1
Funding Issues in Wisconsin Technology Education
by
Scott Z. Bruening
A Research Paper
Submitted in Pm1ial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the
Master of Science Degree
111
Career and Technical Education
Approved: 2 Semester Credits
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin-Stout
August, 2010
2
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin-Stout
Menomonie, WI
Author:
Bruening, Scott Z.
Title:
Funding Issues in Wisconsin Technology Education
Graduate Degree/Major:
Career and Technical Education
Research Adviser:
Carol Mooney Ph.D.
Month/Year:
August, 2010
Number of Pages:
54
Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to present a snapshot of Technology Education budgets
across the state of Wisconsin as well as what is currently being done to add dollars to bolster the
purchasing of technology related equipment for schools. Additionally, the results of this study
determined if Technology Education teachers in Wisconsin are using alternate methods to
supplement their budgets to assist them in staying on pace with current technologies.
The review of the literature includes a brief history of school funding, revenue caps,
rising costs of technology, and budget reduction measures currently in place.
The population of the study consisted of Technology Education teachers from Wisconsin.
A 16 question survey was administered to Technology Educators who were members of the
Wisconsin Technology Education Association in fall of 2010. Of the surveys distributed, there
was a 69.5% return rate.
Findings and conclusions as well as recommendations for budgetary issues in
Technology Education were generated and presented and included at the end of the document.
3
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin-Stout
Menomonie, WI
Acknowledgements
There are several individuals that I would like to thank for their contributions to the
successful completion of this paper. First, I would like to thank Dr. Carol Mooney. She was a
wonderful adviser to work with throughout my tenure as a graduate student. She was easy to
contact, provided constructive feedback and helped get me to the finish line. Second, I‟d like to
thank my lovely wife Lisa. She encouraged me to finish and gently reminded me to get back on
task when I would drift. Next, I would like to thank my mother for all of the time she spent with
me on the phone, e-mailing and editing my paper. She kept the ideas coming and provided a
great guiding beacon when the going got tough and frustrations set in. Lastly, I would like to
thank my dad for consistently reminding me he was going to write me out of the will if I did not
finish this paper. But on a more serious note, and far more important, he always reminded me to
“finish what I start”.
4
Table of Contents
.............................................................................................................................................. Page
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................2
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................6
Chapter I: Introduction ...............................................................................................................7
Purpose of Study ................................................................................................9
Research Questions ............................................................................................9
Limitations .......................................................................................................10
Chapter II: Review of Literature ..............................................................................................11
Chapter III: Methodology ........................................................................................................18
Introduction ......................................................................................................18
Subject Selection and Description ...................................................................18
Instrumentation ...............................................................................................19
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................19
Limitations .......................................................................................................20
Summary ..........................................................................................................20
Chapter IV: Results ..................................................................................................................21
Item Analysis ...................................................................................................21
Demographics ..................................................................................................22
Survey Results .................................................................................................25
Chapter V: Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................31
Discussion ........................................................................................................31
Research Findings and Conclusions ................................................................32
5
Recommendations ............................................................................................34
References
..........................................................................................................................36
Appendix A: Survey and Consent Form ..................................................................................39
Appendix B: Respondents Replies for Questions 11, 13, and 15 ............................................45
Appendix C: Respondents Replies for Questions 12, 14, and 16 ............................................50
6
List of Tables
Table 1: Selected School Finance Variables From 1960-1980 ................................................13
Table 2: Districts Taking Action in Twenty-Seven Areas: 1998-1999 to 2007-2008 .............15
Table 3: Surveys Returned .......................................................................................................21
Table 4: What Technology Education courses do you offer at your school? ..........................22
Table 5: How many students are enrolled in your school? ......................................................23
Table 6: What grade level do you teach? .................................................................................24
Table 7: How many Technology Education teachers are in your department? .......................24
Table 8: What are your number of budget dollars available in your
Technology Education department? ................................................................25
Table 9: Has your Technology Education department's budget: .............................................26
Table 10: Do you currently employ any additional funding sources for your Technology? ...26
Table 11: Do you utilize a program advisory committee for any of your
Technology Education programs? ...................................................................27
Table 12: If you use a program advisory committee do they
assist you in securing additional funds?...........................................................27
Table 13: How much additional funding are you receiving? ...................................................28
Table 14: What is the source of this funding? .........................................................................29
Table 15: What are the additional funds being used for? ........................................................30
7
Chapter I: Introduction
Today, technological progress is a universally accepted event in educational institutions.
The rapid changes in both software and hardware are making it very challenging for
conventional educational institutions to keep pace with the progressive demands of industry.
More importantly, staying abreast of technological changes has been a daunting task in light of
ever declining budgets. Educational institutions make every effort to meet the technological
needs of today‟s students but many times cannot stay current with these demands because of
shrinking budgets (Allen & Leverich, 2008).
It is then necessary to discover how the demands are still being met in an educational
setting as funding relentlessly decreases. Items such as, programs of study, cost, implementation
of technology, support services, training, and alignment with current curriculum all need to be
considered as budgets are developed. Proper oversight on technology items to be purchased is
necessary as well. It is critical that monies invested in new technology are cost effective and
provide opportunities to a wide cross section of students rather than a small percentage of the
student population.
School systems throughout the United States including Wisconsin are facing budgetary
dilemmas (“Survey: School Budget Cuts Even Worse Next Year”, 2010). There simply aren‟t
enough funds available which would allow school districts to be on the absolute cutting edge of
technology. Schools have to make decisions to determine where technology dollars will make
the largest impact for the greatest number of students. There should also be a look at what other
post-secondary schools in the area have to offer as well. For instance, if a community
technology college provides similar class offers then perhaps there is no need to duplicate a
technology in a high school setting.
8
Traditionally, Technology Education has always made huge budget demands on any
school district. Technology Education in any school is also viewed as the place where many of
the newest technologies are first introduced. Those departments also are the ones that see more
of the high dollar and highly specific technologies available for purchase. The demand to keep
up with an ever changing technology, both hardware and software, has been inversely
proportionate to the dollar amounts available to Technology Education departments. For
instance, the use of computers in schools is no longer a luxury but has become an absolute
necessity (Hayes, 2003). Twenty years ago schools had maybe one or two laboratories with ten
to fifteen computers. This serviced the student population well. Today, however, there are entire
classes that are computer based, requiring hundreds of computers in each school. This has
become a fixed cost that didn‟t exist for schools in previous years. In addition, computers have a
short, useful life compared to many other purchases. Take desks, for example. A set may last
for fifteen to twenty years before it needs to be replaced whereas computers often become
obsolete in five years or less. Moreover, rapid changes in software and demands from postsecondary training sites and educational institutions have forced schools to stay on top of
software that is updated nearly every year. Again, most of the time, the physical desk that the
computer sits on will outlast the machine sitting on it ten times over and costs only a fraction the
price. Clearly, the software that resides on the computer lasts only one school year before having
to be renewed or updated. This trend in technology makes keeping pace with the speed of
change a consistent high demand for budget allocation (Haas, 2000-2001).
The main purpose of this study was to determine if and how Technology Education
departments are supplementing their budgets in order to stay on top of current technologies while
facing declining publicly funded budgets. The results of this survey will attempt to determine if
9
teachers are finding creative ways to finance new technologies. The research will also determine
if Technology Education budgets are indeed decreasing.
Third, the study will identify a variety
of measures instructors have employed to increase a school‟s Technology Education budget.
Purpose of the Study
The results of this study determined if Technology Education teachers in Wisconsin are
using alternate methods to supplement their budgets to assist them in staying on pace with
current technologies. The results of this study would be beneficial for several reasons. First, they
will determine if there is a declining budget problem in Technology Education in the state of
Wisconsin. Second, they will determine if and how teachers are taking an active role in keeping
their programs solvent, contemporary and useful in meeting the needs of constituents. Lastly,
the results will present a showcase of ideas for other educators to possibly implement in their
own programs of study as well as possibly generate their own ideas for budget supplementing.
