an average of$12.78 and $12.29 per ADA, respectively.

Regional Support Services. Prior to 1987-88,a statewide network of 17 Teacher Educationand Computer Centers (TECCs) providedstaff development services to teachers andadministrators, on a regional basis. TheTECCs were charged with providing suchservices in allareas of the curriculum,but withparticular emphasis on the areas of math, science, and other areas in which there existedteacher shortages.

In addition to these duties, the TECCsadministered the application process foradoption/expansion grants. Specifically, theyaccepted applications from schools in theirregions, rated the applications according tospecified criteria, and, based on the ratings,assigned each applicant apriority ranking forfunding. Finally, the TECCs were required, tothe extent feasible, to assist schools in developing educational technology plans and applying for adoption/expansion grants.

In his budget for 1987-88, the Governor hadoriginallyproposed $12.6 million to fully fundthe TECCs, and this amount (plus $126,000 fora cost-of-living adjustment) was approved bythe Legislature. In signing the budget, however, the Governor vetoed all funding for theTECCs.

Our review indicates that, as a result of theGovernor's action, no entities are offering the

2 This latter finding, not discussed in the department's sunset review report, was addressed in correspondence dated May 18, 1987from James RSmith, Deputy Superintendent for Curriculum and Instructional Leadership, to Assembly Member Teresa Hughes.

Page 16

kinds of regional support services that werepreviously provided by the TECCs. At thesame time, there appears to be a continuingneed for these kinds of services. As notedearlier, the most important reasons cited fornot applying for an adoption/expansiongrant among nonapplicant schools related tothe difficulty of the application process. Itwould appear, therefore, that as long as adoption/expansion grants continue to be available, and the application process is not significantly simplified, these schools will needsome technical assistance in developing theireducational technology plans and completingtheir applications.

Other Implementation Issues. Finally, ourreview indicates that, under current law, thegovernancestructure of the EducationalTechnology program is not clearly spelled out.Specifically, current law (Education CodeSection 41920) provides that "[a]llowances forthe educational technology... program shallbe made by the State Board ofEducation uponthe advice of the Educational TechnologyCommittee." Another provision (EducationCode Section 51873.1) declares that one of thecommittee's duties is "[s]ubmitting an annualbudget request identifying proposed fundinglevels for the...program to the State Board ofEducation and the Legislature." It is not clearwhether these provisions allow the StateBoard of Education to revise the committee'sfunding proposals, or whether they insteadrequire that the board merely perform theministerial duty of carrying out the committee's recommendations. Moreover, this ambiguity has resulted in actual disputes betweenthe committee and the board in the past.

Need for ProgramThere currently exist no g00d estimates of

the level of state funding needed for the various components of the Educational Technol-


ogy program, including the adoption andexpansion grant component.

In information provided subsequent topublication of its sunset report, the department estimates that, following the most recent(fourth) cycle of grant allocations, there remain 2,472 schools that have not received anadoption/expansion grant (including 1,185schools that have applied for, but not receivedfunding and 1,287 schools that have neverapplied). The department further estimatesthat, based on an average grant amount of$10,322 during the fourth funding cycle, itwould cost approximately $26 million to provide funding to these remaining schools.3

This figure, however, merely indicates what itwould cost to extend the existing program (atcurrent funding levels) to schools which heretofore had not received a grant-and does notaddress the issue of the need to provide ongoing state funding for the adoption/expansiongrant component.

We believe that, in order to determine thisneed, the department should address the following issues for each component of theEducational Technology program:

• What are the specific, measurable goalsof the component?

• What level of educational technologyresources do schools need (in light of theamount of resources they currentlyhave), in order to achieve the goals?

• What is an appropriate sharing ratio between state and local funding?

• What is the funding timetable for achieving the goals?

Because neither the department's sunsetreview report nor any other documentationaddresses these issues, we areunable to determine an appropriate level of state funding forthe Educational Technology program.

3 Letterdated December23, 1987from SuperintendentofPublicInstructionBillHonigtoAssemblyMembersSamFarr,RichardKatz, TeresaHughes,and Lucy Killea. Figure on number of remaining schools subsequently updated bySDE.

Pagel?

Program EffectivenessLocal PlanningStimulated. InAugust 1987,

SDE contracted with the Far West Laboratoryfor Educational Research and Development toconduct the only state-level evaluation of theadoption/expansion grant component todate. In the latter half of 1987, Far WestLaboratory undertook case studies of 37schools that had received grants, and submitted its final report in December 1987. Becausethis study was not based on a random sample,its results may not be generalizable to theentire population of schools that have participated in the program. Nevertheless, thestudy's results are probably suggestive of theprogram's general impact.

