School leaders across the country have made multimillion-dollar investments in technology, but the costs of maintaining and supporting computers have left many districts searching for long-term financial solutions.
鈥淧eople are beginning to understand that there鈥檚 an ongoing cost with the purchase of technology,鈥� says Ed Zaiontz, the executive director of information services for the 36,500-student Round Rock Independent School District, located just north of Austin, Texas. 鈥淛ust because you paid to buy it doesn鈥檛 mean there aren鈥檛 [long-term] costs that go with it.鈥�
Technology Counts 2005
Electronic Transfer
NCLB Focuses on Data Tools
State Support Varies Widely
Federal Role Seen Shifting
Schools Eye Future Costs
鈥� Big-District Priorities
State Data
State Snapshots
Table of Contents
Having a well-developed approach to technology planning and spending has become an important goal for Zaiontz, whose district began heavily funding school technology in the late 1990s. In 1997, taxpayers approved a $99 million bond that earmarked $22 million for technology purchases.
The Round Rock district used the money to build internal computer networks within buildings as well as install Internet access in classrooms and administrative offices and put telephones in classrooms. It also paid for the purchase of technologies that would allow educators and students to send voice and video clips over the Internet.
In 2000, a second, $199 million bond鈥攚ith $38 million set aside specifically for educational technology鈥攈elped the district buy more computers and install a wide area network, which connects multiple buildings to one another.
The district now must maintain more than 17,000 computers, a number with big implications for the costs of educational technology in the coming years.
To address those long-term costs, district technology directors, like Zaiontz, and state officials are embracing a business-world concept known as 鈥渢otal cost of ownership,鈥� or TCO. That financial-planning model helps organizations measure and manage the direct and indirect costs of acquiring, maintaining, and using technology.
Used by the technology industry since the 1980s, the model takes key information such as salaries, hardware and software costs, equipment-supply and -repair expenses, and staff-training costs, and plugs them into a software program that calculates the long-term costs of technology programs. Organizations, including school districts, can then identify areas where funding is falling short, places where costs can be reduced, and areas where more staff support is needed.
鈥楽low to Pick Up鈥�
The idea of using a private-industry concept like 鈥渢otal cost of ownership鈥� in schools didn鈥檛 emerge until the late 1990s. Initial funding for educational technology, several experts point out, was focused on getting computers into classrooms. TCO analysis was rebuffed, they say, because schools didn鈥檛 understand what it was. Even administrators who understood the concept believed that it wasn鈥檛 the best solution for education. They felt that most of the TCO models presented by technology vendors at the time were biased toward helping companies make more money, rather than ensuring that schools were making sound decisions that would work well鈥攁nd not cost too much鈥攊n the long run.
See the accompanying item,
鈥淜-12 was slow to pick up on [long-term planning],鈥� says Rich Kaestner, the TCO project director for the Consortium for School Networking, or CoSN, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that advocates the use of technology in education. 鈥淧art of the reason being that the computer environment up until the 1990s was fairly unsophisticated. But as K-12 got into [using larger computer networks], the whole need to look at costs became more paramount.鈥�
By 2000, school district computer networks had grown significantly, and districts鈥攚eighed down by a hodgepodge of equipment, aging networks, and understaffed technology departments鈥攚ere looking for better ways to spend their technology dollars.
In response, organizations such as CoSN and the Appalachia Educational Laboratory, a nonprofit organization in Charleston, W.Va., that researches school improvement, began developing online tools designed to help districts gather and analyze their own TCO data.
In Texas, Zaiontz became one of the first to begin exploring TCO models when his district took part in a 2003 study sponsored by CoSN and Gartner, an information-technology research firm based in Stamford, Conn., that promotes TCO analysis in the industry.
鈥淲e actually thought we were doing pretty well [at that time] in terms of [spending],鈥� says Zaiontz. 鈥淏ut the question was, could we do better?鈥�
By applying the TCO concepts supplied through CoSN鈥檚 tool, Zaiontz discovered that the Round Rock district could, indeed, do better. The financial analysis revealed that while a majority of the district鈥檚 computers were less than 3 years old, nearly 60 percent of its 192 network servers, which supported those computers, were older or outdated.
Eventually, aging networks can lead to major problems, according to experts, because older machines not only tend to break down more often, but also create compatibility problems as newer technology is installed. Those problems can trigger a domino effect, in which support costs rise and staff hours increase to address a growing number of repairs and computer-troubleshooting incidents.
The TCO analysis in the Round Rock district also found that its 3,300 ink-jet printers, which had been bought because of their low initial costs, were more expensive to maintain than laser printers because they used more ink. In fact, ink-jet replacement cartridges were costing the district nearly $250,000 a year.
鈥淲ow. That鈥檚 what we said. Wow,鈥� recalls Zaiontz.
鈥楬andwriting on the Wall鈥�
For Sally J. Bair, the technology facilitator for the 2,450-student Northern Lebanon district in Fredericksburg, Pa., the data provided using TCO has helped her communicate better with school leaders.