Thus, this study will attempt to present a snapshot of Technology Education budgets across the
state of Wisconsin as well as what is currently being done to add dollars to bolster the purchasing
of technology related equipment for schools.
Research Questions
The objectives for this study are to:
1.)
Determine how Wisconsin Technology Education programs are financially
supported
2.)
Identify ways Tech Ed. Teachers supplement school budgets to support and
finance new technologies
3.)
Determine if Technology Education budgets are decreasing
10
4.)
Discover what methods are being employed to supplement Technology Education
budgets
Limitations
The results of this study are limited to Technology Education teachers in the state of
Wisconsin. Generalizations about schools in other states or their Technology Education
programs or programs of study cannot be made. Additionally, methods used to obtain additional
funding for Technology Education programs may vary from program to program and there may
be similarities or generalizations due to shifting variables.
11
Chapter II: Review of Literature
Changes in technology over the last twenty years have been swift and staggering. Our
lives have been reshaped and redirected with each new advancement. Just as we become
familiar with a new device or program, soon, much to our frustration it is replaced with a newer,
faster, more advanced version. Consider, then, the monumental challenges confronted by
Technology Education programs in public schools today. "Technology in communication,
construction, manufacturing, and transportation will continue to change at a rapid pace... If this is
the plan of American industry, technology education teachers must plan to make changes. They
must plan to make the curriculum reflect society today." (Instructional Strategies for Technology
Education, 1988, p.121).
Educators must continue to meet the needs of a constantly evolving technological society
by making every effort to introduce the latest technologies. As stated earlier, change is rapid and
unfortunately, costs soar. Clearly, educators are faced with the relentless challenge of devising a
budget which allows for ever-changing program upgrades and equipment needs. According to
Senator Richard Grobschmidt of South Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a member of the Senate
Education Committee, “Tech Ed is a higher cost item. Not only because of the capital costs, but
it tends to have a lower teacher-to-student ratio.” (Haas, 2001, pp.1-2). However, based on the
current funding system in many school districts across the country and in Wisconsin in
particular, technology education needs are frequently placed on the chopping block. “Tech Ed.
happens to be in that category, and it is really unfortunate.” (Haas, 2001, pp.1-2). Thus,
technology education teachers are faced with serious issues as they try to provide a rich and
cutting edge curriculum. “Technology educators can find it difficult to give students the
12
experiences they need to keep as current as possible if the technology isn‟t there.” („Schools
Expect Budget Cuts as Economy Sours”, 1988).
The Review of the Literature will discuss four elements. First, a brief history of school
funding from the 1950s to the 1980s will be discussed. The second section will focus on the
negative impact of the revenue caps in the early 1990s on school budgets in Wisconsin. Third,
the review will discuss the rising cost of technology in relationship to school budgeting. Finally,
the review will address the plight of the current economy and its negative effect on the financial
viability of school districts.
Public school funding in the United States has changed significantly since the 1960s.
According to Odden, “Public schools have enjoyed a history of continuous increases in real
funding in both total and per pupil terms during this term.” (Odden, 1989). Most of the reasons
for the generous increases in school funding resulted from pivotal events in history. For
example, the space race of the late 1950s, which continued into the early 60s, positively
impacted the funding of public education. As a result, increased monies were targeted for
mathematics and engineering programs as well. “On September 2, 1958, Congress passed the
national defense Act (NDEA) which strongly emphasized mathematics, science, and foreign
language. This was the most far-reaching piece of federal educational legislation ever passed.”
(Herschbach, 1997). To help ensure that highly trained individuals would be available to help
America compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technical fields, the NDEA included
support for loans to college students, the improvement of science, mathematics, and foreign
language instruction in elementary and secondary schools, graduate fellowships, foreign
language and area studies, and vocational-technical training (Chen, 2008, July31).
13
In addition, programs aimed at reducing poverty and creating equity resulted in greater funding.
The anti-poverty and civil rights laws of the 1960s and 1970s brought about a dramatic
emergence of the Department's equal access mission. (Chen, 2008, July31). Moreover, student
populations were swelling with the “baby boomers” flooding schools. Both state and federal
budgets geared up for these increases. More schools were built, and more teachers were hired.
By the 1970s school finance and property tax reform were the catalysts for greater school
funding. Finally, in the 1980s new educational reform legislation generated additional funds.
Programs such as such as Title I, Head Start, and after-school programs required school districts
to be on board and school boards budgeted accordingly. “A major shift in education funding
resulted in the second half of the twentieth century, with state and federal governments playing
an increasingly larger role in support of schooling. This is evident in state equalization efforts
and in federal programs for the poor such as Title I, Head Start, and after-school programs…”
(“Recession Experts Pressure on Public School District Budgets”, n.d.).
Thus, revenues for education rose from the 1960s through the 1980s. Revenues for
education increased 158 percent from 1960 to 1970 and another 149 percent from 1970 to 1980
(Odden, 1989).
Table 1
Selected School Finance Variables From 1960-1980
Year
1960
1970
1980
Total Revenues
(in billions)
$14.8
$38.2
$95
Total Revenues Per
Pupil
$409
$839
$2279
Average Teacher
Salary
$4995
$9265
$15966
Clearly, the public felt a financial responsibility to support education. “The long term
nature of continued rising school funds to a large degree reflects underlying, strong citizen
14
support for America‟s public schools combined with the health of the country‟s growing
economy” (Odden, 1989).
The Revenue Caps of 1993 made a major impact on school funding in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin state government imposed school district revenue limits during the 1993-94 school
year. The purpose was to control property tax growth by limiting the amount of tax levied by a
school district. The revenue limit is set based on an inflationary increase that can vary from year
to year. It is set by the state legislature as an "allowable per pupil increase" and is the same
dollar amount for each district. The inflationary increase is added to the district's baseline
spending per student to set the revenue limit. The revenue limit increase has averaged 2 to 2.9%
state-wide (West Bend Schools). As a result, a gap was created between money coming in and
money going out. For most districts, however, there were increased costs such as teacher salaries,
but yet, year after year less money to pay for everything. Basically, the purpose of the revenue
caps is to place a per-pupil spending limit (www.supportwestbendschools.com)
When the revenue caps were first introduced, school districts were able to reduce
spending in non-academic areas. For example, facility improvements were either scaled down or
put on hold or even eliminated altogether. “When the revenues controls were first passed,
districts tended to make cuts that were not directly related to the academic program.” (Allen &
Leverich, 2008). In “Effects of Revenue Caps on Programs and Services Offered by Wisconsin’s
Public Schools – 1998-1999 School Year” it states that cuts were most likely to occur in
maintenance of buildings and grounds, improvements of buildings and grounds, and an increase
in administrator workloads (“Effects of Revenue Caps…”, 2010).
Over a period of years, though, deeper cuts had to be made. “This has all changed: with
each passing year, programs and services that directly benefit students were more likely to have
15
been cut.” (Allen & Leverich, 2008). Table 2 identifies reductions which have occurred in
twenty-seven areas of school budgets from 1998-2008.
Table 2
Percent of Districts Taking Action in Twenty-Seven Areas: 1998-1999 to 2007-2008
The data indicates that 62 percent fewer courses have been offered as of the 2007-2008
school year. Thus, many new and innovative cutting edge courses have not been introduced into
the school curriculum. Moreover, districts have experienced a 53 percent reduction in
vocational classes and a 29 percent delay or reduction in computer-related services. Clearly,
these cuts directly affect the technology education programs in secondary schools today (Allen &
Leverich, 2008).
The rising cost of investing in current technology has negatively affected ever-shrinking
school budgets. The data demonstrates that public school revenues are spiraling downward for
16
multiple reasons, yet classroom expenses continue to grow. “In recent years, the technology
investment in public schools… has grown astronomically.” According to Equity Review
Research, in 1998 alone, „the level of spending on education technology at the national level was
estimated at over $5 billion, and it has grown each year in the last decade.” (“Effects of Revenue
Caps on Programs and Services Offered by Public Schools”, 2010).