The Far West Laboratory study cites thelocal planning process that goes into thecompletion ofan application for a grant as oneof the more significant benefits of the adoption/expansion grant component of the Educational Technology program:

The schools, themselves, were able to determine the best applications of these-andother-funds from the district and the statethat related to technology. In order to do this,schools had to clarify their goals for the program, analyze effective approaches to implementation and develop clear planning processes.That schools began thinking seriouslyabout the appropriate uses of technologymay be one of the more significant benefits of the adoption/expansion effort.4

The study also concludes that:• Local, school-site efforts were designed

to meet locally- defined needs;• Small grants resulted in small scale start

up efforts or modest expansion of existing technology programs;


• In some instances, and in a variety ofways, schools were able to leverage otherfiscal resources; and

• Schools did not adopt model technologyprograms from other schools.s

No Evaluation ofProgram Based on Educational Outcomes. In its discussion of "program impact," the department's sunset review report states:

The initial impact of the adoption/expansiongrant program has been to increase the availability of technology resources for curriculumand instruction: more technology hardware,more software and improved staff readiness toutilize technology... [Among schools receivingfunding] adoption/expansion funds have increased the number of computers by 58% inelementary schools and by 28% in secondaryschools, for an overall increase of40%.The report also presents data showing that,

among funded schools, the adoption/expansion grants have resulted in an increase in theaverage number ofcomputers per school, anda decrease in the average number of studentsper computer. Together with a brief discussion of the distribution of funds amongschools, this constitutes the department'sentire discussion of the impact of the adoption/expansion grant component.

These findings, in our opinion, fail to address the most important question regardingthe impact of the adoption/expansion grants.Clearly, a program that provides funds for thepurchase of computer hardware should haveresulted in an increase in the availability ofcomputers among schools receiving funding.We believe, however, that the important issueis, "How has the increased availability ofcomputers affected educational achievement?"Unfortunately, the department's report provides no information on this issue.

4 Saul Rockman, Kayla Kirsch, and John Mergendoller, Powerful and Empowering (But Almost Invisible): ResearCh on the Impact ofthe AB 803 Adoption!Expansion Program, (San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development), December 1987, p. 16 (emphasis added).

5 Ibid., p.l.

PagelS

In their review of the adoption/expansiongrant component, cited above, the Far WestLaboratory researchers also noted the lack ofany significant local program evaluationsamong the schools they visited. Specifically,they found that (1) these schools rarely collected formal impact and outcome data and(2) their evaluation plans were generallybased on faulty assumptions and sometimesused inappropriate methodologies.6

Our review indicates that responsibility forfailing to compile meaningful evaluative dataon the effectiveness of the adoption/expansion grants lies with SDE, and constitutes asignificant weakness in the department'sadministration of the Educational Technology program. One of the criteria used injudging applications for adoption and expansion grants was the inclusion ofan evaluationplan that covered "both a review of implementation activities and strategies to measurethe results of the program." The department,however, did not require grant recipients actually to conduct evaluations, took no steps toensure that evaluation methodologies wouldbe consistent among programs, and did notattempt to compile the results of the evaluations.

SummaryOur review of the Educational Technology

program indicates that one of the program'sprimary documented benefits has been thepromotionofschool-level planningfor the useof educational technology, through the adoption/expansion grant process. Not unexpect-

6 Ibid., p. 12.


edly, the program has also increased theamount of educational technology hardware(such as computers) among schools that havereceived adoption/expansion grants.

Our review, however, also identifies thefollowing problems:

• There is no good estimate of the level ofstate funding needed for the program,because there has been no attempt todefine schools' needs for educationaltechnology in light of (1) measurablegoals and objectives and (2) the availability of local resources.

• There are no state-level data to determinethe impact of the program in terms ofeducational outcomes (for example, increases in student achievement) becausethere is no existing, effective evaluativeprocess.

• The allocation of adoption/expansiongrant funds on a per-school basis hasresulted in some inequities in the amountof available support, when measured ona per-pupil basis.

• The Governor's veto of funding for theTeacher Education and Computer Centers in 1987-88 has left the EducationalTechnology program without a networkof regional support service delivery centers.

• Current law contains some ambiguitiesregarding the roles of the EducationalTechnology Committee and the StateBoard of Education in the governance ofthe Educational Technology program.

Page 19


Legislative Analyst's Recommendations

In this section, we present ourrecommendations for improving the effectiveness of theEducational Technology program, whilemaintaining its basic purposes. These recommendations are based on the findings presented above, as well as on those contained inthe SDE's sunset review report.

