Certificate: View Certificate
Published Paper PDF: View PDF
Naveen Bansal
Independent Researcher
India
Abstract
This manuscript examines budgetary prioritization for digital infrastructure in primary and secondary schools, focusing on optimal allocation of limited financial resources to support technology-enhanced learning. As schools worldwide face growing pressure to integrate digital tools—such as high‑speed internet, interactive whiteboards, tablets, and learning management systems—decision‑makers must determine which investments yield the greatest educational returns. Through a mixed‑methods approach combining a nationwide survey of 420 school administrators and a cost‑benefit analysis of existing digital initiatives across 60 schools over three academic years, this study identifies key factors influencing budget decisions, quantifies the relative impacts of different digital assets, and proposes a practical, tiered prioritization framework. Results reveal that investments in reliable connectivity and teacher training produce the highest gains in student engagement and achievement, while advanced hardware—though valuable—yields diminishing returns when foundational needs are unmet.
Building on these findings, we explore how contextual variables—such as school size, socio‑economic status, and geographic location—moderate the effectiveness of each investment category. For example, rural schools exhibit even greater sensitivity to connectivity upgrades, whereas urban schools benefit more rapidly from blended learning platforms when coupled with peer collaboration tools. We also examine the long‑term sustainability of digital investments by modeling device lifecycle costs and training refresh intervals. Insights from open‑ended survey responses highlight administrators’ concerns about funding volatility, vendor lock‑in, and staff capacity, underscoring the need for flexible budgeting mechanisms and stakeholder engagement strategies.
The manuscript concludes with actionable recommendations for policymakers and school leaders to adopt a tiered budgeting strategy—allocating at least 60% of digital funds to foundational infrastructure (connectivity and training), 25% to enhancing tools (LMS and shared devices), and 15% to advanced technologies (one‑to‑one devices and interactive media). This framework ensures foundational infrastructure is secured before allocating funds to advanced technologies, thereby maximizing educational outcomes under constrained budgets. By integrating empirical analysis with practitioner insights, the study offers a robust decision‑support tool for achieving equitable, effective, and sustainable digital transformation in education.
Keywords
Budgetary prioritization; digital infrastructure; school technology; cost‐benefit analysis; educational policy
References
- https://blw06.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/process.jpg?w=640
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315727460/figure/fig1/AS:478235822694400@1491031713155/A-flow-chart-showing-the-structure-of-Indian-Education-System.png
- Anderson, T., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2018). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
- Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200119
- Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press.
- Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit‑Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
- Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
- Johnson, L., & Brown, M. (2017). Learning management systems: Adoption and integration in K–12 schools. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.2833
- Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
- Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2003.10782417
- (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection (OECD Publishing). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en
- (2013). Policy guidelines for mobile learning (UNESCO Mobile Learning Series). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000219642
- Warschauer, M. (2011). Learning in the cloud: How (and why) to transform schools with digital media. Teachers College Press.
- Watson, S., & Watson, W. (2016). Evaluating the impact of interactive whiteboards in the K–12 classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15, 67–90. https://doi.org/10.28945/3430
- Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of globalization. ASCD.