A good example of the inability to keep up with rising costs can be seen in a typical high
school drafting class. A while ago, instructors in a local high school replaced paper and pencil
instruction with computer-aided drafting program (CAD). The change necessitated staggering
hardware and software purchases. Several years have passed and the program has become
antiquated and in serious need of costly updating. However, there is no money in the budget for
these purchases. In addition, instructors require retraining which costs districts both time and
money. Jeannine Gendron, a technology director in Broward county Florida “… says that she is
frequently frustrated that professional development is the area of technology that gets shortchanged the most.” (Hayes, 2003).
Finally, school districts are experiencing budget shortfalls, and these gaps are increasing
every year. The current economic downturn has only added to crises in school budgeting.
According to survey results released by the American Association of School Administrators in
late March of 2009, “…the impact of the economic downturn on schools is widespread and has
worsened over the past six months.” (Loughlin, 2010). The original survey entitled “Looking
Back, Looking Forward: How the Economic Downturn Continues to Impact School Districts”
was conducted in October of 2008 and included the responses of 836 administrators from across
the nation, including Wisconsin. The findings suggest that school districts will experience “a
marked increase in cuts to areas that more directly impact student achievement, including
17
increasing class size reducing academic offerings eliminating teaching positions.”(“Federal Role
in Education”, n.d.).
A follow-up study of the same group of administrators was then conducted from 20082009 to 2009-2010. The findings continue to be grim and reveal further decreases in almost all
areas of education. Several curricular actions were identified. Increased class sizes tripled from
13 percent to 44 percent. The reduction of elective courses has quadrupled from seven percent to
27 percent. Deferred spending on textbooks and equipment doubled from 16 percent to 34
percent. The elimination of high school course offerings has tripled from five percent to 17
percent. The purchase of instructional materials has sharply decreased from 19 percent to 37
percent. There are 24 percent fewer field trips since the study began. (“Federal Role in
Education”, n.d.). Clearly, technology education has become a victim of the current economic
downturn.
The operational aspects of school budgets have suffered dismally as well. Among them,
three areas directly impact Technology Education classes. First, according to the administrators‟
survey, deferring of technology purchases doubled from 16 percent to 32 percent in 2009-2010.
Second, consumable supplies expenses rose from 25 percent to 42 percent. Thirdly,
collaborative planning time among staff was cut another 13 percent in 2009-2010. (“Federal Role
in Education”, n.d.).
School districts across the United States emphasize the negative impact of the recession
on school budgets. Terry Spradlin, associate director of the Center for Evaluation and Education
Policy at Indiana University in Bloomington, said the “…tsunami in public school funding …”
has wreaked havoc on public education. (“Public Schools: Where does the Money Come From?
Public Financial Support of Education, Public School: Where does the Money Go?, n.d.)
18
Chapter III: Methodology
Introduction
Technology Education programs, specifically laboratories, have become increasingly
difficult to maintain and fund. Current budget limitations in the state of Wisconsin are forcing
some districts to deeply cut, or in some cases, altogether eliminate the Technology Education
programs from their schools. The cost of technology and the monies associated with its upkeep
are increasing at an exponential rate. A survey was conducted to assess the current situation of
Technology Education departments and their budgetary issues within the state of Wisconsin.
This chapter describes the means by which the research was conducted. It will discuss the
subjects used, the selection process for subjects, the instrument, and the procedures used.
Subject Selection and Description
The sample population for this study consists of Technology Education teachers in the
state of Wisconsin. More specifically, teachers selected to participate in the survey are members
of the Wisconsin Technology Education Association (WTEA).
A total of one hundred and twenty eight surveys were sent out to Wisconsin Technology
Education Association members. There was no specific area of the state or any specific area of
Technology Education that received focused attention. The original e-mail distribution list
sought to focus on educators who had a “k12.wi.us” in their email address field. The rationale
for this was to select candidates most likely to have classroom duties attached to their positions
because they would be involved with budgetary issues pertaining to Technology Education.
Teachers were from both the middle and secondary levels. There was no involvement from postsecondary educators in the related field.
19
Instrumentation
To best and most efficiently answer the research questions identified for this study, it was
determined that a descriptive study be conducted.
The survey itself was developed on-line utilizing an open source site called Zoomerang and was
developed specifically for this study. The questions that comprised the survey are available in
Appendix A. The survey included sixteen questions, which required three types of responses.
They were simple check box type selections, “Yes” and “No” options, and fill in the blank
replies. Each question did allow the participant to not respond.
The survey was administered in an on-line format. Participants were invited via e-mail to
follow a link that allowed them to complete a survey. The e-mails were sent as a blind carbon
copy, so no other participants could identify others that were invited to participate in the survey.
Additionally, there was no log-in or verification, which could in any way identify other survey
participants. Finally, there was no incentive to complete the survey.
Data Analysis
A descriptive study was conducted. Respectively, descriptive analysis will be conducted
including: mean, median and standard deviation. In addition, basic statistics including: will be
presented.
The survey link was sent to one hundred and twenty four email addresses. The data
analysis of each of the sixteen questions was quantified in different ways according to question
type. The selected responses were tallied via use of the Zoomerang software. This was the same
software used to create the survey tool. Questions that had open-ended responses were
20
cataloged. Themes were identified and reported in Chapter 4. All short answer responses can be
found in the appendix sections of this paper.
Limitations
The following items may have limited the results of the study:
1.) The study was limited to Wisconsin Technology Education teachers, therefore other
states were not considered.
2.) The survey, itself, was created by the researcher and may have contained some errors
and/or omissions. Every effort was made to ensure validity.
3.) The mailing list was generated by a source other than the researcher and may have
contained some errors and possible unintended recipients.
4.) Some of the answers given back on the survey may contain terms unfamiliar to the
researcher.
5.) The survey was limited to those Technology Education teachers who are part of the
Wisconsin Technology Education Association. (WTEA)
Summary
This study collected information about budgetary information relevant to Technology
Education departments across the state of Wisconsin. A survey was used to gather information
from technology educators in both middle and high school settings to determine information
pertaining to budgetary concerns.
21
Chapter IV: Results
The purpose of this study was to determine if Technology Education teachers in
Wisconsin are using alternate methods to supplement their budgets to assist them in staying on
pace with current technologies.
This chapter discusses the results of the survey given to Wisconsin Technology
Education teachers to determine the perception of the current status of budgetary issues as well
as to identify potential ideas to bolster funding for Technology Education programs at various
schools throughout the state.
Item Analysis
A survey (Appendix A) was sent via a link through a blind e-mail to a defined sample
population of technology educators. Results were analyzed and looked at in terms of total,
frequency, and percentage of respondents, which served as the basis for analysis of this study.
A total of 128 survey links were sent out to Technology Educators in the state of Wisconsin
Eighty-nine of the surveys were completed for a total of 69.5 percent return rate. Table 3
represents a summary of the surveys returned.
Table 3
Surveys Returned
Total
Surveys Given
Surveys Returned
% of Return
128
89
69.5
22
Demographics
Questions 1-5. Questions one through five asked questions pertaining to general
information to better garner an idea of the general characteristics of Technology Education
programs around the state of Wisconsin. The demographic information focused on Technology
Education courses offered, school size in terms of population, Technology Education department
size, grade levels taught, and Technology Education department budget dollar amounts.
Question one asked what courses were being offer in each respondent‟s school. Out of a
total of 89 survey results that were returned, 54 (60.7%) had Project Lead the Way courses, 15
(16.3%) had electronics classes, 68 (76.4%) had woodworking classes, 62 (69.6%) had
construction classes, 40 (44.9%) had automotive technology classes, 80 (89.8%) had either
mechanical or architectural drafting classes, 79 (88.7%) had graphic communications classes, 11
(12.3%) had metals classes, 15 (16.8%) had welding classes, 83 (93.2%) had general or middle
school level technology education classes, and 1 (1.1%) offered courses that didn‟t have any
previously listed courses descriptions. Table 4 represents a listing of courses offered and their
frequency.