Continue Program in Revised FormWe recommend that the Educational Tech

nology program be continued in a modifiedform.

Theproblems with the current version oftheEducational Technology program notedabove result from (1) weaknesses in the administration of the program by the StateDepartment of Education, (2) gubernatorialfunding vetoes, and (3) ambiguities in theauthorizing legislation. These problems donot, in our opinion, reflect an inherentlyflawed program design. Accordingly, we donot recommend that the Educational Technology program be eliminated. Instead, we believe that the problems should be resolved inorder to (1) bring the program into line withlegislative objectives and (2) improve program effectiveness and efficiency. Accordingly, we recommend that the program becontinued in a modified form, as discussedbelow.

Develop Estimates of FundingNeeds

We recommend that the Educational Technology Committee, in conjunction 'with theState Board of Education, revise the LongRange Plan for Educational Technology toidentify for each component of the Educational Technology program: (1) specific,measurable goals; (2) the level of educationaltechnology resources needed by schools (inlight of the resources they currently have), inorder to achieve the goals; (3) an appropriate

sharingratio between state and local funding;and (4) a funding timetable for achieving thegoals.

As noted previously, there currently existno good estimates of the level of state fundingneeded for the various components of theEducational Technology program, or for theprogram as a whole. This information, however, is essential if the Legislature is to determine the appropriate level of funding for theprogram.

We believe that an appropriate startingpoint for developing estimates of fundingneeds is the long-range plan developed by theEducational Technology Committee, andadopted by the State Board of Education inNovember 1986. In order to be useful for thispurpose, however, the plan needs to be revised to include, for each component of theEducational Technology program:

• Specific, Measurable Goals. Where possible, goals should be stated in terms ofdesired program outcomes (for example,impacts on educational achievement),rather than in terms of inputs (for example, decrease the student/computerratio by 50 percent). In the case of pilotprojects, where outcomes are unknown,the plan should specify which types ofoutComes will be measured in the projectevaluation.

• Assessment of Schools' EducationalTechnology Needs. The plan shouldestimate the amount of additional educational technology resources schools needto meet the identified goals, in light of theresources they already have.

• State/Local Sharing Ratio. The planshould specify what portion of the identified funding needs should be met bylocal educational agencies, and provide arationale for the particular local matching rate chosen.

Page 20

• Funding Timetable. Finally, the planshould include a funding timetable,showing the amount of state fundingneeded each year to achieve the goals ofthe particular component.

With this information, the Legislature willhave an analytical basis on which to makedecisions regarding funding levels for each ofthe components of the Educational Technology program.

Evaluate Program in Terms ofEducational Outcomes

We recommend that all recipients ofEducational Technology funds be required to evaluate the impact of their uses of these funds interms of educational outcomes. We furtherrecommend that the State Department ofEducation (1) develop model evaluation designs and (2) provide technical assistance tolocal education agencies, in order to ensurethatthe results ofthese evaluations are, to theextent possible, comparable. Finally, we recommend that SDE use the results of theseevaluations to identify those applications ofeducational technology which appear to bemost cost-effective and disseminate this information annually.

Our review indicates that there currentlyexists no effective process for evaluating theimpact of state spending on educational technology. As noted above, although applicantsfor Educational Technology adoption/expansion grants were required to include an evaluation plan as part of their application, SDE didnot require grant recipients actually to conduct such evaluations. Moreover, the department took no steps to ensure that evaluationmethodologies would be consistent amongprograms, and did not attempt to compile theresults of the evaluations that were conducted.

If the Legislature is to maximize the-state'sreturn on its investment in educational technology, it needs to have information on the


relative cost-effectiveness of various uses ofprogram funds. This information can thenassist the Legislature and/or local educationagencies in reordering relative funding priorities in future years. Accordingly, we recommend that all recipients of Educational Technology funds be required to complete evaluations based on educational outcomes, usingmodels developedbySDE. We further recommend that SDE use the evaluation results toidentify cost-effective uses of educationaltechnology, and disseminate this information

annually.

Address Equity in Grant FundingFormulas

We recommend that the Legislature clarifythe definition of "equitable access," as thatterm is used in the enabling legislation. Wefurther recommend that the Legislatufe (1)indicate how this concept is to be implemented in the allocation of funds for varioustypes of Educational Technology programgrants and (2) stipulate for each grant program, whether funding may be "targeted" toparticular uses.