Among the many problems she faced was finding the time for staff members to be trained in new technologies, and ensuring technical support for an ever-expanding, year-round computer system that operates during the school year and for summer academies.
鈥淚 know of no moment to pause,鈥� Bair says. 鈥淭here鈥檚 always more coming down the pipeline. We were seeing more networks, more switches, desktops, laptops. [Information technology] is expected to know everything, but we don鈥檛 know everything about every technology. You鈥檙e in basic survival mode out here in the trench.鈥�
Over the years, the influx of technology in Bair鈥檚 district demanded more staff support. But no matter how hard she tried to convince the school board of that need, she recalls, she couldn鈥檛 get the board to hire more staff鈥攖hat is, until the TCO data persuaded the members to authorize that step. After reviewing the CoSN data, the board allowed Bair to hire two additional staff members.
Similar results have materialized in other districts that applied TCO. The data gathered for the analytical tool has helped some schools standardize their computer platforms, monitor the traffic on their networks, assess the age and replacement schedules for their computers, and reallocate money for support and repair costs.
鈥楢ccountability for [technology spending] is going to be ramped up more and more.鈥�
But not all districts have the time or the resources to gather the data required for a TCO analysis.
鈥淚 should find the time to do that, but you get busy and my time is limited,鈥� says Craig Andrews, the director of technology for the 4,100-student Alexandria, Mo., district. He would like to establish a better technology-planning and computer-replacement schedule for his district, which now keeps its computers for seven or eight years and is beginning to experience infrastructure problems because of its aging servers and network.
To make matters worse, a local educational technology levy proposed in 2004, which would have brought in $500,000 over the next 10 years to help replace school district computer hardware, failed to receive voter approval.
Experts acknowledge that finding the time to gather TCO data is the biggest obstacle facing the 1,300 school districts that have signed up to use CoSN鈥檚 tool. To address the problem, the organization plans to add reasonable 鈥渄efault鈥� values that could give schools a rudimentary idea of what their costs might be.
But Kaestner of CoSN has mixed emotions about offering what he sees as 鈥渁 lazy way out.鈥� Schools learn as much about their technology spending from gathering the data themselves as they do from analyzing the results, he argues.
鈥淰ery few IT directors have all this [information] at their fingertips,鈥� he says. 鈥淪o the process and the results are eye-openers.鈥�
What鈥檚 more, experts say, using TCO methods of analysis is something more schools will need to do in light of increasing demands by states and the federal government for schools to provide evidence of technology鈥檚 impact on student achievement.
鈥淎ccountability [for technology spending] is going to be ramped up more and more,鈥� says Bair. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 the handwriting on the wall.鈥�
Weighing Benefits and Drawbacks
Most technology experts agree that schools should think ahead and develop long-term financial plans. But some observers warn that schools need to approach online TCO calculators with caution. Before using an online tool, they say, schools need to educate themselves on the TCO concept first, so they have a firm grasp of how the approach can be applied to schools.
鈥淭he concept [of TCO] is very smart,鈥� says Jamie McKenzie, the editor of From Now On, an online educational technology journal.
But TCO models such as those offered by the Appalachia Educational Laboratory and CoSN are flawed, he argues, because they focus primarily on the costs of hardware, software, and technical training, but are 鈥渧ery thin鈥� on teacher professional development, program building, and organizational issues鈥攚hich can amount to 30 percent to 40 percent of technology costs. Applying business models such as CoSN鈥檚 will make a school network hum, McKenzie says, but he emphasizes that if schools don鈥檛 provide teachers with a means of applying technology to what they teach, having a good network won鈥檛 improve student achievement.
Kaestner of CoSN responds that professional development is measured by the tool鈥檚 calculations, but he acknowledges that the current breakdown of that training isn鈥檛 as detailed as critics suggest it should be. However, the organization is working toward a 鈥渢otal value of opportunity,鈥� or TVO, model that will look at the value side of the technology equation to help schools measure their return on investment.
Still, there鈥檚 no way to predict every twist and turn technology will take, because it changes so fast, says Terry Tamblyn, the vice president for educational services at Bridger, a technology company based in Darien, Ill., that designs and maintains networks for schools.
He says districts can give themselves a leg up, though, by building strong underlying technology infrastructures and efficient networks, not jumping at every frill or new trend, and forging strong lines of communication between district technology and curriculum directors.
鈥淚t sounds fairly simple, but communication is the biggest breakdown I see,鈥� says Tamblyn.
He also recommends that schools consider outsourcing their technology needs and leasing rather than buying their computers. Leasing ensures that the computers are replaced on a regular schedule, and that schools don鈥檛 have to worry about recycling them.
Plus, technology will be cheap enough in 10 years, he says, to allow students to bring their own personal devices to school, eliminating the need for so many school computers.
鈥淭here has to be a long-term vision,鈥� says Tamblyn. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think there are very many schools out there who know everything they鈥檙e spending.
鈥淧lan. Plan. Plan. You can鈥檛 say that enough to people.鈥�
