Funding IT in higher education:
the power of partnership
According to the EDUCAUSE Current Issues
Committee, funding IT was the number-one
concern for IT leaders last year. Though current
tough economic times have added an additional
challenge to the task, clever and committed
higher education leaders and their colleagues are
discovering new ways to facilitate the effective
utilization of Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) to increase student learning
and advance the mission of their institutions. IT
leaders continue to leverage creative problem
solving and careful strategic planning to introduce
truly revolutionary, technology-enriched courses
from which brand-new standards of excellence in
teaching and learning are emerging. The resulting
ICT-enriched courses offer unique opportunities for
the institution to address learner diversity, promote
pedagogical innovation and personalization of
instruction, improve teaching effectiveness, and
enable all members of the learning community
to co-create the curriculum in ways never before
possible. In addition, through the effective use
of virtualization, cloud/grid computing, online
collaborations, enhanced mobility, and mutually
beneficial partnerships, and by focusing on
hiring and supporting a highly trained and
diverse staff, institutions of higher education
are realizing enhanced organizational
effectiveness and efficiencies while increasing
authentic, inquiry-driven, student-centered
teaching/learning experiences for all members
of the learning community.
More and more higher education thought leaders
are recognizing that faculty, staff, and students
truly are empowered by technology tools that
are seamlessly integrated into their college and
university learning environments. Members of
ICT-enriched learning communities are getting
smarter, more efficient, and more confident in
their own unique ways of constructing knowledge,
organizing their thoughts, and sharing their
understanding with others. And all of this is
happening, in many cases, at a cost savings to
the university. Many colleges and universities
are creating new business models that leverage
cost-saving Web 2.0 tools such as Google Apps,
YouTube, and wikis for disseminating information
and blogs for communicating remotely (Read,
2010). Laptop computer leasing programs
provide access for each and every student, and
the inclusion of tablet PCs and other pen-based
technologies and presentation devices in higher
ed learning spaces allows for collaborative
problem solving, synchronous and asynchronous
learning opportunities, and inquiry-driven learning
that is radically enhancing the teaching and
learning experience for all constituents
(Berque, 2009).
 Such advances in teaching and learning and in
organizational efficiency are now more easily
being brought to fruition because administrators,
faculty, and IT professionals in higher ed, more
than ever, are forming alliances with committed
business partners who share the common goal
of creating affordable, robust, technology-
rich learning environments in colleges and
universities that accommodate the new needs and
expectations of today’s post-secondary digital
learners. These new students—Digital Natives—
are entering institutions of higher education
today expecting that the right technology tools
will be effectively integrated into their learning
experiences, and they want to be able to access
ICT from anywhere at any time (Prensky, 2001).
Today’s college students require the use of digital
learning tools in a learning environment that
accommodates their mobile lifestyle, adapts to
their unique learning styles, and allows them to
participate in authentic, engaging, collaborative
projects from anywhere, at anytime.
The power of partnership
In 2006, a panel of leaders from business,
instructional technology, and higher education
convened to assess the current state of academia
and to develop a comprehensive national strategy
for the future of postsecondary education.
Together, this group presented their findings in a
report entitled “A Test of Leadership: Charting the
Future of U.S. Higher Education.” The members
of the commission reported that Americans are
faced with an imperative to give urgent attention
to improving the United States’ system of higher
education. The panel concluded that, in fact, “The
future of our country’s colleges and universities
is threatened by global competitive pressures,
powerful technological developments, restraints on
public finance, and serious structural limitations
that cry out for reform (U.S. Department of
Education, 2006).”
2
In order to set a solid course for the kind
of unified reform efforts needed, the panel
called for the development of a new model for
postsecondary education that gives “Americans
the workplace skills they need to adapt to a
rapidly changing economy altered by technology,
changing demographics, and globalization.”
Specifically, the commission issued a call to
partnership, asking that leaders from the business
community become “directly and fully engaged
with government and higher education leaders
in developing innovative structures for delivering
21st-century educational services—and in
providing the necessary financial and human
resources for that purpose (U.S. Department
of Education, 2006).” Working together in
professional learning communities, leaders from