The program's authorizing legislation (Ch1133/83) declares legislative intent that"...budget allocations for educational programs designed to strengthen technologicalskills be structured to ensure that all California school pupils will have equitable access tothose programs..." As noted above, however,the method adopted by the Educational Technology Committee for allocating adoption/expansion grant funds had the unintendedconsequence of resulting in inequities amongstudents of various racial/ethnic groups inthe average amount of funding provided perpupil. In order to address this problem, SDEhas proposed (subsequent to the publicationofits sunset reviewreportHhat, in 1989-90 andthereafter, all Educational Technology localassistance grants be based on (among otherthings) an equal per-ADA allocation "with

Page 21

adjustments for small schools and, possibly,an upper limit for very large schools."7

We believe that the Legislature shouldaddress the issue of equitable access and itsimplications for Educational Technologygrant funding formulas. We do not agree,however, that "equitable access" to educational technology resources necessarily implies a distribution of grant funds based onequal amounts per ADA. This is because"equitable access" maybe defined in differentways, with each definition having differentimplications for the design ofa grant distribution formula.

Accordingly, webelieve that the Legislatureshould first clearly define what it means by"equitable access" to educational technologyresources. After doing this, the Legislatureshould then specify grant distribution formulas that are consistent with the definition ofequitable access.

How is "Equitable Access" Defined? Thechoice of a particular definition of "equitableaccess" cannot be made analytically. Rather,it involves a value judgment which only theLegislature can make. We note, however, thatthere are two major approaches to definingequity in this context. Specifically, equitableaccess to educational technology may be defined in terms of educational inputs (for example, each student receives 30 minutes ofcomputer time per week), orin terms ofeducationaloutcomes (as measured by an appropriate test).

• Educational Inputs. The first, inputbaseddefinition ofequity generally leadsto grant formulas in which funds aredistributed based on anequal amount offunding per ADA. There may be cases,however, in which the particular type ofeducational technology is such that afixed per-ADA distribution is not appro-


priate. In the case of InstructionalTelevision Regional Agencies, for example, itmay not be appropriate to base fundingentirely on the total ADA within the service region. (Presumably, it costs no moreto broadcast programs to 100,000 ADAwithin a broadcast area than to 10,000ADA; nordoes theviewing ofa televisionbroadcast by one student diminishanother's ability to view it.) Accordingly,we believe that a fixed per-ADA fundingmechanism should be used only where(1) "equitable access" is defined in termsof educational inputs and (2) the need forfunds and the ability to benefit from themis reasonably related to enrollment.

• Educational Outcomes. The second definition of equity, based on educationaloutcomes, generally leads to allocationformulas that provide different amountsof funding for different types of pupils,based on their "need."s For example, theLegislature may wish to define equitableaccess in terms of ensuring that all pupilsshall have sufficient resources to attain aspecified level of educational achievement. Alternatively, equitable accesscould be defined in terms of all studentsshowing a specified increase in educational achievement. In eithercase, educational technology resources would needto be distributed on a basis which takesinto account the fact that certain studentsmay need more funding than others, inorder to meet the goals set by the Legislature in its definition of equitable access.Thus, an outcome-based definition ofequity could lead to a per-ADA distribution of funds in which certain types ofADA receive different "weights," depending on their needs.

7 ~~g::lor~r~tiO~of EdS

ucaptionalRi!chechnology Funds to Schools," Attachment A in aletter from Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill8 ssem Y em ers am arr, ard Katz, Teresa Hughes, and Lucy Killea, dated December 23, 1987.

~~p~~~~ : ~~~tothgye~e~:::~~S~:~ms'~;":~kPelroachptoli eqw.An·tyal' s~e ;tanlCalifeJ:'Poqrow, ''Po~cy Recommendations for Developing'., \UCJ. ey: 0 cy YSlS lor orma Education), p. 4.

Page 22

A final issue involving the definition ofequitable access concerns theability ofschoolsto "target" their educational technologyfunds towards particularuses. Forexample, ifthe Legislature were to adopt a definition of"equitable access" in which all schools receivesufficient funding to provide one-half hour ofcomputer time weekly for each of their students, could a school choose to target all ofthese funds to computer programs designedto teach English to its fourth-graders? Arguably, such a school would not be in compliancewith legislative intent, as all its students exceptthose in the fourth gradewould be deniedaccess to the educational technology. Yet,research indicates that some of the more costeffective applications of educational technology may occur in such targeted uses.9 We recommend, therefore, that the Legislatureclearly specify those types of grants for whichtargeted use of educational technology fundsis permissible.

In sum, we recommend that the Legislature(1) clearly define in legislation the term "equitable access," (2) specify, based on the definition adopted, funding mechanisms for eachEducational Technology grant program, and(3) stipulate, for each grant program, whetherfunding may be targeted.

