The planned network upgrade is not needed.  According to Metrocast and the State tech survey, the vast majority of districts have the same or less networking speed to separate buildings.  The argument that our network doesn’t work for us anymore doesn’t hold water.  If we are unable to use these connections then there is a problem with how we are using it, not the connection itself.  I conduct business on a daily basis transmitting much more information than the school district over the very same lines that they use now.  The total cost to the district for upgrading to microwave towers or fiber optic lines has not been presented to us; this could carry a high price tag for coming years.  I believe this is a commitment that should be passed through a warrant article.  The first year cost for this project which has been estimated at $60,000 should be removed from the budget.
 
The request for new student information system (SIS) software is also unnecessary at the current time.  The software currently being used (MacSchool) and the windows version WinSchool are the second most popular SIS product in the State and the Country.  According to the State tech survey, 34 districts are using this software.  The company that sold the software was recently bought by Pearson School Systems who had also purchased Apple’s SIS system.  Combined, it will most likely become the number one selling SIS software.  The company has publicly stated it’s commitment to supporting users of MacSchool and WinSchool until some transition takes place.  While I would like to see the district move to a free and open alternative to these solutions it is certainly unnecessary to change what they currently have.  To say that the 2nd best selling SIS software in the country doesn’t work for us seems ridiculous.  This may become an issue in the future when a transition to new software is required, but that isn’t the case right now.  They currently don’t seem to have a plan or a specific figure on what a competing product would cost.  That should be extremely easy to find out.  The $60,000 requested for this purchase should be removed from the budget.

A request for more than $12,000 for implementation of a zone integration server is also a waste of taxpayer money.  This server is supposed to save time by taking changes made to student data in one place and automatically update data in other systems but there are several problems with this idea.  We currently only have 2 systems.  Our student information system will be changing and there is no way to predict if it will have this capability built in.  Even if we get the third system for transportation, we would only be saving the amount of time spent on entering new students or making changes in existing student data.  The amount of time saved is negligible compared to the $12,000 expense. 

The request for Lease/purchase of new and replacement computer systems needs to be scrutinized.  During the technology director’s presentation she made the statement that a large number of computers were between 3-8 years old and that average computer life in the business world is 3 years.  That is true for businesses, not so for schools.  Research also shows that school computers have an average life of 5 years, not 3.  There are several reasons given for this difference.  Business computers operate many more hours during their lifespan causing them to break down sooner.  Many businesses rely on computer performance to enhance production, purchasing the latest, fastest computers may improve the bottom line.  If a computer or network breaks down in the business world, it may prevent that business from functioning.  In schools, students can double up on a computer or the teacher can switch to alternate instruction until it is repaired. 

No one is looking closely at this very costly part of the budget.  We really need to look at the inventory of computers for the district.  A blanket statement of 3-8 years old is just not good enough.  Furthermore, we don’t have any information on exactly what they will be spending this money on.  At the very least we should know what they are planning to purchase or lease and what the total cost is, even if it may change later on. Another interesting point in the presentation was that last year the district purchased nearly an equal number of PC’s as they did Macs, this year the plan is to purchase almost entirely Macs.

Implementation of thin-client technology, which allows a group of old computers to be sped up using one fast server, would cut costs here dramatically.  Though some people have made claims that this technology will not work for us; I can assure you that it will.  I would ask anyone who makes this kind of claim if they hold any degree in computer science.  To find details on how this district could use thin-client technology to cut costs, including dozens of case studies in schools [click here].

I believe this part of the budget is way too high and can be dramatically reduced.  I also believe that voters made it quite clear that they didn’t want to see the district overspending in this area.  I think it was a mandate that the district should start looking at less expensive computer equipment.  They have inserted nearly the same plan into the budget without regard for the public’s opinion.  Given the fact that computer prices have fallen once again, I don’t see any reason why the same amount budgeted for last year on these items wouldn’t be appropriate for now.
 
The request for a new technology department employee is ridiculous.  According to the State technology survey, 101 districts have 2 or less full time employees only 34 have greater than 3.  This addition would place us in the top 25% with the largest districts in the state even though our district is close to average in size.  Our student population hasn’t changed and we already have too many employees working at the SAU office.  The explanation given to me for adding a new person was that the State will eventually be increasing the number of forms that need to be filled out electronically.  If this is truly a problem then all the other school districts must be hiring new staff as well, right?  If the state won’t allow us to submit paper forms anymore and it is such a burden on the districts then we should be addressing the issue with the DOE.  I also don’t believe that the current staff is so busy that they don’t have time to do some additional data entry.  The amount requested for this new employee ($49,000) should be removed.