Proposal Contexts || Financial Context
There are a number of institutionally pragmatic reasons why technology-rich learning spaces cannot adhere to our ideal visions for such spaces. The most pressing reason, however, is money. Although we may long for flexible learning spaces with large-display monitors, comfortable seating, food, coffee, ample access to power outlets, and other infrastructure supporting collaborative research and learning, the initial cost and ongoing maintenance are often prohibitive. This becomes even more problematic in the current economic crisis in which administrators are routinely asked to participate in exercises that project additional 8 percent, 10 percent, and 12 percent budget cuts with each fiscal year.
For years, educators and researchers have strongly promoted the need for institutions to rethink technology-rich learning spaces and infrastructure support. For example, in an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Ben Terris (2009) described the way that several universities were reimagining and reconfiguring their instructional computer labs to better support newer understandings of social and collaborative learning practices. Many of the changes described also served to cut costs for colleges overall. Some campuses, however, chose to expand their computer labs and increase the support offered to students. For colleges and universities realizing the need to increase technology infrastructure and support, the exigence is student recruitment and retention. To illustrate, Terris cited Temple University’s chief information officer, Timothy O’Rourke, who stated, “We are an urban public institution, with working-class parents, many of which are being laid off. Not only is the TECH Center our biggest selling point to get people to come here, it’s also a great way to make Temple more affordable.”
Although our branch campus context is similar to the one described by O’Rourke, severe reductions in state support over the past four years, combined with an independent operating budget for our branch campus, have prohibited us from offering such technology support. Instead, as noted in the proposal and institutional context described previously, we have had to rely on biennium capital planning funds earmarked for large-scale equipment and infrastructure needs. These funds are scarce and limited, and often the biennium cycle means that various projects with differing priority levels have piled up. As a result, there is no guarantee that projects will be funded when the funds do become available—no matter how desperate the need. Despite the fact that the capital planning department at our institution claims to promote “responsible stewardship of the state's physical facilities and space resources through activities such as facility inventory, space guidelines, space allocation, space audit, and facilities planning,” the budget to do so is rarely available (Washington State University Capital Planning and Development, n.d.). This is also borne out in the statement issued by our institution’s budget office, which claims that our institution “has lost approximately 30 percent of its operating budget as allocated by the Legislature. The reductions have been devastating for the university threatening both excellence and access throughout the multi-campus system” (Washington State University Budget Office n.d.).
Further complicating these financial constraints is the fact that technology equipment and infrastructure requires ongoing maintenance and upkeep. Although our campus has been successful in obtaining capital planning funds in the past for one-time instructional computer lab upgrades, we have never had such ongoing support. By implementing a budget line for ongoing computer lab support and maintenance in the next fiscal year, our campus will be able to strategically plan for the best use of our physical spaces. For now, we continue to ask to swap instructional computer lab spaces and gladly accept the planned purchase of new Mac lab equipment.