Allocating $18,000 Against a Survey That Argues With Itself
A campus technology committee has $18,000 in one-time funds and must commit before June 30. Three proposals are on the table: 12 interactive panels for the math and science wings ($16,200); 10 document cameras plus 30 headsets ($4,800); and stipends for 14 teachers to complete 18 hours of summer professional learning on the LMS ($7,000). The spring staff survey (61 of 74 responded) shows 62% list 'more devices' as their top need, 22% rate themselves confident using the LMS, and 8 teachers account for 71% of all LMS activity. The principal's improvement goal is 'increase student collaboration and evidence of student discourse.' Two-thirds of classrooms have a single teacher computer and a projector. No recurring funds are available for subscriptions.
1. Recommend an allocation and defend it, including what you would decline.
Read the worked answer
The evidence points away from the largest line item. Interactive panels are a whole-group delivery tool while the stated goal is collaboration and student discourse, and 12 panels would consume 90% of the money while leaving the 22% LMS-confidence problem untouched. A defensible allocation: $7,000 for the 14 summer LMS stipends, $4,800 for document cameras and headsets, and roughly $6,200 held for a smaller device purchase or a spring second cohort - with no subscriptions, since the funds do not recur. Before committing, reconcile the 62% 'more devices' figure against the 8-of-74 activity pattern: the survey measures a wish, the log measures behavior, and the log is more diagnostic of what will change instruction. Decline the panel purchase this cycle and put the reasoning in writing to the committee, along with the condition under which you would revisit it.
2. Design the professional learning plan so it addresses the 8-teachers/71%-of-activity pattern rather than ignoring it.
Read the worked answer
Treat the eight heavy users as the asset they are. Three tiers. Tier 1: all staff get two 45-minute job-embedded sessions in August on one high-frequency workflow - posting an assignment and giving feedback on it - not a feature tour. Tier 2: the 14 stipend teachers get 18 hours split as 6 hours face-to-face in summer, 6 hours of asynchronous build time with a required artifact, and 6 hours of fall coaching, because summer-only PD decays without follow-up. Tier 3: the eight heavy users form a design team with release time to build campus templates and run 15-minute 'show me your gradebook' demonstrations inside PLCs; a colleague from the same hallway beats a vendor every time. Tie everything to artifacts: each of the 14 leaves with one unit fully built, and fall coaching checks whether it was actually used with students rather than merely created.
3. What should the committee measure in year one, given that the money is one-time?
Read the worked answer
Measure adoption behavior and student work, not satisfaction. Three indicators: the share of teachers posting at least one graded assignment weekly in the LMS, moving from the current roughly 11% (8 of 74) toward a target the committee sets, because it is the leading indicator for everything else; evidence of discourse from short walkthrough checks counting how many students speak in a 10-minute window and whether the task requires talk; and artifact completion plus student work samples from the 14 stipend teachers in December. Do not report training hours or smile sheets. Because the funds do not recur, add a sustainability test in March: which practices continued with no stipend attached. That is the honest measure of whether $18,000 bought capacity or a one-year bump, and it is also the argument for or against a second cycle.