EduTech Steering Committee
March 12, 2004; RIT Inn and Conference Center
Members Present:
Joe Backer, Letchworth Central School
Rich Boyes, Marion Central School
Mike Glover, GV BOCES
Gary Hammond, GV BOCES
Bob Leiby, Manchester-Shortsville CSD
Jack McCabe, WFL BOCES
Bob Smith, Elba Central School
Camille Sorenson, EduTech
Dan Starr, North Rose Wolcott
Absent:
Tom Manko, York Central School
Guest:
Bea Parker, Facilitator
1. Committee Goal Review
Camille welcomed everyone and stated the focus of the meeting is to discuss goal setting for the committee. Camille introduced Bea Parker as the facilitator for the meeting. Bea was also the facilitator five years ago when the committee developed their first goals.
Bea went over the process the committee would be using in evaluating their current goals.
Evaluating Goals:
- Was the goal accomplished?
- What evidence?
- Should this goal continue?
·
Original Goal - To create an effective communication system with our constituents and to develop a structure for providing continuous feedback from the constituents to EduTech.
Rich Boyes - The comfort level varies for different individuals interacting with EduTech. Need multilevel forms of communication.
School district personnel is constantly changing. EduTech is always facing a new group of people to educate regarding our organization.
Camille spoke to the continuity of the committee’s membership. The group is knowledgeable in what EduTech represents. The communication process created over the past year as part of the Customer Survey Action Plan addresses a multi level communication process and the implementation has begun over the past year with supt visits and individual district service brochures.
Bea: Sounds like you are still interested in communication, as a goal and work still needs to be done.
o
Revised Goal - To create an effective communication system with our constituents:
Action Steps:
o
Continuing on the communication plan developed from the Customer Survey Action Plan - use forms of technology to communicate broadly to multi level users (i.e. Supt, Bus Mgr, Tech Coord)
o
Examples: some times there will be a lot of info, other weeks not so much.
o
Concept used in Marion (Level of Detail) Starts out Broad/summary, if needed you can go deeper.
o
Camille is looking for the committee to discuss at meetings they attend what is taking place at Steering Comm. Committee would be an advisory group to reconfirm what EduTech is offering, reconfirm from a strategic vision/standpoint where EduTech is going.
o
Mike Glover share the info broadly, not just with the steering committee; use AASA email format with links to more info
o
Need to set up communication so that if you need more info you know how to get it.
o
Bob Leiby: need to make sure our own communication process is set within the district. Let the districts distribute.
o
Bea summarized what she heard from group. Simple communication to everyone and then an ability to go further..
Clarify the communication by creating communication chart and share info broadly and error on the side of over communication.
o
Bring new superintendents and business officials in the region up to speed. Have Camille reach out to new superintendents in the area..
·
Revised Goal - To develop a structure for providing continuous feedback from the constituents to EduTech.
People need to know where to go to get their questions answered or to give feedback; invite feedback
·
Original Goal - Measure the continued improvement of EduTech services
In the past have done surveys and have used focus groups. Data collected around performance and satisfaction.
Camille: Variety of benchmarks we use internally. Present at the steering committee, Joint Tech Group meetings and are now sharing when we meet with the superintendents.
Joe Backer said he is pleased with what we do now.
Dan Starr: look into putting each district’s info on Web site (from Survey brochures) so that superintendent can direct people to it
Rich Boyes: Are services within EduTech meeting the variety of needs of districts? Are there services you can buy because EduTech doesn’t offer?
Bea: in summary, the structure to measure the goals appears to be in place, add the communication of the information
Back to top
·
Revised Goal – Communicate the measures of the continued improvement of EduTech services
·
Original Goal - Select an appropriate pricing structure for district:
Mike Glover: How do we put together a pricing structure?
Gary Hammond: When Ray Wager came in we had a model and the structure was there. Cost center model – wouldn’t get new business officials questioning everything. Business Officials looking for detailed sheets.
Bea: How would you like to deal with the issue of the pricing structure?
Mike Glover: timeline put into place so that we know by September there will be a
preliminary report.
Bob Leiby: Don’t you already break costs /expenses by cost center then price those cost centers
Camille: Yes, we allocate direct costs (i.e. salary, benefits) by cost center (or service area) then we allocate
indirect (or overhead) costs to the same cost centers. We then price by cost center, based on a representative s
significant unit of work (i,e, servers, workstations). We have had Ray Wager do two cost studies over a period
of 6 years. We can do another one if it is felt it is needed.
Bob Leiby: only if the cost associated with the study offsets the benefits
Bea: Agreement to revisit
Jack: Revisit and understand some of the questions it raises.