Reestablish Regional SupportService Delivery Centers

We recommend that the Legislature reestablish a network of regional support servicedelivery centers, because the Governor'selimination of the Teacher Education andComputer Centers (TECCs) has left the Educational Technology program without an entityto (1) administer the adoption!expansiongrant process and (2) provide local educationagencies with needed technical assistanceregarding applications of educational technology. We further recommend that the StateDepartment of Education develop a specific

9 See Pogrow, op. cit.


funding proposal for the new network of support service delivery centers, based on anticipated workload in these areas, and submit theproposal to the Joint Legislative BudgetCommittee, the legislative fiscal committees,and the Department of Finance by November15,1988.

Prior to the Governors veto of funding forthe TECCs in 1987-88, these entities (amongotherduties) rated applications for adoption/expansion grant funding and, based on theseratings, assigned a priority for receiving funding to each applicant. The TECCs also provided technical assistance to schools in thedevelopment of educational technologyplans.

Our review indicates that if the EducationalTechnology program continues the adoption/expansion grant component (or a similarcomponent), there will be a need to providethe kinds of regional support services thatwere previously provided by the TECCs. Forthis reason, we recommend that the Legislature reestablish a network of regional supportservice delivery centers to address theseneeds.

In the absence of specific information regarding the types ofgrant programs (and theirassociated needs for support services) to beincluded in any legislation to reauthorize theEducational Technology program, we areunable to recommend a particular level offunding for this purpose. We recommend,therefore, that the Legislature direct SDE todevelop a budget proposal based on anticipated workload for the new network of support services delivery centers. This proposalshould be submitted to the Joint LegislativeBudget Committee, the legislative fiscal committees, and the Department of Finance byNovember 15,1988, so it can be incorporatedinto the discussions on the 1989-90 BudgetBill.

Page 23

Clarify Ambiguous Provisions ofCurrent Law

We recommend that the Legislature amendprovisions of current law to clarify the respons":bilities of the Educational TechnologyCommittee and the State Board ofEducationin establishing a budget for the EducationalTechnology program.

As noted above, current law does not indicate clearly which entity-the State Board ofEducation or the Educational TechnologyCommittee-makes the final determinationon how Educational Technology funds are tobe allocatedamong various components. Specifically, it is not clear whether current lawallows the State Board of Education to revisethe Educational Technology Committee'sfunding proposals, or whether, instead, itrequires the board merely to perform theministerial duty of carrying out thecommittee's recommendations.

We have no analyticalbasis for recommending one entity or the other as being moreappropriately responsible for establishing abudget for the Educational Technology program. Rather, this is a policy decision whichonly the Legislature can make. In order toavoid unnecessary confusion, however, webelieve that the Legislature should clarify thismatter by amending Sections 41920 and51873.1 of the Education Code to indicate itsintent.

SummaryWe recommend that the Educational Tech

nology Local Assistance program be continued, with the following modifications:

• The Educational TechnologyCommittee,in conjunction with the State Board of


Education, should revise the state longrange educational technology plan inorder to develop more specific estimatesof funding needs, and a timetable formeeting those needs;

• The Legislature should require that (1) allrecipients of Educational Technologyprogram funds complete program evaluations based on educational outcomes,using models developed by the StateDepartment ofEducation and (2) the SDEuse these evaluation results to identifycost-effective uses of educational technology;

• The Legislature should explicitly addressthe issue of "equitable access" to Educational Technology program funds, by (1)clarifying the meaning of this term, as it isused in the enabling legislation, (2) specifying funding allocation mechanisms foreach grant program, based on the definition of equity adopted, and (3) indicatingwhether grant funds may be "targeted"to particular uses;

• The Legislature should reestablish a network ofregional support service deliverycenters, in order to administer the adoption/expansion grant process and provide local education agencies withneeded technical assistance regardingapplications of educational technology;and

• The Legislature should amend ambiguous provisions of current law to clarifythe responsibilities of the EducationalTechnology Committee and the StateBoard of Education in establishing abudget for the Educational Technologyprogram.>:-

Page 24

Chapter III

Chapter III: Comments on Recommendations

Chapter III

Comments onRecommendations of theState Department ofEducation

The State Department of Education (SDE)makes nine recommendations in its sunsetreview report. For the most part, these recommendations propose the continuation ofexisting aspects of the Educational TechnologyLocal Assistance program but do not suggestways in which the program may be improved.In cases where the report does recommend achange, the proposal is usually described ingeneral terms, and is not supported by any

analysis presented in the report. For thesereasons, our ability to respond to the department's recommendations--as presented--washindered and, in several instances, it wasnecessary to obtain additional informationfrom the department before we could respond.