Table 4
What Technology Education courses do you offer at your school?
Courses
Frequency
%
Project Lead the Way
54
60.7
Electronics
15
16.3
Woodworking
68
76.4
Construction
62
69.6
Automotive Technology
40
44.9
23
Drafting
80
89.8
Graphics
79
88.7
Metals
11
12.3
Welding
15
16.8
General (including Middle School level)
59
66.2
Other
1
1.1
Question two asked participants to identify the number of students enrolled in his/her
school. . Of the 89 responses 3 (3.3%) had a population between 0 and 150 students, 8 (8.9%)
had a population between 151 and 500 students, 19 (21.3%) had a population between 501 and
850 students, 22 (24.7%) had a population between 851 and 1200 students, 26 (29.2%) had a
population between 1201 and 1600 students, and 11 (12.3%) had a population over 1601
students. Table 5 breaks down school student population according to each individual‟s response.
Table 5
How many students are enrolled in your school?
Student Enrollment
Frequency
%
0-150
3
3.3
151-500
8
8.9
501-850
19
21.3
851-1200
22
24.7
1201-1600
26
29.2
1600+
11
12.3
24
Question 3 asked the respondent to indicate what grade level he/she taught. Of the 89
surveys, 0 (0.0%) indicated elementary (grades k-5), 31 (34.8%) indicated middle (grades 6-8),
and 58 (65.1%) indicated secondary (grades 9-12). Table 6 represents a summary of grade levels
taught by the respondents.
Table 6
What grade level do you teach?
Grade Level Taught
Frequency
%
Elementary (K-5)
0
0.0
Middle (6-8)
31
34.8
Secondary (9-12)
58
65.1
Question 4 asked how many Technology Education teachers are in the respondent‟s
school. Of the 89 responses, 18 (20.2%) had only one instructor, 44 (49.4%) had between 2 and 3
instructors, 24 (26.9%) had between 4 and 6 instructors, 3 (3.3%) had between 7 and 9
instructors, and 0 (0.0%) had over 10 instructors. Table 7 presents a summary of number of
Technology Education teachers in each respondent‟s school.
Table 7
How many Technology Education Teachers are in your department?
Number of Technology
Education Teachers
1
Frequency
%
18
20.2
2-3
44
49.4
4-6
24
26.9
7-9
3
3.3
25
10+
0
0.0
Question 5 asked what each Technology Education department had available for budget
dollars. Of the 89 surveys completed, 0 (0.0%) had between 0 and 1000 budget dollars available,
29 (32.5%) had between 1001 and 4000 budget dollars available, 38 (42.6%) had between 4001
and 8000 budget dollars available, 13 (14.6%) had between 8001 and 12000 budget dollars
available, 8 (8.9%) had between 12001 and 16000 budget dollars available, and 1 (1.1) had over
16000 budget dollars available. Table 8 presents a summary of budget dollars available to
Technology Education departments.
Table 8
What are your number of budget dollars available in your Technology Education department?
Budget Dollars Available
Frequency
%
$0-1000
0
0.0
$1001-4000
29
32.5
$4001-8000
38
42.6
$8001-12000
13
14.6
$12001-16000
8
8.9
$16000 +
1
1.1
Survey Results
Question 6 asked if each Technology Education department was increasing, decreasing,
or maintaining the same level of funding in terms of budget dollars. Of the 89 surveys
completed, 11 (12.3%) stated that their budget had increased, 45 (50.5%) stated that their budget
26
had decreased, 25 (28.0%) stated that their budget had stayed the same, and 8 (8.9%) chose not
to answer or were unsure of their budgets. Table 9 represents a summary of the budget changes
each respondent was experiencing.
Table 9
Has your Technology Education department’s budget:
Budget Status
Frequency
%
Increased
11
12.3
Decreased
45
50.5
Stayed the same
25
28.0
Unsure/Chose not to answer
8
8.9
Question 7 asked if Technology Education teachers employed any additional funding
sources for their technology. Of the 89 surveys completed, 59 (66.2%) said yes, 27 (30.3%) said
no, and 3 (8.9%) said they were unsure or chose not to answer. Table 10 represents a summary of
whether or not teachers used additional sources of funding.
Table 10
Do you currently employ any additional funding sources for your Technology?
Additional Funding Sources
Frequency
%
Yes
59
66.2
No
27
30.3
Unsure/Chose not to respond
3
3.3
27
Question 8 asked if Technology Education teachers employed the use of an advisory
committee. Of the 89 surveys completed, 10 (11.2%) said yes, 72 (80.8%) said no, and 7 (7.8%)
were unsure or chose not to respond. Table 11 represents a summary of the use of program
advisory committees.
Table 11
Do you utilize a program advisory committee for any of your Technology Education programs?
Utilize a Program Advisory
Committee
Yes
Frequency
%
10
11.2
No
72
80.8
Unsure/Chose not to respond
7
7.8
Question 9 asked if Technology Education teachers did employ the use of a program
advisory committee, was it successful in securing additional funding for their programs. Of the
89 surveys completed, 7 (7.8%) said yes, 29 (32.5%) said no, and 53 (59.5%) were unsure or
chose not to respond. Table 12 represents a summary of committees that help secure additional
funding for Technology Education programs.
Table 12
If you use a program advisory committee do they assist you in securing additional funds?
Securing Additional Funds
Frequency
%
Yes
7
7.8
No
29
32.5
Unsure/Chose not to respond
53
59.5
28
Question 10 asked how much additional funding Technology Education programs were
receiving. Of the 89 surveys completed, 3 (3.3%) said they received between 0 and 500 dollars,
18 (20.2%) said they received between 501 and 1000 dollars, 28 (31.4%) said they received
between 1001 and 2000 dollars, 11 (12.3%) said they received between 2001 and 4000 dollars, 3
(3.3%) said they received between 4001 and 8000 dollars, 10 (11.2%) said they received over
8001 dollars, 2 (2.2%) said they received other amounts one at 25,000 dollars and one at 75,000
dollars. Lastly, 14 (15.7%) chose not to answer. Table 13 represents a summary of additional
funding received by Technology Education programs.
Table 13
How much additional funding are you receiving?
Additional Funding Dollars
Frequency
%
0-500
3
3.3
501-1000
18
20.2
1001-2000
28
31.4
2001-4000
11
12.3
4001-8000
3
3.3
8001 +
10
11.2
Other
2
2.2
Chose not to respond
14
15.7
Questions 11, 13, and 15 asked the respondents to identify the source of the additional
funding. This question was asked in order to better determine where additional funds were
coming from. There were a wide range of responses given (Appendix B) and they have been
29
grouped into common themes. Of those that selected received in additional funding, 62 (82.6%)
identified government sponsored grants as a source, 47 (62.6%) stated that additional funds
came from local area businesses, 18 (24.0%) stated additional funds came from a community or
classroom based project, 21 (28%) stated additional funds came in the form of a donation of
materials or supplies, 5 (6.6%) stated additional funds came from private or corporate foundation
grants, and 8 (10.6%) stated that additional funds came from community or civic based
organizations. The responses have been grouped into these common themes and listed in Table
14.
Table 14
What is the source of this funding?
Source of Funding
Frequency
%
62
82.6
47
62.6
18
24.0
21
28.0
Private or Corporate
Foundation Grant
5
6.6
Community or Civic
Organization
8
10.6
Government Sponsored Grants
Local Area Businesses
Community or Classroom
Project
Material or Supply Donation
Questions 12, 14, and 16 asked where additional dollars were being spent. This question
was asked in order to better determine where the additional funds were being spent. There was
a wide range of responses given (Appendix C), and they have been grouped into common
themes. When reviewing the 75 responses, 59 (78.6%) stated the additional funds were used for
supplies and materials, 61 (81.3%) stated the additional funds were used for equipment and/or
30
tools, 3 (4.0%) stated the additional funds were used for software, 28 (37.3%) stated the
additional funds were used for repair, maintenance, or upgrades, 7 (9.3%) stated the additional
funds were used for curriculum development, 21 (28.0%) stated the additional funds were used
for teacher training, and 4 (5.3%) stated the additional funds were used for student led
organizations. The responses have been grouped into theses common themes and listed in Table
15.
