A school system is revising how it purchases student devices. Perspective 1: Schools should choose durable, repairable devices even at a premium. Perspective 2: Low upfront cost and standardized replacement make budgets more predictable. Perspective 3: Whole-life procurement can compare price, repair, security, and educational value together. Write an essay that evaluates these perspectives and develops your own position.
What the evaluator is looking for
ACT readers reward a clear perspective, analysis of relationships among perspectives, relevant development, logical organization, precise language, and control of standard written English.
Planning approach
Compare devices by total ownership cost rather than sticker price, including repairability, security support, downtime, and classroom value.
Model response
Schools should buy student devices through whole-life procurement that weighs repair, software support, durability, and learning value alongside initial price. The cheapest laptop at purchase can become the most expensive one after broken hinges, unavailable parts, and repeated classroom downtime.
Low upfront cost does make annual budgeting easier, and standard replacement can simplify support. Yet disposable purchasing creates hidden expenses: spare-device inventories, shipping, data migration, staff labor, and electronic waste. A premium device is not automatically responsible either. High price may reflect branding rather than serviceable design, and long physical life matters little if security updates end early.
Districts should test sample machines with students and technicians before signing a contract. Bids should disclose part prices, repair manuals, warranty turnaround, update years, battery replacement, accessibility, and compatibility with required software. Evaluators can calculate expected cost per usable year and score vendors on verified repair performance. Contracts should guarantee parts and data protection for the promised lifespan. This method may select a moderately priced device rather than the cheapest or most durable one. Good procurement asks what keeps students learning reliably, then accounts for every resource required to make that possible.
Structural breakdown
The argument exposes costs omitted from sticker price without assuming premium products are superior. It proposes hands-on testing, bid disclosures, lifecycle calculation, and enforceable vendor promises.
- List hidden replacement and downtime costs.
- Question price as a proxy for quality.
- Include technicians and students in testing.
- Demand repair and security commitments in contracts.
Format reference: ACT: Description of the Writing Test. This model is original and is not an official or accepted submission.