We note those instances in the discussionthat follows.

Adoption/Expansion Grant ProgramThe department notes that, at the time its

report was written (following the third cycleof grant funding), the adoption/expansiongrant program had reached 52 percent ofschools and that the remaining 48 percent ofschools should also benefit from the program.The department further states that "continuing expenditures...at the school level areneeded to provide the critical mass of hardware and software necessary for improvingcurriculum delivery with educational technology."

Legislative Analyst's Comments

We concur that, on grounds of equity, it isreasonable to continue the adoption/expansion grant process until all schooIs that wish

to participate in the program have had an opportunity to receive funding. We further recommend, however, that the Legislature address the issues of (1) whether the adoption/expansion grant program should continueonce all such schools have had the opportunity to be funded and (2) if it should continue,what mechanism should be used to distributethe funds?

The department's sunset review report doesnot indicate what level offunding is needed inorder to provide a "critical mass" ofhardwareand software at each school site. In responseto our inquiries, department staff indicatedthat they had no specific amount in mind, butrather that (1) the "critical mass" is determined independently by each school and (2)

Page2S

various funding sources (including Educational Technology funds) may be combined toprovide the resources necessary to create this"critical mass." In this same response, however, the department notes that, based on theaverage grant size thus far, approximately $26million would be needed to fund all previouslyunfunded schools. Thus, the department appears to argue for the continuation of the adoption/expansion grants at existing funding levelsper school.

The department has not provided the Legislature with any analyticalbasis for the determination of the amount of state funding for educational technology that is needed by schools. (Weaddressed this issue in greater detail previously, in our discussion of program fundingneeds.) Nevertheless, we believe that, on equitygrounds, it is reasonable to continue fundingfor the adoption/expansion program, at current grant levels, until all schools that desire toparticipate in the program have a chance to doso. For this reason, we concur with the thrust ofthe department's recommendation.

We also recommend, however, that the Legislatureaddress two issues related to the future ofthe adoption/expansion grant component.Following the most recent (fourth) cycle ofadoption/expansion grant awards, over twothirds of the state's schools (representing about78 percent of all students) had received suchgrants. Thus, if this component of the Educational Technology program continues to receive funding, it will not be long before allschools in the state that desire such an awardwill have received one. It would be appropriate, therefore, for the Legislature to specify how


the adoption/expansion grant componentshall continue, once all interested schoolshave received a grant. In this regard, we believe that the Legislature should consider thefollowing issues:

Should funding for this purpose continueat all? Given that the adoption/expansion grants were intended as "seedmoney" to stimulate local interest in using educational technology, is there anongoing need to provide state fundingfor this purpose once all schools havebeen funded?If funding is provided, should it beawarded on a formula basis, or througha.competitivegrantprocess? The currentprogram uses a competitive process--asystem that is defended on the groundsthat it forces schools to develop meaningful plans for the use of educational technology. Continuing this approach in thefuture could provide schools with incentives to update their educational technology plans, ifrequired to do so by the reauthorizing legislation. A formula approach, in contrast, would be simplerandless costly to administer--potentiallyfreeing up additional funds for grants.(As noted earlier, in 1986-87, a total ofapproximately $1.1 million was providedTECCs for administering the adoption/expansion grant award process and providing technical assistance to applicants.This equaled 8.4 percent of the totalamount of adoption/expansion grantfunds awarded in that year.)

Local Educational Technology Plans

As part of its application for adoption/expansion grant funds, each school is required todevelop and submit a local educational technology plan. This plan then becomes the basis forthe school's use of educational technologyfunds. The SDE recommends that

"[sJtrategies...be developed to encourage andassist districts to continue to implement, andto update, local educational technologyplans." The department further recommendsthat these plans (1) be integrated with schooldistrict plans for curriculum and instructional

Page 26

reform and (2) incorporate the goals, objectives, and strategies of the state long-rangeeducational technology plan.


We generally concurwith this recommendation, as subsequently elaborated upon by theSDE.

The department's sunset review report didnot indicate what kinds ofstrategies should beused to encourage districts to implement andupdate their local plans. Department staffsubsequently indicated that, due to the demise of the TECCs, this recommendation hadbeen rendered moot.

These staff members further indicated,however, that the SDE was considering allocating up to $900,000 from the 1988-89 Educational Technology program budget for thepurpose of providing technical assistance inthe implementation of their plans to schoolsreceiving funding during 1987-88 and 198889. These funds would be distributed to anumber of existing regional agencies (such ascounty offices of education), using a competi-

Model Technology Schools

The department recommends continuationof research and development through theLevel I and Level II phases of the EducationalTechnology Model Schools Project.