many different sectors of society are providing
supportive and shared leadership, collective
creativity, shared values and vision, and shared
personal practice (Astuto, 1993).
As “A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future
of U.S. Higher Education” suggests, no one
entity, company, or government organization
can address the challenge of major educational
reform alone (U.S. DOE, 2006). Such an
undertaking requires ongoing collaboration
between corporations and government
organizations at the state and national level
to support institutions of education as they
implement approaches to reaching students,
engaging them in learning and preparing them
for careers in the 21st century. Businesses can
assist educational institutions in the acquisition,
development, interconnection, implementation,
improvement, and maintenance of an effective
educational technology infrastructure in ways that
expand access to technology for students and
teachers, encourages the effective integration of
technology resources with faculty development
and curriculum development, and establishes
research-based instructional methods that can be
widely implemented across colleges.
 A new look at IT “essential services”
When considering new strategies for funding IT
in Higher Education, it is important that, in light
of increased student ownership of tablets, laptops,
and other mobile devices, thought leaders
identify services that the institution no longer need
provide. Twenty-five years ago, “colleges and
universities were the source and the providers of
most technology on campus, and they were also
the source and the providers of the demand for
that technology. Twenty-five years ago, if you were
using computers and technology in a college/
university environment, odds are you were using
it to accomplish something directly related to
your schoolwork or your research.”
(EDUCAUSE, 2009)
In light of this new reality, it is important to make
adjustments that reduce the cost of (or eliminate
altogether) traditional IT services that were
previously considered “essential services,” and to
leverage economies of scale for institution-wide
purchases and periodic refreshes that support
a new model for IT services that focuses on
student-owned, portable technology tools. Many
universities today are opting to implement and
support campus-wide approaches to technology
integration through student purchase programs.
Money that had once been allocated to services
once considered “essential” can now be
reallocated toward investment in new, strategic
cost-saving areas of information technology.
This new reality begs the question, should we
be reallocating the resources from the public
computing labs to other, more strategic purposes?
Friends at EDUCAUSE suggest that yes, “We
need to start looking at our fundamentals, and
we need to find ways to shift our resources away
from investments in essential IT services and
toward more strategic investments in technology.”
(EDUCAUSE 2009)
3
So while the short- and long-term benefits of
effectively integrating ICT into institutions of
higher education are both unprecedented and
undeniable, the creation of these new digitally
rich learning environments oftentimes requires
a significant redistribution and reallocation of
resources. When reconsidering the allocation of
funding, it is important for educational thought
leaders to work with their business partners to
create a funding plan for ICT integration that
is inclusive so all students can participate, can
be sustained indefinitely, is supported by a
commitment to professional development,
and is one in which everyone who benefits
makes some financial contribution to the
program’s success.
Inclusive and sustainable shared-cost
model for higher education IT
Historically, most institutions of higher education
across the country have approached the
integration of information and communication
technology as an “add on” with regard to
funding. Although these same colleges and
universities budget for essentials like textbooks,
staff salaries, transportation, and building
and facilities maintenance, few institutions of
higher education allocate sustained funding
for the purchase, maintenance, and support of
hardware and infrastructure, or for the necessary
professional development required for the effective
utilization of these new technologies. Instead,
most colleges and universities rely on one-time
grants, charity, and philanthropy to support the
integration of technology into instruction. While
this strategy is extremely effective in providing
the educational equivalent of “seed money” to
jumpstart a new technology integration initiative, it
is important that higher education leaders budget
for the subsequent ongoing financial support for
the initiative beyond the initial grant period. The
fact is, technology is here, and it is here to stay.
It is important that institutions of higher education
 immediately begin seeking budget line items
for technology and/or including technology in
already existing budget lines. Information and
Communication Technology is a fully justifiable,
essential ongoing investment and, as such,
warrants inclusion in the overall funding strategy
as a regular annual investment rather than a one-
time expense.
A critical component of successful technology
integration, often overlooked when setting the
