Technology Literacy Challenge Fund

States, communities, and the private sector face a challenge of massive proportions, in terms of effective innovation and school improvement, as well as in terms of substantial investments and reprioritizing of school budgets. The purpose of the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund is to serve as a catalyst for states, local communities, companies, universities, and individuals to work together on a common set of goals. The president has asked Congress to appropriate $2 billion over five years for the fund. For the fund to succeed, each federal dollar will have to be matched by dollars and in-kind contributions from state, local, and private-sector sources. The president has included the first installment of this fund--$250 million--in his 1997 budget.

The fund would provide states with maximum flexibility. To receive funds, states would have to meet only these basic objectives:

• Each state would develop a strategy for enabling every school in the state to meet the four technology goals. These state strategies would address the needs of all schools, from the suburbs to the inner cities to rural areas. Strategies would include benchmarks and timetables for accomplishing the four goals, but these measures would be set by each state, not by the federal government.

• State strategies would include significant private-sector participation and commitments, matching at least the amount of federal support. Commitments could be met by volunteer services, cost reductions, and discounts for connections under the expanded Universal Service Fund provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, among other ways.

• To ensure accountability, each state not only would have to set benchmarks, but also would be required to report publicly at the end of every school year the progress made in achieving its benchmarks, as well as how it would achieve the ultimate objectives of its strategies in the most cost-effective manner.

By design, states would have tremendous flexibility. Because the states are at different points in financing and using educational technology in the classroom, this flexibility is necessary so each state can address its own particular needs according to a technology plan that it develops itself.