Table 15
What are the additional funds being used for?
Utilization of Additional
Funds
Supplies/Materials
Frequency
%
59
78.6
Equipment/Tools
61
81.3
Software
3
4.0
Repair/Maintenance/Upgrade
28
37.3
Curriculum Development
7
9.3
Teacher Training
21
28.0
Student Organizations
4
5.3
31
Chapter V: Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendations
This chapter provides a discussion of the results of a study that was conducted in the fall
of 2011 to determine financial support of technology Education programs in Wisconsin.
Conclusions will be presented as a result of the study. Additionally, it provides
recommendations for further study as well as potential topics to assist Technology Education
teachers in discovering new ways to seek additional budget dollars.
Discussion
Technology Education has always striven to maintain pace with technological advances
in order to allow students access to and involvement in a quality education. Implementing these
current technologies usually comes at a great cost to the school. Included among them are
installation, maintenance, updating, and training costs which unrelentingly increase the initial
financial investment of the technology. Since school funding has been an increasingly
significant topic, many articles discuss the current status of Wisconsin school budgets. However,
the discussion of Technology Education, itself, has had a limited focus. In light of the current
model for school funding and state budget shortfalls, more attention needs to focus on the ways
in which Technology Educators are keeping pace with and updating technologies while state
budget issues unceasingly threaten to decrease. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
produce a snapshot of Technology Education budgets across the state, and in addition, how
Technology Educators are attempting to generate additional dollars to supplement their budgets.
This research was conducted using a survey given to Wisconsin Technology Educators.
A 69.5 percent return rate was achieved. The survey was designed to target these four main
research questions:
32
1.)
Determine how Wisconsin Technology Education programs are financially
supported
2.)
Identify ways Technology Education programs supplement school budgets to
support and finance new technologies
3.)
Determine if Technology Education budgets are decreasing
4.)
Discover what methods are being employed to supplement Technology Education
budgets
This study took place in fall of 2010.
Research Findings and Conclusions
The research findings were centered around the four main research questions indicated
above. The study keyed in on demographics of Technology Education programs around the state
of Wisconsin to better gain perspective of what schools have to offer Technology Education
curriculum, department size, Technology Education staffing, budget dollars available, and
overall school population. Secondly, it focused on the scope of Technology Education budgets
and attempted to determine if budgets were actually decreasing. Lastly, the survey aimed at
discovering what innovative methods Technology Education teachers were using to supplement
their budgets and the manner in which additional funding was being obtained.
Findings and conclusions related to research question #1 Technology education has
seen most of its funding come from local property tax dollars. The current formula for school
funding has basically remained unchanged since the early 90s. Technology Education
departments are also beginning to explore some alternatives in order to generate additional
budget dollars. According to the results from questions 11,113 and 15, budget dollars are
33
emerging from six additional generalized categories. They are: government sponsored grants,
direct contributions from local area businesses, dollars generated from classroom or community
based projects, direct donations of materials and supplies from non-school sources, private and
corporate foundation grants and community and civic contributions. It was difficult to determine
actual percentages between supplemental dollars and actual budget dollars from school funding.
Findings and conclusions related to research question #2. Questions 11, 13, and 15
revealed that Technology Education departments brought in additional dollars in several ways in
order to further supplement their budgets. There were a variety of answers given so it was
necessary to categorize them in order to better disseminate the data. First, Technology Education
departments used government sponsored grants to gain additional dollars. The most frequent of
those grants was the Carl Perkins federal funding for Career and Technical Education.
Technology Education departments also indicated using Department of Defense grants for
development of their Project Lead the Way classes as well as further development of emerging
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematic (STEM) programs. Technology Education
departments are also gaining additional budget dollars by securing monetary donations from
local area businesses. Next, Technology Education programs are adding to their budgets through
proceeds from classroom or community based projects. These projects stemmed from light
construction projects that were then sold to partnerships with businesses for some design based
projects that resulted in a monetary donation to the Technology Education department.
Additionally, 28% of respondents indicated that they received donations of materials from local
businesses. These materials varied from metal for classroom based projects, paper for graphic
communications classes, fasteners and hardware as well as various consumables. Next,
Technology Education departments are seeking out private or corporate grants to add to their
34
budgets. Some of the nature of the grants came from corporate foundations such as American
Honda. Lastly, Technology Education departments are using community based organizations to
add dollars. One particular example revealed that one teacher employed the use of his/her local
Lions Club to assist in fundraising efforts.
Findings and conclusions related to research question #3. Question 6 of the survey
directly inquired if Technology Education department budgets were increasing or decreasing.
Based on the findings, it can be determined that 50.5% of respondents stated that their budgets
were decreasing. It would be safe to conclude that there is a trend towards declining Technology
Education budgets across the state of Wisconsin.
Findings and conclusions related to research question #4. It was difficult to determine
the methodology by which Technology Educators obtain additional funds. But, questions 8 and
9 were aimed at determining if an advisory committee was useful in securing and implementing
additional funds for Technology Education programs. It can be concluded that many
Technology Education programs do not use advisory committees. Additionally, programs that
utilized advisory programs were mostly unsure if the advisory committee was used successfully
to secure additional funds.
Recommendations
The following are recommendations for further study:
1.)
Collect more data on the use and purpose of advisory committees. Based
on findings from questions on the surveys, it was rather unclear as to the
nature of the actual advisory committee. It was also unclear if the
advisory committee was being used for the entire Technology Education
department or just for one particular program of study. The information
35
from this study could be used in conjunction with further study on this
particular issue to better focus on the purpose and function of advisory
committees.
2.)
Further research is needed to better determine if more Technology
Departments were intending to pursue additional funding in the future.
There were no questions attempting to determine whether or not
Technology Education departments were intending to seek out additional
funding. This further research would assist other researchers to determine
if Technology Educators intend to seek out additional funding.
3.)
Continued research is needed to more concisely determine the
methodology and the process behind securing additional budget dollars.
For instance, if a Technology Education department chose to write a grant,
how was the grant sought out and how was it written? Future studies could
greatly assist Technology Education departments that are looking to
increase their budget dollars.
36
References
Allen, R., & Leverich, J. (2008). The Current Study: The Effects of Revenue Controls on
the Programs and (Rep.). Retrieved October 20, 2010, from
www.weac.org/Libraries/PDF/Revenue_caps_paper_07-08.sflb.ashx
Chen, G. (2008, July 31). Technology in Public Schools - Public School Review. Public
School Review - Profiles of USA Public Schools. Retrieved Winter, 2010, from
http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/37
D. R. (1997). Protecting the National Good. Journal of Technological Studies, 23, 24-32.
Retrieved Fall, 2010.
Effects of Revenue Caps on Programs and Services Offered by Public Schools (Rep.).
(2001). Retrieved Fall, 2010, from Wisconsin Education Association Council
website: http://www.weac.org
ESchool News. (2010, April 9). Survey: School Budget Cuts Even Worse Next Year.
Technology News for Today’s K-20 Educator. Retrieved Fall, 2010, from
www.eschoolnews.com
Federal Role in Education. (n.d.). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved Fall, 2010,
from http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
Foster, P. (1994). Technology Education: AKA Industrial Arts. Journal of Technology
Education, 5(2). Retrieved Fall, 2010, from
http://www.scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v5n2/foster.jte-v5n2.html
37
Haas, J. M. (2001). Is High School Technical Education May Be Doomed (Rep.).