annual budget, is professional development.
According to The U.S. Department of Education,
professional development is the most important
element in achieving the technology plan
goals and should be funded and supported
as an ongoing cost. It seems intuitive, but
bears repeating, that if educators and other
staff members do not understand how to use
new technologies and incorporate them into
the teaching/learning process, the education
institution’s technological investment will
not achieve its desired results. It is therefore
warranted that a substantial portion of the
budget be allocated each year for faculty
and staff professional development in the use
of the technology. The U.S. Department of
Education recommends that 30 percent of the
total technology budget be allocated to staff
development, including costs of training and
support staff, professional development materials,
participant stipends, etc. In addition, when
considering the financial support of an ICT
integration effort, Lifecycle planning and a Total
Cost of Ownership (TCO) study is recommended
to provide data required to fully understand the
cost of technology integration and maintenance.
4
Expenditures to consider include:
Initial capital expenditures
» Hardware
» Software
» Infrastructure support, maintenance, and
repair—including both soft and hard costs
» Peripheral technology tools
» Supplies
Ongoing expenditures
» Long-term support, maintenance, and
repair costs—including associated
human resource costs
» Anticipated supplies
» Replacement (refresh) costs for the
equipment as it ages and becomes more
expensive to maintain
» Software licenses and web subscriptions
» Power costs
» Recycling/removal costs
» Upgrades based on future software demands
» ‘Cascading devices’ costs—wiping the
image, reimaging, etc.
Requested funding should be presented within
a context of enhanced teaching and learning
opportunities, and advancing the mission of the
institution. Funding requests should clearly support
a higher purpose than simply the acquisition of
hardware, software, and other technology tools.
In addition, all technology funding requests should
incorporate a discussion of how the results of
the funding will be evaluated for their impact on
teaching and learning, and how these findings
will be disseminated to support the mission of the
college and/or university (Sun, 1996).
 Although funding IT will likely continue to
be a challenge for most higher education IT
organizations, educational thought leaders will
continue to have the opportunity to leverage the
worth that IT brings to the institution by optimizing
infrastructure utilization through virtualization,
cloud/grid computing, SaaS (Software as a
Service), and the power of online collaborations
to enhance faculty, staff, and student performance
and to enable a global reach to all members of
the learning community. Learning experiences and
time-on-task can be extended with the enhanced
mobility afforded learners by their mobile
devices. Adopting a mobile paradigm increases
organizational effectiveness and efficiencies,
resulting in overall cost savings for the institution.
The stakes are high
The future success of our nation depends on
the quality of our education system and the
skills of our workforce. Within the context of
supportive collaboration, government, business,
and educational leaders are embarking on an
era of public-private partnerships to help ensure
that this country’s future workforce gains the
knowledge and skills necessary for continued
U.S. competitiveness. Forward-thinking business
leaders are recognizing that education truly is the
keystone to social progress and prosperity, and
are partnering with institutions of higher education
5
to support and showcase educators who are
using technology in groundbreaking ways inside
and outside the classroom. Mutually beneficial
partnerships such as these enable every member
of the learning community to gain the knowledge
and skills needed to address urgent challenges in
local communities and around the world. Because
of the support of vendor and business partners,
educators and students in higher education
now have the opportunity to be immersed in
inquiry-driven learning environments that promote
collaboration and drive innovation in education
through innovative uses of technology.
Educational leaders at all levels recognize the
need for educational systems and programs
that effectively integrate the information and
communication technology that has been proven
to increase student academic achievement and
advance digital equity. Business, government,
and education leaders, working together in
professional learning communities, together
can bring about immediate and deep reform
in our postsecondary schools to better serve
today’s Digital Natives. The effective, cost-
efficient use of ICT in higher education engages
today’s students, improves student achievement,
advances the marketability of the program, and
empowers graduates so they may walk into their
futures with all the tools they need for success:
digital age literacy, inventive thinking, effective
communication, and high-productivity abilities.
 References
Agee, A., & Yang, C. and the 2009 EDUCAUSE Current Issues Committee. “Top Ten Issues, 2009.”
EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 44, no. 4 (July/August 2009): 44–59