Rich: Everyone thinks they are paying a disproportional part of the costs
Larger districts/very smaller districts, Compare smaller districts to larger ones.
Bob Smith: Different kind of setting.
Mike Glover: it is difficult to see a format that is totally different than the districts are used to.
Camille: we were going to attempt to create reports similar to GV BOCES; we did not accomplish this in time.
Gary Hammond: It allows them to they can see the budget line item by line item.
Camille: Data would have been different however, format would have been similar.
Jack: We are wrestling with the issues of cooperative and a process that is reasonable. It is
difficult to do cost studies.
Bea: Evaluate doing the cost study again, review in the fall.
Bob S: Here is what we are doing and what is working. When you get to the stage of
talking money and percentages. You need to talk your philosophy’s and get your decisions
made before money becomes an issue.
Joe Backer: Do we need to rewrite goal:
o
Revised Goal - To review an appropriate pricing structure for the service.
·
Original Goal - To model the use of technology and to provide for professional development of committee members.
Was this goal accomplished:
Joe Backer: Yes, this was back when everything was paper and pencil. We started using
technology to communicate.
Do we need to continue this goal: yes
·
Revised Goal - To continue to model the use of technology and to provide for professional development of committee members.
Back to top
·
Original Goal - To increase the committee’s focus on instructional application technology
Was this goal accomplished:
Rich Boyes: made a lot of progress with such things as Data Mentor, online courses, pointing people toward
resources that are helping them fill in the gaps.
Gary: emphasis on Data Analysis
Gary: emphasis on Data Analysis
Mike Glover: Tracy Lindsay has made huge inroads in the GV BOCES
Do you want to continue: Yes Change to To continue the committee’s focus
……..
Bea thanked the committee for inviting her here to revisit the goals.
Back to top
·
Revised Goal - To continue the committee’s focus on instructional application technology
2. UPDATES:
LAKENET:
o
Built in 97-98 and the capacity has served us well over the time, we are now looking at capacity and redundancy without increasing dollars.
o
At a statewide level we tried to leverage the districts with working with Verizon and Time Warner. Went to Verizon and said we wanted equal pricing and it fell on deaf ears. Verizon is regulated different than Time Warner. Looked at some of the government offerings and statewide initiatives.
o
We went out with an open bid to see what was available. Time Warner, who has expanded in our region, came in with favorable terms. Time Warner can service all but two of the 47 districts.
o
Time Warner, Cisco, other vendors to see what we can do to upgrade and improve capacity, redundancy without increasing cost. We have reached a tentative agreement with TW to upgrade infrastructure without increasing costs from where we are at now. Same 1.5MB capacity going out and three times that amount coming in.
o
Provides the architecture of the network for an individual district to increase their pipe at an easier pace than what was there. More flexible capacity going forward at a favorable cost for what you are getting.
o
Timeframe: tentatively over the summer (July/Aug). There will be some downtime, trying to estimate and come up with a schedule..
Rich Boyes: Was TW the only vendor? Camille: TW won the competitive bid.
Camille: extra capacity (in desired beyaond the standard LAKENet service) cost will be born directly by
districts
Gary: Is there a melding here of Distant Learning, Streaming video, IP phones? Jack: we can come back in June and have someone explain. Streaming video is hard to make two way and the quality isn’t the same as hard wire with distance learning.
Bob Smith: need to say to the districts for the same cost you paid before you are getting increased capacity.
DATA Warehousing:
Tracy Lindsay busy hitting every region and district explaining the capabilities and tools. He is also explaining the pricing, $1000 base fee, $1.95 RWADA .
DATA Mentor:
Jack stated that right now it is moving slow at SED on joint initiatives. Mike Glover: the commissioner has made data warehouse and uses of data part of the regions goals. Jack: State has paused on Virtual Learning Space. Working with other RIC directors in the state for purchased services for data mentor.
Rich Boyes: If this plays out the way you hope it does will reflect positively on EduTech and the BOCES.
Math A Regents:
State wanted to validate scoring scheme. Worked with 233 districts throughout the state. As soon as the exams were scored, they were sent to us and we scanned 30,000 tests. We worked on it with SED from Oct to Jan. Started receiving exams Wednesday after exams were given. We charged SED a fee. Another positive for EduTech. Also scanned and provided information from 30,000 field tests and provided data and reports to them. Yonkers has come to us regarding item analysis reports. Covering our expenses and getting additional revenue.
Jack: Reflects direction we want to take our RIC. The future we think is in specialization in specific areas. There are really only about 5 RICS that have data warehouse up and running. State has mentioned 3 data warehouses. Lot of serious discussion taking place.
Back to top