Future of TEACH is in Doubt
By Joanne M. Haas
A state audit released in February has found little
documentation of the effectiveness of Wisconsin’s multi-million
dollar TEACH program, which provides technology to districts that otherwise
could not afford it.
The audit suggests the Legislature should rethink
the future of the program, given the lack of proven effectiveness and
the massive state budget deficit. The program’s executive director,
however, argues the foundation of a valuable system is in place and
continued state support is warranted.
“Despite TEACH Board efforts to increase reporting,
limited information is available on how funds have been used and on
program effectiveness,” State Auditor Janice Mueller said in a
cover letter to Sen. Gary George, of Milwaukee, and Rep. Joseph Leibham,
of Sheboygan – the co-chairs of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee.
The Technology for Education Achievement (TEACH) in
Wisconsin program had expenditures totaling $201 million – spent
mostly on aid programs for K-12 schools and libraries – through
fiscal year 2000-01.
“As TEACH reaches its five-year anniversary,
questions can be raised about the future of the board and its programs,
particularly as teacher and classroom experience with technology grows,”
auditors wrote. “The state faces a budget shortfall, and technologies
that have been key in constructing the statewide video network are no
longer manufactured and will be supported through 2005.”
Created by 1997 Wisconsin Act 27, signed by former
Gov. Tommy Thompson, the TEACH Board operates with nine members. These
include the state school superintendent and representatives from the
University of Wisconsin System, the Wisconsin Technical College System,
and the Educational Communications Board.
State statutes call for the board to work with the
Department of Administration for budgeting and issues related to the
distribution of technology block and training grants. It also works
with DOA and the Public Service Commission to operate a telecommunications
access program.
Executive Director Doris Hanson, a former state Democratic
representative tapped by Republican Thompson to run the program, said
Wisconsin stands alone in this effort.
“No other state has a program organized like
TEACH, and it is just beginning in its program impacts,” said Hanson,
whose own management style has been the target of some critics. “The
true effectiveness of educational technology can only be felt over the
long term, however, and this requires continued support by the Legislature,
to build upon the continued success of TEACH programs.”
TEACH programs are included in the state’s two-thirds
funding commitment of public schools. Nearly all of the program’s
costs are for four aid programs to local and regional educational agencies.
The largest program is the Educational Technology Block Grant Program.
This provides grants to districts through a formula based upon property
values and enrollment.
“In FY 2000-01, per-student funding levels ranged
from a high of $185.97 per student in the Norris School District to
a low of $11.16 in the Gibraltar School District,” auditors found.
Milwaukee Public Schools received the largest amount:
a grant of almost $6 million in 2000-01.
Two of TEACH’s programs are designed to improve
professional development and educational resources. Sen. Robert Jauch,
of Poplar, last fall questioned whether the Educational Technology Training
and Technical Assistance Grants were reaching as many teachers needing
professional development as they should.
“There is one teacher per school district who
gets the teacher training dollars, and that is absurd,” Jauch said.
“It is wasteful and it fails to make the dollars available to the
greatest number of teachers.”
Auditors, however, were unable to determine how many
teachers were reached.
“The number of teachers and library staff trained
under the grants in FY 1998-99 is not known because available data on
participation are not comprehensive and comparable,” auditors wrote.
“However, grant applications projected a total of 14,982 participants.”
Auditors also found similar problems documenting the
effectiveness of the Educational Technology Infrastructure Financial
Assistance Program, which is to help fund data and electrical wiring
construction for 18,680 classrooms, or roughly one-third of all K-12
classrooms in the state.
“However, information is not available to show
how teaching methods have changed as a result of these wiring upgrades,”
auditors wrote.
Some school officials and CESA staff told auditors
of dissatisfaction with the TEACH Board’s decision to require model
classrooms as a feature of the board’s training grants, “in
part because the model classroom requires an investment in equipment
and may be less relevant to the public libraries participating in the
program.”
The TEACH Board, however, does expect to report the
percentage of Wisconsin teachers and library staff getting training
funded by the program, as well as on teacher technology skills, by the
end of 2002.
Auditors suggest the board report these statistics
to the Legislature by February 1, 2003. It also makes other suggestions
for beefed-up reporting requirements documenting TEACH’s effectiveness
and program use.
Hanson said the board has “no authority to require”
such documentation from block grant recipients.
“As the role of technology becomes increasingly
important in schools and libraries, it is vital to continue dedicated
support for programs that make technology and distance learning access
available to all students,” said Hanson.
Last fall, OnWEAC In Print published a special report on problems with
the TEACH program. That report is available online at: www.weac.org/Capitol/2001-02/aug01/teach1.htm
Posted March 13, 2002