We concur with this recommendation.The Educational Technology ModelSchools

Project provides grants to study two approaches to the infusion of technology intoschools.

The first approach (Level I) provides grantsto eachoffive schoolcomplexes (a schoolcomplex consists of an elementary school and anintermediate school and high school intowhich it feeds students) for in-depth study ofthe application of technology in all phases of


tive application process. The selected agencies would also be responsible for:

Assisting nonapplicant schools in the development of local educational technology plans and the submission of grantapplications;Disseminating findings from the Level Iand Level II Model Technology Schoolsto other schools within their regions; andAssisting schools in evaluating the outcomes of their uses of Educational Technology grant funds.

Based on our findings presented earlier, webelieve that this would be a reasonable use ofEducational Technology funds, on a one-timebasis, in 1988-89. Consistent with our recommendation in Chapter II, however, we alsorecommend that (1) the Legislature enact legislation to reestablish a network of supportservices delivery centers and (2) the SDEdevelop a specific funding proposal for thesecenters and submit it for consideration in the1989-90 Budget Bill.

the schools' operation. In support of thisobjective, each Level I complex is required toestablish an ongoing research relationshipwith a local higher education institution.Level I projects are anticipated to last betweenthree and five years; during 1986-87and 198788, five selected complexes have each receiveda grant of $500,000 to support the first 13months of program operation.

The second approach (Level II) providessmaller grants to develop applications of technology in a single subject area, across all gradelevels. Once developed, these applicationswill be packaged and disseminated to interested schools throughout the state. The LevelII projects are anticipated to last about twoyears each; in 1986-87, nine schools received

Page 27

grants of $80,000 and one school received agrant of $70,000 to support 15 months of program operations.

Our review indicates that the Model SchoolsProject generally--and the Level I projects inparticular--are likely to provide useful infor-

Staff Development

The department's sunset review reportstates that "additional district-level planningis required to provideadequately for the training of teachers and administrators throughthe development of peer training and supportteams." It then goes on to recommend that (1)the Educational Technology Summer Institutes focus on training teachers who can betrainers within their own districts and (2) thedistrict educational technology plans of sponsoring districts incorporate the use of thesetrainers.


We generally concur with these recommendations. Consistent with our recommendations in Chapter II, however, we further recommend that the SDE evaluate the cost-effectiveness ofthe summerinstitutes, versus otherapproaches to training educators in the usesof educational technology.

The department's recommendation withrespect to the summer institutes merely callsfor a continuation of the status quo; the summer institutes currently use a "trainer of trainers" approach, in which teachers attendingthe institutes are expected to train other teachers upon returning to their respective districts. This approach, which has been used in


mation regarding the most cost-beneficialapplications of educational technology inschools. The department's sunset reviewreport merely recommends continuation offunding for the projects that have alreadybegun. We concur that this is appropriate.

other staff development programs, is generally more cost-effective than training all of theteachers directly. The department, however,was unable to provide specific information regarding the cost-effectiveness of the institutes.

In response to our inquiries, departmentstaff stated that evaluations of the 1986 summer institutes (the only evaluations currentlyavailable) ,'varied in their focus as well as theirlevel of detail." They further stated that thedepartment had not reviewed the evaluationsin sufficient detail to provide estimates of thenumbers of additional teachers trained by theparticipants in the summer institutes.

We think that this information, togetherwith some measurement of the effectivenessof the training (for both participants and thosetrained by them) is necessary, if the Legislature is to make an informed decision regarding the continuation of this component of theEducational Technology program. For thisreason, we recommend that the summer institutes--as well as all of the other components ofthe Educational Technology program--besubject to the kinds of rigorous evaluationrequirements discussed earlier in this report.

Pre-Service Training of TeachersChapter 1433, Statutes of 1985 (AB 1681) "[a]s the provisions of AB 1681 are put into

requires that, as of July I, 1988, the minimum place, there are many opportunities for the Krequirements for a clear teaching credential 12 system...to cooperate with IHEs [(institushall include completion of a course in com- tions of higher education)] in the provision ofputer education. The department states that, the necessary training." The department rec-

Page2S

ommends that, "on a matching basis" withthese institutions, Educational Technologylocal assistance program funds be used "tofund a series of initiatives to develop coursematerials for use in pre-service training and totrain IHE faculty in the implementation oftechnology in their curriculum specialties."