Retrieved October 10, 2010, from Education News website:
http://www.weac.org/news
Hayes, J. (2003). Technology in Schools: What Tech Support Really Costs (Rep.).
Retrieved http://www.parallels.com/files/upload/parallels_tech-schoolsFINAL.pdf
Herschbach, D. R. (1997). From Industrial Arts to Technology Education: The Eclipse of
Purpose. The Journal of Technology Studies, 23(2), 20-28. Retrieved Fall, 2010.
Howlett, J. (n.d.). Kappan Magazine. PDK - Phi Delta Kappa Professional Education
Association. Retrieved Fall, 2010, from
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v89/k0803how.htm
Institute for Wisconsin's Future. (2001, January). Are School Revenue Limits Limiting
Learning. Institute for Wisconsins Future. Retrieved Winter, 2010, from
http://www.wisconsinsfuture.org/publications.html
Instructional Strategies for Technology Education (pp. 110-122). (1988). Mission Hills,
CA: Glencoe.
Loughlin, S. (2010). Recession Aggravated School Funding Short Falls. CNHI
Newservice. Retrieved Fall, 2010, from http://www.kokomotribune.com
NBC. (2008, February 11). Schools Expect Budget Cuts as Economy Sours. Retrieved
Fall, 2010, from MSNBC.com
Odden, A. (1989). School Funding Changes: 1960 to 1988 (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1989). Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved Fall, 2010,
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED306645.pdf
38
Public Schools: Where does The Money Come From? Public Financial Support of
Education, Public School: Where Does the Money Go? (n.d.). Trends in
Educational Funding. Retrieved Fall, 2010, from
http://social.jrank.org/pages/973/Trends-in-Educational-Funding.html
Recession Experts Pressure on Public School District Budgets. (n.d.). American
Association of School Administrators. Retrieved Fall, 2010, from
http://www.aasa.org/policy/econstudies
39
Appendix A: Survey and Consent Form
Technology Education Funding Survey
Technology Education Funding Survey
Page 1 - Question 1 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
What Technology Education courses do you offer at your school? (Check all that apply)











PLTW (Project Lead The Way)
Electronics
Woodworking
Construction
Automotive Technology
Drafting (Mechanical/Architectural)
Graphics
Metals
Welding
General Technology Education (Middle School Level)
Other, please specify
Page 1 - Question 2 - Choice - Multiple Answers (Bullets)
How many students are enrolled in your school?






0-150
151-500
501-850
851-1200
1201-1600
1601+
Page 1 - Question 3 - Choice - One Answer (Drop Down)
What grade level do you teach?
 Elementary (K-5)
 Middle (6-8)
 Secondary (9-12)
40
Page 1 - Question 4 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
How many Technology Education teachers are in your department?





1
2-3
4-6
7-9
10+
Page 1 - Question 5 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
What are your number of budget dollars available in your Technology Education department?






$0-$1000
$1001-$4000
$4001-$8000
$8001-$12000
$12000-$16000
$16000+
Page 1 - Question 6 - Choice - One Answer (Drop Down)
Has your Technology Education department's budget:




Increased over the last few years
Decreased over the last few years
Stayed the same
Cannot answer or unsure
Page 1 - Question 7 - Choice - One Answer (Drop Down)
Do you currently employ any additional funding sources for your Technology? (fundraisers,
grants, community backing, corporate sponsors, etc.)
 Yes
 No
 Unsure or Choose Not To Respond
Page 1 - Question 8 - Choice - One Answer (Drop Down)
Do you utilize a program advisory committee for any of your Technology Education programs?
 Yes
 No
 Uncertain or Choose Not To Respond
41
Page 1 - Question 9 - Choice - One Answer (Drop Down)
If you use a program advisory committee do they assist you in securing additional funds?
 Yes
 No
 Uncertain or Choose Not To Respond
Page 1 - Heading
If you answered "YES" to the previous question could you elaborate by answering the following
questions
Page 1 - Question 10 - Choice - One Answer (Bullets)
How much additional funding are you receiving?







0-500
501-1000
1001-2000
2001-4000
4001-8000
8001+
Other, please specify
Page 1 - Question 11 - Open Ended - Comments Box
What is the source of this funding?
Page 1 - Question 12 - Open Ended - Comments Box
What are the additional funds being used for? (ex. Software, Capital Equipment, Supplies, Etc.)
Page 1 - Heading
If you have any additional funding sources please continue to list them. If you do not have any
additional funding sources please submit the survey.
42
Page 1 - Question 13 - Open Ended - Comments Box
What is the source of this funding?
Page 1 - Question 14 - Open Ended - Comments Box
What are the additional funds being used for? (ex. Software, Capital Equipment, Supplies, Etc.)
Page 1 - Heading
If you have any additional funding sources please continue to list them. If you do not have any
additional funding sources please submit the survey.
Page 1 - Question 15 - Open Ended - Comments Box
What is the source of this funding?
Page 1 - Question 16 - Open Ended - Comments Box
What are the additional funds being used for? (ex. Software, Capital Equipment, Supplies, Etc.)
43
Consent to Participate In UW-Stout Approved Research
Title: Funding for Technology Education
Investigator:
Scott Z. Bruening
Technology Education Teacher
Waukesha North High School
Waukesha, WI 53188
262-970-3607
Research Sponsor:
Dr. Carol T. Mooney
Professor and Program Director
M.S. And Ed.S. Career and Technical Education University of Wisconsin-Stout
232 Communication Technologies
Menomonie, WI 54751
715 232 1444
Description:
Funding has become an increasingly significant issue in Technology Education in
the state of Wisconsin. As I have been teaching for close to a decade now, budgets
and programs have suffered due to the high cost nature of Technology Education
programs. I believe that many of my other colleagues across the state of Wisconsin
are experiencing the similar situations. My objectives for this survey are to help me
answer these main questions:
1.)
Determine if Wisconsin Technology Education teachers are finding
creative ways to finance new technologies.
2.)
Determine if Technology Education budgets are decreasing.
3.)
Discover what methods are being employed to supplement Technology
Education budgets
Risks and Benefits:
The benefit of this study is to hopefully help Technology Educators in the state of
Wisconsin better identify how others are developing ways to counteract budget
reductions. Since it will be a online survey with a direct link and there is no method of
monitoring in place to see who has or has not taken the survey there should be no
psychological, emotional, or behavoral risk to the subject.
44
Time Commitment and Payment:
The time commitment to completing this on-line survey can last between 5 and 20
minutes. There will be no payment or compensation for completing this survey.
Confidentiality:
Your name will not be included on any documents nor asked for at any time during the
survey. We do not believe that you can be identified from any of this information.
Right to Withdraw:
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may choose not to participate
without any adverse consequences to you. You have the right to stop the survey at any
time. Since you are participating in an anonymous online survey, once you submit your
response, the data cannot be linked to you and cannot be withdrawn.
IRB Approval:
This study has been reviewed and approved by The University of Wisconsin-Stout's
Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB has determined that this study meets the
ethical obligations required by federal law and University policies. If you have questions
or concerns regarding this study please contact the Investigator or Advisor. If you have
any questions, concerns, or reports regarding your rights as a research subject, please
contact the IRB Administrator.
Investigator:
Advisor:
Scott Bruening
262-970-3607
[email protected]
Dr Carol Mooney
715-232-1444
[email protected]
IRB Administrator:
Sue Foxwell, Director, Research Services
152 Vocational Rehabilitation Bldg.
UW-Stout
Menomonie, WI 54751
715-232-2477
[email protected]
Statement of Consent:
By completing the following survey you agree to participate in the project entitled,
Funding for Technology Education.
45
Appendix B: Respondents Replies for Questions 11, 13, and 15
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
6.)
7.)
8.)
9.)
10.)
11.)
12.)
13.)
14.)
15.)
16.)
17.)
18.)
19.)
20.)
21.)
22.)
23.)
24.)
25.)
