6. Funding Issues and Strategies

6.l Design Principles
6.2 Determining System Costs
6.3 Sustainability and Future Needs
Back to Table of Contents

This plan provides several approaches to the allocation of Technology Enhancement funds to local districts. Each addresses the intent of the authorizing legislation. All funding allocations will occur after the local technology plans are approved by the State Board of Education.

Funding allocation options:

A. Provide direct funding to the school district based on average daily attendance (ADA). Each district's enrollment will be aggregated at the state level and dissemination of the funds will be based on the average of the district's second and third month attendance data.

B. Ensure that all districts receive a minimum level of technology funds by establishing an equal base amount for each district. The balance of funds would be allocated based on ADA.

C. Provide an equal amount of funding to each district for technology-related activities. These funds either may be expended at local discretion, categorically for required initiatives, or some combination of the two.

D. Provide funds for area and regional communication hubs to minimize communication line charges to local districts. The balance of funds will be allocated based on ADA (see below).

E Allocate funding according to a formula that combines ADA and equity funding.

A major concern that must be taken into consideration is equity of opportunity among all Mississippi districts and schools. Care must be taken not to penalize progressive districts and schools that have opted to invest local funding and efforts in technology integration in their schools. At the same time, consideration should be given to those districts and schools that have not had the opportunity to move forward in this area. To strike a balance between the two groups, allocation of Technology Enhancement Act funds will provide a minimum level of technology-related services to the schools and districts, and lend support for statewide network access. Districts will establish their own priorities through local planning for expenditure of funds from the Technology Enhancement Act. The Council for Education Technology recommends that the Board of Education adopt funding allocation option D. Detailed information of Option D is provided below:

Sample Funding Allocation-Option D

*Planning/management mini-grants have been awarded to 103 districts totaling $153,253. For districts who have received mini grants, the amount of the mini grant will be deducted from the total distributed to them from the Technology Enhancement Act funds.

6.1 Design Principles

School districts must focus funding priorities based on areas of weakness identified in the needs assessment stage of the planning process conducted within the district. The Technology Enhancement Act funds should be utilized to address these weaknesses either on a district-wide level or for a specific school, grade level, or subject area (i.e., if district test scores reflect lower scores in reading, then Technology Enhancement Act funds should be allocated toward the improvement of reading). Consideration should also be given to the prioritized sequence of goals and implementation strategies found in Section 7.2. Additional funds could be distributed based on other local school or district priorities, such as the elementary school, the classroom, and/or the library/media center. This allows for direct input from teaching staff and parents in determining school or district-wide priorities. Consideration should be given to eliminating gaps within the districts in regard to access to technology and the district's distance learning needs.

If a district does not have sufficient resources to pilot a special project or adequately address needs, participation in a consortium of districts is encouraged. Districts may consider a project that would mutually benefit all partners in the consortium. If a consortium is considered, one district must be selected as the fiscal agent for the consortium. All funds and communication regarding the project will be conducted with the fiscal agent district.

6.2 Determining System Costs

The following table provides projected costs for a sample networking technology initiative for an elementary school of 500 students:

Table 6-1: Sample of Projected Cost for Technology Initiatives

Table 6-2: Sample of Projected Costs for Distance Learning Electronic Classrooms

The following table provides a sample of projected costs for technology initiatives involving an electronic classroom for distance learning and other technology based instruction.

Table 6-3: Sample of Projected Costs for Communication Hub Sites

Ongoing costs of communication lines and systems can be prohibitive if districts are responsible for covering the costs for e-mail, Internet, or other network systems. To minimize communication line costs to the districts, area and regional communication hub sites will be placed in different geographical areas in Mississippi. Area sites, designed to provide network service to schools and districts, will minimize communication costs. Regional communication hub sites will be placed in close proximity to BellSouth communication hubs.

6.3 Sustainability and Future Needs

Technology is and will continue to be integral to education. No student in Mississippi should be denied the opportunity to participate in a technology-rich environment. To inadvertently limit access to technology will seriously undermine the principles and purposes of public education. Mississippi leaders must be careful to ensure that the educational environment is not populated by 'haves' and 'have nots', or 'users' and 'non-users'.

A critical issue related to funding is sustainability. The technology infused into the classroom requires ongoing funding support. Currently, no consistent procedures or sources exist to support education technology in Mississippi's schools. Few districts have the resources to direct local funds for ongoing support needs. The Mississippi Department of Education must offer leadership and support to ensure that technology and related applications in education will be distributed and sustained equitably and sufficiently throughout the state.

Several key areas in the acquisition, implementation and maintenance of education technology must be addressed at both the local and state level including:

• acquisition of appropriate equipment and associated infrastructure (e.g., LANs, wiring, building accommodations)
• training for faculty, staff, students and community
• continuing costs, such as telecommunications and maintenance
• technical and application support
• timely upgrade and/or replacement of equipment
• additional staffing positions to support education technology.

There are a number of current alternative funding sources available for these needs. They include:

• Technology Enhancement Act (Senate Bill 3350) (provides an immediate $30 million for technology in the classroom). In addition, $60 million is available through selling bonds. (However, bonding funds may not be appropriate for the purchase of equipment with a life expectancy shorter than the time required to repay the bonds.)
• Minimum Program Foundation funds (provides base level support for education in the districts).
• Title I and Title VI funds
• Eisenhower funds
• federal grants including National Science Foundation, Star School Grants, and Goals 2000
• special education funds
• instructional program providers

It is anticipated, however, that some of the education technology cost categories are currently unfunded or underfunded through these sources. Local education agencies must determine what part of their technology plans fall into unfunded or underfunded areas.

The acquisition and implementation of education technology within the K-12 community will have ramifications in other parts of the education community. The education partners of K-12 should become involved in the support and implementation of education technology in the K-12 schools. These partners will have needs that must be funded if the state as a whole is to move forward in its plans for wide-spread use of technology. Accordingly, the following must be addressed:

• Telecommunication infrastructure must be developed that provides sufficient bandwidth and connectivity for schools, community and junior colleges, libraries, education television services and universities. This infrastructure is a network of networks with all partners working in concert to allow for interoperability, sustainability, and access.
• University pre-service programs in education must model the use of education technology.
• Technology infusion must begin at the preservice level to ensure that all teachers are prepared for the classroom of the 21st Century.
• Distance learning programs require support for existing and new technology.
• State libraries require technology to support students outside the school building in distance learning and in resource sharing capabilities.
• Regional demonstration and/or training centers are required for training and support.
• Community and junior colleges require expanded distance learning capabilities and resources for sharing and training.

The funds provided by the Technology Enhancement Act provide significant capability to districts to begin their technology development. However, it can be seen that further funding must become available to continue providing students and teachers the technology and support required to prepare Mississippi students for the 21st Century workplace. These and additional financial areas must be addressed by local district boards and the MS Legislature to ensure current investments in education technology are not diminished due to lack of future support and expansion.

Return to top page