Decision makers at all levels of education are grappling with the cold and firm truth that pre-financing new equipment and software is the tip of the funding iceberg. In the 1980s, we called it “hidden costs.” In the 90’s we were so worried about all the new gadgets that we forgot about everything else. Today, in the new century, we wonder how we can afford to use the tools that our administrators, teachers, parents, and students finally use.
As the School Networks Consortium (CoSN) notes in its technical document on total cost of ownership: “While many public and private programs provide the tools that schools so need, there is very little room to support the constant technologies needed. School districts, which have installed many of the technologies needed for classroom, administrative, and community communication functions, are quickly aware of support issues and have to spend money on ongoing support costs. This money is often the last priority of schooling.
With the continuing threat of the cancellation of federal funds for E-Rate funds and the improvement of education through technology (EETT), districts need to find their own reliable and permanent sources of funding, and state and federal government leaders should reduce overall costs, help calculate and count. Property. Review is a necessity.
Technological funding for the overall budget
The funding dilemma is compounded by the fact that many education officials have not yet realized that technology is no longer a separate entity. The use of technology is a daily occurrence in every school in every district, at a particular level. Unfortunately, many education policy makers have not revised their overall budgets to support technology-tested ways to improve the work and objectives of local educational institutions (MOs). Leaders who see technology as a “black hole” (as one driver once told me) hide their heads in the sand and need education or training.
The Benchmarking Consortium in the western states is one of the strongest school districts with high rates west of the Mississippi River. These counties consistently score above normal on tests, have a higher rate of delivery and a lower failure rate compared to comparable and uneven demographics. All of these school districts were the first to implement this technology and used it to support teachers, students, and their business teams.
John K. Porter, assistant superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools, the east coast’s main school district, said in the June issue of the District Administration: “Our enemy is time, and technology is technology. The only way to “fight this” is. ” people who don’t understand the importance of technology because they’re afraid of it. One of the first things you understand about technology is that technology is change; those who fail to develop systems do not understand the dynamics of change. “
Two years ago, the Povey Joint School District began hiring 32 new teachers. The technical department used its storage tool to show county leaders that they only needed 25 teachers. Managers followed their advice instead of following the old trends, and their assessment was correct. The county saved about $350,000 in wages – more than the cost of installing a data store.
Students’ grades have changed. Trish Williams and Michael Kirst, in their article entitled “Leadership Practices That Matter” (Leadership Magazine, March/April 2006), state that high-performing districts should have assessments that meet state standards and be able to inform teachers of results in a timely manner. Online testing gives decision makers the choice of how to properly evaluate students to support learning, with a results report of 24 hours or more. Student support and NCLB requirements should be standard practice.
RELATED HISTORY: How to find more money on budget technology
All budgets, regardless of project or department, need to be completely revised to see how technology can support the final product and make it more efficient.
Funding where it wasn’t
Step 1. Evaluate and prioritize
Data-driven decision-making is a fundamental part of this first step. In general, there are three areas from which data can be collected: educational and operational requirements, infrastructure that meets these requirements, and the hardware and software needed to meet these requirements.
Education and business requirements: These requirements are determined by the district’s goals, community expectations, state and federal government regulations, funding restrictions, and union guidelines. It is expected that the districts will increasingly produce students who pass standard tests and demonstrate citizenship. The business side of education exists to support educational activities that meet these expectations.
Infrastructure that meets these requirements: The LEA infrastructure consists of several components. The design elements should be reviewed every two to three years. Phones, data, alarms, networks and the overall physical condition of buildings need to be evaluated to understand what repairs and upgrades are needed. Funding is available in many states through deferred care or in limited facilities and services. If a comprehensive plan is developed and implemented, districts can guarantee that this important building block for educational support will be achieved.
Equipment and software that meet these requirements: The first two areas allow you to make a reasonable decision to purchase software, computers, and other related equipment that will work with the existing infrastructure and meet the educational and business requirements of the district.
These goals may take more than a year to achieve. It is also very likely that the goals will change over time. Therefore, it is reasonable to develop a flexible and adaptable multi-year plan.
Some of the supporting technologies provide a fund for maintenance, replacement or obsolescence, which is usually funded from general district funds. Too often, much of the investment in technology is spent simply on maintaining the status quo.