Around half of schools do not have a policy in place for replacing old or broken workstations, says the first annual review of the government's strategy for technology in education in England.
The report by the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta), released on 3 May 2006, concludes those that do have a policy (32 percent of primary and 44 percent of secondary) intend to replace 25 percent of their stock within five years — two years after the accepted target three-year lifespan.
The ratio of pupils to computers has also continued to fall. In 2005 there was one computer for every 6.1 primary school pupils on average and one for every 3.7 secondary school pupils.
In further education colleges, the demand for computers by the growing number of students outstrips supply.
"As a result, there has been a worsening of student-computer ratios in FE colleges," says the report.
However, interactive whiteboards are now prevalent in schools and colleges, with increasing numbers connected to computers with Internet connection.
Mobile technologies are also set to play an "increasingly important role with personal ownership of mobile technologies such as laptops, PDAs and mobile phones on the rise in schools".
Despite significant improvements in internet bandwidth in schools, many teachers are unclear about the full range of benefits broadband can bring.
"In around a third of colleges, demand for Internet access has continued to outpace college capability," says the report. "Unfortunately this represents a growing trend."
There is also still a "significant minority of pupils who do not have home Internet access".
Although the market is providing increasing numbers of high-quality products in the schools sector, provision is mixed.
"It is unlikely that demand will effectively drive improvements to quality, as purchases by schools continue to be concentrated on a relatively small number of suppliers. This is partly because practitioners are finding it difficult to develop effective strategies for identifying appropriate software," concludes the report.
Talkback
Schools should wise up and not keep purchasing expensive PCs.
Instead they should go for Thin Client hardware, and in doing so they will reduce their TCO and increase their ROI in the medium and long terms.
This type of hardware also eliminates all the usual security hassles that schoolkid geeks can present.
The modern Thin client is a long way different from the old dumb terminal systems that many of us worked with years ago.
HP and Wyse provide excellent Thin client boxes and these can be spec'd to suit the job.
Oh my God, the old Thin Client theme the HP or Wyse way (actually: the Microsoft way). I've plenty of stories on how much that "saved" and actually costs in reality afterwards (also risk wise) compared to the "researched" paper benefits beforehand (actually: sales talk).
Certainly when compared to various other Server Based Computing (alternative) solutions that are not build on house of cards or require huge initial investments up front or ever.
Do some serious research. It's a highly evolving, fast moving, market that one so no need to get into old evidence but just remember: anything that requires you to put up front huge initial investments (certainly ones requiring you to put all your eggs in one basket) shouldn't be allowed to proceed without first proofing the risk assesment question: what if we have to fall back? What kind of risk investment are we talking about really here?
Another thing, going from a loosely connected decentralized environment to a high avalilability centralized one requires an organization wide attitude change most organizations will take years to master. Until then plenty of costly "learning curves" will have been made.
Why is it that plenty of people are advising to put all your eggs in one basket (platform, centralization, whatever) but are not willing to sign a contract forcing them to pay in full and upfront everything that falls under "learning curves" thereafter?
What kind of one-sided liability is that?
Certainly schools should be exposing their students and pupils to as much as they can. So what's the educational value of consolidation and centralization anyway? Do we want a blindfolded and steared future or an open one in the trust that our children will find the best way to proceed provided we've given them enough exposure to what's out there?
As for schools not renewing their ageing PCs. Figures. Most schools in the EU have to do with donations and give aways anyway. And as usual such donations and give aways are limited to specific areas of interest at that moment in time. Never to whole and total solutions that last.
Perhaps something the powers that be should take into consideration.