Among the most significant responsibilities of an educational technology leader are budget planning, cost control, and the responsible stewardship of available funds. With the demand for technology in our schools increasing at a greater pace than the funding readily available to make this vision a reality, the ground is fertile for the propagation of certain myths and misconceptions.

Myth No. 1: If we can scrape together enough funding to pull some wires in our walls and buy some computers to plug them into, we've got it made.

Many educational institutions are only now beginning to recognize and accept the concept of total cost of ownership (TCO), which has been the guiding principal of technology budget planning in the business world for decades. Organizations such as the Consortium for School Networking have been promoting the use of TCO principles in technology budgeting for school districts, yet many schools still take the narrower view of only looking at immediate and tangible costs.

Market research firms such as the Gartner Group consistently show in their studies that the annual cost of operating a computer far exceeds its purchase cost, year after year. Yet schools tend to focus on the cost of the basic network infrastructure and initial hardware purchase rather than the significant ongoing costs for training (both formal and informal), maintenance, support, software, and upgrades—not to mention possible secondary costs of new furniture or electrical and climate-control systems that may be required with the introduction of new technology.

When planning a budget, it's important to consider how much technology you can afford to operate and fully use. To do this, you must have a clear idea of the overall costs of owning and using each piece of equipment. It's better to buy less technology and use it more efficiently than to buy boat loads of computers you can't afford to support.

Myth No. 2: Bidding laws ensure that public-education entities always get the best prices and products.

Bidding requirements can be helpful in certain instances, but in many cases they may be counterproductive. For example, a loosely-written specification can result in the procurement of cheap, unreliable equipment that is more costly to operate. Loose specifications can also encourage the acquisition of different manufacturers' equipment on every bid, precluding the savings that come with standardization and compatibility testing.

In addition, the complex paperwork and legal requirements of bidding can serve to deter competition rather than encourage it, particularly in the case of small to medium-size projects and providers. Finally, the bidding process itself has its own substantial administrative costs that add to the project's budget.

Technology leaders should examine all procurement options and should take advantage of alternate options, such as state and government contracts, when possible. In many cases, these contracts offer highly competitive prices that meet or exceed those available in bid responses; some even allow for deeper discounts for high-volume purchases. When there is no option other than to bid, the bidding document should be as concise as possible, with clear and detailed quality standards in place but no unnecessary requirements.