We are unable to comment on this recommendation, because it lacks sufficient specificity.


The department's sunset review report doesnot indicate (1) what level of funding isneeded for this purpose or (2) what the appropriate matching rate should be between funding provided by the Educational Technologyprogram and the IHEs (such as the CaliforniaStateUniversity). In response to our inquiries,department staff noted that the EducationalTechnology Committee had not set theamount of funding to address this recommendation. Accordingly, we have no basis onwhich to comment on this recommendation.

Software Development Partnerships

In 1986-87and 1987-88, the statespent a totalof $1 million on six software developmentpartnerships to address areas of the curriculum where high-quality video and computersoftware is currently lacking. Under thesepartnerships, the SDE defines the subject areas to becovered, establishes criteria formeasuring quality, and shares in the developmentcosts. Software developers produce the specified software, pay the remainder of the development costs, and agree to sell the products toCalifornia schools at a discount and/or provide a royalty to the SDE on out-of-state sales.The department recommends that the software development partnerships be continued" ... to ensure that high-quality materialsgeared to California'scurriculumframeworksand standards continue to be produced."


We concur with this recommendation.

There is general agreement that, comparedto the market for business software, the market for educational software is quite limited.The educational software which is producedtends to be rather general in application (inorder to reach the broadest possible segmentof the market), and often is designed for useboth at home and in the schools. As a result,high-quality software tied to specific areas ofCalifornia's K-12 curriculum is frequentlylacking (these gaps were identified as part ofthe Technology in the Curriculum project).Our review indicates that the software development partnerships appear to be an appropriate means of stimulating the production ofsuch software, at a reasonable cost to the state.Accordingly, we concur with the department's recommendation that they be continued.

Telecommunications Pilot Project

The department recommends that a pilotproject to test the use of telecommunicationstechnology for instructional and administrative purposes be funded, based on "[t]hestrong rationale for a state leadership role" inthis area.



Page 29


In response to our inquiries, department need to be completed in order for a new projstaff indicated that work on the telecommuni- ect to be funded in the future." Accordingly,cations pilot project had been suspended as of we have no basis on which to comment on thisNovember 1987. They further stated that recommendation."[a]dditional policy review and studies will

Ongoing Software Reviews

In 1984-85 and 1985-86, the department allocated approximately $1.8 million for the development of Technology in the Curriculum(TIC) Resource Guides in each of six academicsubject areas. These guides review and identify computer software and video programming which support the state curriculumframeworks and model curriculum standards. In 1986-87, the department contractedfor the development of an "update guide," tocover software that had been published sincethe original guides were written. Each schoolin the state received a copy of the TIC Resource Guides and the update guide.

In its recommendation, the departmentstates that "eventually, all educational computer software and video programming withpotential for use in California schools shouldbe reviewed." To this end, the departmentrecommends (1) the establishment of "a comprehensive review procedure for computersoftware and video programming" and (2)"implementation, on an extended basis, of theTechnology in the Curriculum type of review."


We concur that there is a need to provideeducators with information to assist them in

choosing high-quality, curriculum-relatededucational software. We are unable tocomment on this recommendation, however,because it lacks sufficient specificity.

The department's report does not specifythe type of "comprehensive review procedure" it has in mind, nor does it indicate atimeline and funding plan. In response to ourinquiries, department staff indicated that theyhad hoped to test some type of "on-line"method of updating software and video reviews as part of the proposed telecommunications pilot project. When the project was puton "hold," however, this plan was abandoned. Consequently, the department allocated approximately $130,000 from the 198788 Educational Technology budget for thepublication of one more volume of the TICupdate guide, and has no definite plans forfurther updates in the future.

Our review indicates that there will be anongoing need on the part of educators for asource of impartial guidance in choosingamong the increasing number of educationalsoftware products that areavailable each year.Accordingly, we encourage SDE to develop aspecific proposal that would meet this need ina cost-effective manner.

Technical Amendments to Chapter 1133/83

The department recommends that it seekunspecified "technical, clean-up changes" toChapter 1133, in order to rectify (1) problemsthat have led to delays in disbursement offunds to eligible agencies and (2) other technical inconsistencies.



Page 30


The department's sunset review report does department staff stated that the departmentnot identify either (1) the specific problems had sought clean-up legislation, but that thisthat have led to funding delays or (2) the legislation had subsequently beenchanges in law that would address these withdrawn.•:.problems. In response to our inquiries,

Page 31

Documents

The Educational Technology Local...The Educational Technology Local Assis tanceprogram,authorizedbyCh1133/83(AB 803), provides support for educational tech nology inthe public schools