Case Study: A Technology Referendum PDF Print E-mail
Written by Speed Gibson   
Friday, 22 August 2008 08:48
I've been keeping tabs on the neighboring public schools just north of us, District 279, a.k.a. Osseo. Like my own Robbinsdale Area Schools (281), they are back for another try this year. Last year, Osseo voters opted for just 1 of the 3 referendums put before them. This year, there are 2 questions, one of them for technology.

Specifically, they are asking for $5 million for 5 years of technology and training. As I hinted in a prior post, such requests overcome my normal inclination to vote yes and I think this one illustrates why. First, a little history gleaned from the annual reports available on the District 279 web site.
  • 1998-1999: The District established a three year technology plan to upgrade administrative applications, upgrade the network infrastructure, install T-1 lines to all buildings and continue the investment in technology for teacher and student access.
  • 2001-2002: The District invested about $ 3.5 million in additional technology.
  • 2002-2003: The District invested almost $ 3.9 million in additional technology.
  • 2003-2004: The District invested more than $ 3.9 million in additional technology.
  • 2004-2005: The District invested almost $ 4.7 million in additional technology.
  • 2005-2006: The District invested approximately $ 357 thousand in additional technology.
  • 2006-2007: The District invested $ 5,258,309 in additional technology.
Other than a one year breather, the District has spent several million dollars each year. Some of the more expensive projects were done several years ago. So how is it that the District suddenly needs a jump start in technology?

It really isn't much of a jump start either, basically an additional million dollars a year, much less than their average annual spending on technology, well under one half of one percent of the District's total annual spending. What is it for? Equipment and training reports the Sun Post:
"Technology enables us to reach far and wide," Chief Technology Officer Tim Wilson said. "There is no reason students can't have the globe as their resource. Technology allows students to contribute, share, and gather resources globally."

Wilson continued by stating "we must prepare our students for the world they inhabit" and "technology education fosters development in 21st-century skills."
If this prosaic prose answers a question, it would be why?, but the voters need to know what the money will actually be spent on.

They also need to understand why such a relatively small amount even need be put before them. What is it that just can't wait? (XP to Vista!?) To listen to the "CTO" one would think this is the beginning of Internet service in the District. The word "training" is also suspicious, but I'd settle for knowing who is being trained.

This is really just a time question. Anything worth doing the District would eventually do anyway, just maybe a year or two later and by then it will likely be cheaper. The computer marketplace hasn't seen much technical turbulence of late. I'm posting on a six year old PC running XP and plenty fast enough to keep up with the Comcast broadband. Sure, more speed, a DVD burner, and a flat screen HD monitor would be nice and I could get that for half what I paid for this system. But for what our family does with it, this is fine.

So is my my work PC, a three year old workhorse of a laptop, just upgraded to 2 GB ram in fact. Upgrading to a new laptop would be nicer, but provide no extra capabilities applicable to my job. Networks are also fairly stable, just cheaper and with a few more security bells and whistles.

Finally, remember that this money in fungible. By having dedicated funding for something you'd eventually buy anyway, you are creating budgetary room for other items, much as the Transit Tax bill pulled money out of the Bonding Bill to make more room for arenas, light rail, and other pork. Ultimately, would I as a taxpayer ever truly know where this $5 million is going?

It's not my District, but if it were, on the face of it my vote would be an easy and obvious NO on this referendum request.

Cross-posted at Speed Gibson. Comments welcome.