26.)
27.)
28.)
29.)
30.)
31.)
32.)
33.)
34.)
We have a lot of community support through a commerce chamber.
Money comes from several local shops
Perkins grant money
Class projects sold off at fundraiser dinner
Local Lions chapter fundraiser
Tech ed students help run the school store – portion of profits go to tech
ed
Federal grant for Perkins Act
Area business
We have a few business in the area that give various parts of our
department money each year to help our budget situation out
Local hardware store donates
Many of our local area businesses as well as vendors we use to purchase
materials
Selling compact fluorescent bulbs for energy awareness in club
Steel donated for metals class
Area business donation/money
Hardware, Glue, misc. fasteners form local supply
Perkins money
Our Tech Ed department builds various projects each year and sells them
off. Similar to the Industrial Enterprise class at Stout.
Federal Perkins Act grant
Build Sheds/Garage for community members, other teachers
Area businesses donations
Local lumber yard gives us lumber, plywood, trim and other building
materials
Perkins
We have a very strong relationship with local automotive repair shops in
the area. They usually donate their used equipment to our lab here at
school.
Carl Perkins money
Area Fastenal donates
Small manufacturing project for middle school class
Grant from Honda foundation
Stem grant for new classes – maybe federal or state dollars??
Carl Perkins grant money
Perkins Grant for our district
Our graphic arts classes print class t-shirts for each grade level for
homecoming week. We get to keep the profits from all of the sales plus we
do the printing in the cafeteria so everyone can see the process.
General Electric grant
Not actual dollars but paper and ink for graphics from an area printer
Partnership with local business
Kiwanis assists our program with our student organization
46
35.)
36.)
37.)
38.)
39.)
40.)
41.)
42.)
43.)
44.)
45.)
46.)
47.)
48.)
49.)
50.)
51.)
52.)
53.)
54.)
55.)
56.)
57.)
58.)
59.)
60.)
61.)
62.)
63.)
64.)
65.)
66.)
67.)
68.)
69.)
70.)
71.)
72.)
73.)
74.)
75.)
Local steel supplier donates left over steel and sheet metal
Local electrical terminal company donated wire, switches, misc.
electronics supplies to our middle school first robotics program
Area businesses
Local business partnerships
State grant money (Carl Perkins)
Gates foundation grant
Local Habitat for Humanity helps with getting money for our construction
area when we assist them with a home or project
Sponsorship from Allen-Bradley Corp.
Material donation from Allen-Bradley Corp.
Department of Defense grant for STEM
Carl Perkins money
Graphic Comm. – prints t-shirts school forms passes
Community businesses
State bank yearly contribution to our program
Area companies donate for our robotics program
Adv. Construction class build a house each year
Carl Perkins
Rotary club fundraiser pancake breakfast with proceeds support Tech Ed.
Gov. grant
Manufacturing Alliance gives our metals/welding program money
STEM grant from federal govt.
Local screen printer donates ink, sometimes t-shirts etc.
Perkins Grant for each year\
Community businesses contribute to our program
Money from business
State grant from STEM development
Carl Perkins for grants that are used in our tech ed department for
purchases in addition to our budget
Local community organization puts on a fundraiser
Energy grant from government
Carl perkins grant used in our Auto program
Area VFW sponsores event for school/tech dept.
State grant
PLTW grant/Federal DOD
Local Salvage yard donates
vehicles/parts/components/engines/transmissions for use in the
Automotive Technology classes
Summer workshop geared to generate interest in tech ed
Area business donates money to Tech Ed.
Partnership with local shops
DOE grant for generating more female interest in technology education
State grants for Project Lead The Way
STEM grant
Businesses donate
47
76.)
77.)
78.)
79.)
80.)
81.)
82.)
83.)
84.)
85.)
86.)
87.)
88.)
89.)
90.)
91.)
92.)
93.)
94.)
95.)
96.)
97.)
98.)
99.)
100.)
101.)
102.)
103.)
104.)
105.)
106.)
107.)
108.)
109.)
110.)
Area business gives materials for student projects in various Tech classes
Carl perkins for CTE areas – grant renews each year
Grant through local Tech college - WCTC
Local business contribution
We have excellent support from our area businesses that regularly donate
materials and supplies for various Tech Ed courses
Perkins Act money
Federal grants
Carl Perkins money for our Technology Education Department
Building metal projects for sale (trailer caddies, deer hanger, deer stand,
log holders, fire ring)
Carl Perkins – distributed between all Technology Ed classes each year
Grant from Kearn? (sp) foundation for starting PLTW courses
Perkins grant
Donation from business
Department of Defense Federal grant for STEM
Grant from our local tech college for advisory committee development
Federal grant from Perkins
Area business donates
We‟ve had many small engines donated for use in our transportation and
engineering programs from Briggs.
In district mini-grant
Local Chamber of Commerce generates some additional funds for our
School and some of that comes to our Tech Ed department
Club collects used toner cartridges for recycling/profit
Business
A local business donated blank t-shirts for our graphic arts class to use for
screen printing projects
WE Energies alternative energy education grant
Our auto program does a spring tune up week where anyone can
come in and get their lawn equipment/tractor/etc tuned up and donate to
the program.
Federal STEM grant – for implementing new classes
Auto body shop donate to auto program
Local Union Labor temple has a benefit funriaser for our TE dept.
Federal dollars
Grant from state to develop STEM academy
We have a strong business community that donates money to all of our
technical education programs for all of the schools in our district
Perkins Act
Students work for our local Habitiat for Humanity
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) Federal grant to get our
Tech and Science departments involved and beginning to offer these
classes
Carl Prkins grant money
48
111.)
112.)
113.)
114.)
115.)
116.)
117.)
118.)
119.)
120.)
121.)
122.)
123.)
124.)
125.)
126.)
127.)
128.)
129.)
130.)
131.)
132.)
133.)
134.)
135.)
136.)
137.)
138.)
139.)
140.)
141.)
142.)
143.)
144.)
Materials for community project for downtown area renewal for class
project
Local auto parts store contributes parts/supplies (fasteners, paint, ets.) for
high mileage project
Energy class goes to do energy audits and make recomendations for better
energy efficiency in local homes. Sell and install window and patio door
insul. kits
Our district gets a reasonable amount of federal grants to support our
department
We have a great group of local business that are always willing to donate
to our tech ed department
DPI grant for development of a SkillsUSA chapter
Mass production project from our middle school class generates additional
funds.
Federal grant money
Baileigh industrial donated to our metals program
Local community group runs a fundraiser for our department. I am also
actively involved in the group so that helps guide where the money goes.
Donation from Quad Graphics
Most of our additional funds beyond our regular budget come from
perkins money
Students run a “high interest” day for middle school students
Carl Perkins grant is split between all of our classes
Area business is involved in our construction area. small donation each
year.
Combination of State and fedral grants
Federal grants
3 area businesses donate to separate parts of our tech ed programs
Area golf course sets up a golf outing/fundraiser for our districts
Technology Education dept.
Perkiins Money
DPI grant for STEM development (I think)
Strong financial commitment from one great area business
Local ACE hardware donates money/supplies
Partnership with machining company for donation of mtls./used equip.
Federal grant money
DPI grant
Advanced Construction class builds various woods projects in the
community
Contractor Supply CO. donates building materials (lumber, siding, tools)
Govt. grant for tech ed
Summer engineering workshop for middle level kids
Department of Education grant
State aid?
We use mostly Carl Perkins grants (for teched)
Class project for additional money (woods/graphics)
49
145.)
146.)
147.)
148.)
149.)
150.)
151.)
152.)
153.)
154.)
155.)
156.)
Welder donation from Miller
Auto class does oil changes etc for cost of parts with small mark-up (no
labor)
Business support
Great support from community/business
General Electric donates to first robotics program
NASA grant for aerospace
Print t-shirts for middle/grade school
Home Depot donates to our woods/cons. classes
Skills USA club build projects every year that is sold off
Business
Many local businesses sponsor a FHS car (amounts vary + parts)
Each teacher applies for federal grant money through carl perkins
foundation
50
Appendix C: Respondents Replies for Questions 12, 14, and 16
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
36)
37)
38)
39)
40)
41)
42)
Materials/Supplies/Tools
Sending teachers to PLTW training in summer
Curriculum writing
Blanket wash fountain solution press rags knives tape screens graphics
related.
Replacement cutters, milling heads, drills/taps
Project development
Started Skills chapter
Paid for SkillsUSA competiton
Tools for small engine class plus parts
Lumber and hardware
Pneumatic nailers
New welders for metal shop
Upgrade for CNC machine (tooling)
Additional copies of CorelDraw
Misc. Hand tools (SNAP-ON)
Wood/Lumer
Additional tooling for metals equipment abrasive wheels/belts for
sander
New training tools for auto lab
Ink for presses
Screen fabric
T-shirts/fabric
New Plasma cutter for Plasma mill
Ugraded welders
Repair for automotive lifts in auto shop
Building materials etc.
Raw steel for shop projects
Replacement router bits drill bits saw blades
Additional copy of MasterCAM for students
Summer curriculum hours
WTEA Conference
Tools for shops
Tech ed afterschool club
Shop solvents like brakekleen WD40 various chemicals
Saw blades, varnish, craft paper, sand paper, brushes
Power miter saw
Drill bits Drills hammer drill chop saw / portable tools
Repair/certification of Autoshop lifts
Replacements for table saw fences
New voltmeters for electronics classes
Nuts, bolts hardware hinges knobs cabinet hardware stock
New band saw
Rivet guns sheet metal hand tools punches seaming tools
51
43)
44)
45)
46)
47)
48)
49)
50)
51)
52)
53)
54)
55)
56)
57)
58)
59)
60)
61)
62)
63)
64)
65)
66)
67)
68)
69)
70)
71)
72)
73)
74)
75)
76)
77)
78)
79)
80)
81)
82)
83)
84)
85)
Curriculum developlement
STEM academy for Tech/Science/Math teachers
Sending SkillsUSA students to district conference
New plotter for Graphics/Drafting
Press repair tune up also replacement bulb for platemaker unit
Curriculum hours through perkins money
Tools and equipment
Materials
Materials
New hand tools and small bench type machines for engineering lab
Field trip to FVTC for tour of campus
New tools for all lab (always exciting)
PLTW training for teachers
Consumable material/supply
Tools for woods/metals/auto
Tool upgrades
Clamps, pliers, wrenches, taps, drill bits
Shop equipment upgrades (Safe SAW)
Teacher training for new PLTW courses
Summer course development (district pays)
Repair for all woods equipment/blade sharpenning, replacement knives
sanding machine maintenance
Shop Supplies
Tools Etc.
Repair and main. for all CNC equipment in all labs
Bought all new auto welding helmets for lab
New electronics equipment – boards power supplies motors alligator
clips
All new computer desks for engineering lab
New tools and materials for all tech ed classes - split evenly
All new shop benches for metals area
Repair for table tops in woods –refinish sand
Torque wrench calibration tool repair
Shop equipment
Stress tesing machine for bridges/trusses
Digital cameras/camcorders
Paper Ink Toner Cart.
Auto class for auto teachers through area tech college
Replacement printing press
Upgrade for automotive scanning tool
T-shirts/screenprining ink
Machinery repair at end of year
Paper
Automotive class for teacher at CVTC
Hand tools for students to use on the job. They keep them if enough
hours are put it
52
86)
87)
88)
89)
90)
91)
92)
93)
94)
95)
96)
97)
98)
99)
100)
101)
102)
103)
104)
105)
106)
107)
108)
109)
110)
111)
112)
113)
114)
115)
116)
117)
118)
119)
120)
121)
122)
123)
124)
125)
Shop set of hand tools for small engines
Toner cartridges for color laser printer
Project Lead trainng
Lab supplies
Welding tips, wire, new rods, cups, torch tips
Indexable tool posts upgrade metals lathes
Yearly supplies and new tools electric or hand depends on what we
need
Evening metals tech course for new instructor
All new air tools for body shop program
Spray paint, tape, cardboard, markers
STEM classes for instructors
Heat tunnel for high volume screen print
Modular board for middle school and also consumable items
associated with
Training for POE, EDD etc. Project Lead The Way
Replace broke and upgrade digital photo cams
Engineering dept got a new large format color ink jet printer, paper,
ink cart.
Supplies and tools new machines for some labs
Replaced old metal worker with new one
Certification for Auto Shop lifts
Class materials
Exotic hardwoods for special woods projects
Additional cordless equipment
Replace/repair all electric tools for building trades class
On board scan tool
Had better shop exhaust installed in welding area
Used grant money for purchase of new auto shop equipment. New
brake lathe and tire machine
Purchased materials – plastics, metal, wood, fiberglass materal.
New toys/tools for engineering
Training on new alignment rack for auto
Engineering simulator software for aerodynamics used in middle
school tech ed to test CO2 car in wind tunnel
Small electrical resistors wire solder
Repair for equipment
STEM training for new classes combined with science
Materials/supplies
aluminum and steel for student projects
VEX robotics training workshop
We bought all sorts of materials and shop supplies for all our Tech
classes. Tools for woods and metals and more hand tools for auto.
Materials
Purchased new 3 axis CNC mill for PLTW courses
Parts storage bins -totes
53
126)
127)
128)
129)
130)
131)
132)
133)
134)
135)
136)
137)
138)
139)
140)
141)
142)
143)
144)
145)
146)
147)
148)
149)
150)
151)
152)
153)
154)
155)
156)
157)
158)
159)
160)
161)
162)
163)
164)
165)
166)
167)
Repair for middle school modual technology stations
Misc. shop items: sandpaper tag board foam board for 3d modeling
toner paper ink
Set of hand tools for EDD class
Classes for teachers to get project lead the way class certified
New table saws for woods
Install fire safe cabinets for all labs with flammable liquids
General supplies
CAM workshop/instruction
Repair for brake lathe tire machines
New dust collector
Supply
Purchased additional milling machine
STEM teacher summer workshop
Auto training at gateway center
New 3d printer for engineering dept
Assortment of cordless tools
Repair for welding/cutting equipment
Safety glasses and storage cabinets
Replace all old films and filmstrips with DVD
Video projectors for classroom
Instructor training for CAD/CAM
Smart board for class
Paper for graphics
New dustpans, brooms, squeeges, hoses, air guns
Additional construction lumber for more class projects for mock walls
– sheds – garage maybe
Micrometers, calipers, scribes, inside micrometer, telescoping gauge
Shop supplies
We usually use our grant money to buy all of the small items for all of
the shops each year glue, paper for copying, spary bottles, bench rules,
roll paper etc.
Classes at local tech college fro instructor
All press supplies – ink blankets sometimes printing plates
Screen printing inks specialty metallic inks
Teacher course for Project lead the way classes – IED, POE
Shop supplies
New tools and if money left other materials
Upgrade for alignment rack
Material for testing properties
Pen kits, clock movements, hands, hinges, finishing hardware
Supplies
Capital equipment
Classes for teachers for cont. ed.
Repair shop equipment/tools
Replace old textbooks with new version
54
168)
169)
170)
171)
172)
173)
174)
175)
176)
177)
178)
179)
180)
181)
Class supplies
Lots and lots of tools!
Cleaning supplies for end of school year (stripper, wax, paste wax,
buffing compound, misc cleaners)
Further education for STEM classes/teachers
Replacement of old stick welders
Paper – toner – ink jet cartridges
New surveying equipment for PLTW class
Mostly tools and supplies
Upgrade computers in lab
More general supplies for all tech ed classes to be used by/for all
teachers
Construction materials/lumber/shingles/etc.
Repair for inground lifts
Gerneal shop supplies
Depends on dollar amount each year mostly more materials for
projects