Vol. 4, No. 1, Jan/Feb 1996	Previous Issues Subscribe to AT Messenger Download PDF Viewer
	PDF Version (for printing) Text Version

Financing Assistive Technology
Creative Technology Funding Options for School Districts

Ron Sibert, DATI Funding Specialist

School districts today are faced with ever increasing challenges as they strive to provide state-of-the-art educational services. If students are to be adequately prepared to compete academically and meet the demands of tomorrow's job market, then computers, telecommunications, and other information management technologies must be a part of their educational programs. Incorporating technology into education is no longer just a novelty or an option for sharing information more easily; it is a matter of survival.

In addition, public schools are required by law to provide assistive technology to students with disabilities when they need it to benefit from their special education programs. This is accomplished through the individualized education program (IEP). Similarly, students with disabilities who do not qualify for special education are entitled to reasonable accommodations; that is, whatever devices/services that can be reasonably provided that will help such students achieve equal access to their educational programs. There is also a legal requirement for students with disabilities to be included, to the greatest extent possible, in classrooms with students without disabilities. Accommodation and inclusion may often involve the use of-you guessed it-AT.

As this technological revolution moves into full swing, however, many school districts are faced with the dilemma of having to balance technology and related service spending against shrinking budgets. So the search is on for creative financing strategies. New and controversial funding formulas are being considered in state legislatures with an eye on the changes looming on Capitol Hill. Various financing models are being studied and applied situationally, but the outcomes are still uncertain. So what should be done in the meantime?

Some believe the solution is reduction of spending-what amounts to avoiding purchase by failing to include educationally necessary devices and services on the (IEP). However, the savings are far less than the cost burden in staff time and due process; particularly since this approach is in violation of the law. Also-and this is an extremely important point-this system-wide denial of responsibility robs the district of crucial data that could be used to generate additional funding. This notion is discussed in more detail below.

A more acceptable approach is to employ other funding mechanisms. Medicaid has been used rather extensively to purchase certain medically necessary equipment such as augmentative communication devices and sensory aids for qualifying students with disabilities. However, not all students are Medicaid beneficiaries, and not all educationally appropriate AT is medically necessary.

Interagency/collaborative arrangements can be quite effective in certain situations. For example, equipment that had been provided as part of the IEP may later be sold by the school district when the student transitions out of high school. Assuming that the equipment is not obsolete, and has not been designated for recycling to other students, it may be purchased at reduced cost by the student, his/her family or, when the time comes, the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR). Everybody wins. School districts may also apply for the Interagency Collaborative Team's "Unique Alternatives" funds which the Delaware Department of Public Instruction (DPI) administers and approves on a case-by-case basis for more costly educational AT.

Of course, there is always the time-honored approach of doing things right the first time. Schools may realize significant savings by purchasing equipment wisely. Because of the laws requiring schools to provide reasonable accommodations to students with disabilities, AT's relevance to mainstream educational technology should not be overlooked. For example, Delaware schools are in varying stages of purchasing computers to implement Goals 2000 and other educational improvement initiatives. It is important that school/district procurement staff be aware of the need to purchase systems which house sufficient memory, ports, etc. to support adaptive equipment. Purchases based on that awareness facilitate inclusion and ameliorate the need to buy separate dedicated devices to accommodate students with disabilities who require access to systems in their classrooms.

Federal grants, both entitlement and discretionary types, are another important potential group of AT funding sources. Entitlement grants are non-competitive funds that are awarded to the state and distributed, usually on a formula basis, to school districts and then to individual buildings. For instance, school districts apply each year for Title 1 funds. This is a formula grant to DPI which awards subgrants to the districts to help disadvantaged children succeed in the regular classroom. The way that these funds are allocated internally depends on the way the districts define their intended services, etc. in their needs assessments. Herein lies the importance of assessing and maintaining accurate data on students' technology needs. If these needs are adequately documented, they can be incorporated into the schools' needs assessments. Federal regulations permit these funds to be utilized for equipment and teacher training when they are contained in the school assessment. However, Title 1 funds may not be used to provide services/equipment required to be made available in the IEP; and they may also not be combined/commingled with special education funds. Although the regulations may change with reauthorization of the educational statutes, this is still an option districts may find worth exploring with the state Chapter 1/Title 1 coordinator while the opportunity still exists. Besides, there is certainly no law against creativity.

Discretionary (competitive) grants such as the one authorized under the Goals 2000 Educate America Act are yet another option, but require a different level of effort and organization. Competitive grant funds exist in both the public and private sectors, and a good number of them have an educational focus. While a discussion of grant-writing approaches and models is beyond the scope of this article, district/school staff and administrators are welcome to contact me for suggestions and strategies.

In the meantime, examples of private grantors that make offerings to schools/districts for technology purchase are:

• J.C. Penney Co.-Public and private schools, districts, institutions of higher education and nonprofits are eligible. Grants support K-12 education reform/restructuring, dropout prevention, and encouraging/promoting volunteerism. No deadlines for minor grants of less than $5,000. Contact the local J.C. Penney Store for funding guidelines and deadlines. You may also contact the Corporate Contributions and Education Manager in Dallas, Texas at (214) 431-1349.
• Texas Instruments Foundation-Grants provided to nonprofits to support equipment purchases and teacher training. Contact the foundation president in Dallas, Texas at (214) 917-4505.
• Texaco Foundation-Support provided for math and science in elementary and secondary education as well as teacher training. Equipment grants are provided as well. Contact the foundation president in White Plains, New York at (914) 253-4000.
• IBM-A new grant program, called Reinventing Education, focuses on partnerships with school districts to encourage large-scale educational reform. Development of inclusive educational settings using state-of-the-art technology is not beyond the scope of this program. Contact the Director of Corporate Support Programs in Armonk, NY. at (914) 765-5242.

Of course there are also a number of foundations and other philanthropic organizations that provide money and equipment to education agencies to help launch discrete educational technology-related programs. Some examples are:

AT&T Foundation
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
(212) 841-4747

Computer Learning Foundation
P.O. Box 60400
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(415) 327-3347

Ford Foundation
320 East 43rd Street
New York, NY 10017
(212) 573-5000

General Electric Foundation
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06431
(203) 373-3216

GTE Foundation
One Stamford Forum
Stamford, CT 06904
(203) 965-3620

Hitachi Foundation
1509 22nd Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 457-0588

Mattel Foundation
333 Continental Blvd.
El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 524-2000

RJR Nabisco Foundation
1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Ste. 525
Washington DC 20004
202-626-7200

Of course, foundations/funding sources should be contacted to determine deadlines, application preferences, eligibility of the program the grant-writers have in mind for funding, etc.

Remember: The rules about accommodating students with disabilities still apply. However, because special education is driven by individualized education, the assistive technology-related needs of students with disabilities are often set aside in the mad rush to get general educational technology programs funded. That is because such programs are typically designed for groups of students, not individuals. Even so, ignoring the issue of equal access is a grave error, especially since there's a better way to go.

Schools that anticipate the need to address accessibility issues during the conceptual/planning phase of proposal development are likely to be better prepared to accommodate their students with disabilities. Proposals from these schools also end up being more competitive because grantors generally favor plans that evidence wide impact and/or address the needs of diverse populations.

For more information, contact Ron at (302) 651-6790, via Internet at sibert@asel.udel.edu, or via DPI-line at rsibert.