Available: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume44/
TopTenITIssues2009/174191

Berque, D., Konkle, M., & Reed, R. (Eds.). (2009) The impact of tablet PCs and pen-based technology on
education: new horizons, West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.

Goldstein, K. “Preparing the Next IT Leaders: Financial Management.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 2
(2007): 61–63.

Goldstein, P. IT Collaboration: Multi-Institutional Partnerships to Develop, Manage, and Operate IT Resources

(2007). Research Study published by the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.

Goldstein, P. Managing the Funding Gap: How Today’s Economic Downturn Is Impacting IT Leaders and Their
Organizations. EDUCAUSE White Paper, (2009)

Kennedy, E.M. (1996, Summer). Realizing the promise of technology in America’s schools. Technos Quarterly for
Education and Technology [Online]. Available: http://www.ait.net/technos/tq_05/2kennedy.php

McClure, A. “Technology Spending Survey ‘08.” University Business, December 2007.

McInerney, C., & Park, R. (1986). Educational equity in the third wave: Technology education for women and
minorities. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Education.

McKenzie, J. (1994, May). From Technology Refusal to Technology Acceptance. From Now On [Online].
Available: http://www.fno.org/may94fno.html

Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C.C., Remz, A.R., & Zorfass, J. (1993, September).
Using technology to support education reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement. Available online: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/
TechReforms/

Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Leadership for technology implementations. In Technology’s role in education
reform: Findings from a national study of innovating schools. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Means, B., Olson, K., & Singh, R. (1995, September). Beyond the classroom: Restructuring schools with technology.
Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 69-72.

National Academy of Sciences & National Academy of Engineering. (1995). Reinventing schools: The technology
is now! [Online]. Available: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/techgap/welcome.html

Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education (1994). Technology and education
reform [Online]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/EdTech

6
 Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education. (1995, March). Equitable access for urban, rural,
and disadvantaged schools. In Making it happen: Report of the secretary’s conference on educational technology
[Online]. Available: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/makehappen/index.html

Prensky, Marc (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon. NCB University Press, 9(6).
Retrieved December 7, 2007 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp

Ramirez, R., & Bell, R. (1994). Byting back: Policies to support the use of technology in education. Oak Brook, IL:
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Read, M. “Collaboration in Higher Education and Its Benefits for ICT.” EDUCAUSE Quartlerly Magazine,
Volume 33, Number 1, 2010. Available online: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/
EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/CollaborationinHigherEducation/199373

Resta, P., & Tothero, M. (2007). Case Study 3: Iterative Cycles of Transformation in a Student-Owned Laptop
Program in Teacher Education, American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual National Meeting,
Chicago, IL.

Resta, P., & Tothero, M. (2005). Establishing a Ubiquitous Computing Environment for Teacher Preparation Students
and Faculty: The University of Texas at Austin Laptop Initiative.

Stewart, B. Toward Sustainable Funding for Information Technology Infrastructure (2007). Research Bulletin published
by the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.

Sun, J. (1996). Funding strategies for school districts to promote engaged learning through technology.
Unpublished manuscript.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Use of Education
Data at the Local Level From Accountability to Instructional Improvement, Washington, D.C., 2010. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#edtech

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education.
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Education. (1997, February). President Clinton’s call to action for American education in the 21st
century [Online]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/updates/PresEDPlan/

U.S. Department of Education. (1997, March). Technology innovation challenge grants [Online]. Available:
http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/announcements/1997-2/051297a.html

Wancheck, N. (2010, July). Considering Open Source Software for K-12. Feature article published in T.H.E.
Journal [online].