EduTech Steering Committee March 9, 2007
EduTech Steering Committee March 9, 2007
R.I.T. Inn and Conference Center
R.I.T. Inn and Conference Center
Present:
Present:
Bruce Amey, Avon Bob Leiby, Manchester-Shortsville
Joe Backer, Letchworth Joe Marinelli, WFL BOCES
Joan Cole, Elba Jack McCabe, WFL BOCES
Maria Ehresman, Williamson Camille Sorenson, EduTech
Mike Glover, GV BOCES
Absent:
Absent:
Mike Crowley, GV BOCES Terry MacNabb, Waterloo
Tom Manko, York
Guest:
Guest:
Jeff Ginsberg, Edutech
Updates – Camille Sorenson
Updates – Camille Sorenson
·
Shared the new GV/W-FL EduTech logo with the committee
·
Test Scoring - District Superintendents are working to try and get SED to continuously give us answer keys and item maps. We are waiting for this year’s 3-8. They have agreed to it, but have put conditions on the release of the information. Requested a disclaimer on all of the reports. Waiting for the commissioner to ok.
Bob Leiby stated that if you can’t give the information to us within a couple of weeks, don’t bother. The school will do it themselves. Joe Backer said they give the answers with the regents. Mike Glover stated that EduTech is running interference for the districts and any help that EduTech can give us is greatly appreciated.
In order to provide the information to the districts sooner, SED is shortening the timeline for EduTech.
Mike Glover mentioned not to get caught up too much in the assessments, focus more on the week to week classroom assessments. Superintendents raised the concern that their jobs are on the line based on the results of the assessments.
Email Archival Status – Jeff Ginsberg
Email Archival Status – Jeff Ginsberg
GV BOCES had representatives from Harris Beach come in to explain the law. If not archiving email, we need to. Need to be aware of what you are putting in emails. Be aware of the legalities.
At this time everyone has a different opinion on what needs to be kept. Everyone you talk to gives you a different answer. Met with Time Warner on what they are doing. Also spoke with a consultant that specializes in this area. When looking at our emails, we get somewhere between 4 gigabytes of real email, not including spam. If we keep one year of data, that is roughly 3 terabytes of emails. This doesn’t include internal emails. How do we archive them? Archiving the terabytes is the smallest part of the problem. The problem is retrieving the data. Can we get it out of a back up? Need to capture as real time.
Worst case scenario – need to save everything for 7 years.
Mike Glover recommended to the committee that we take a conservative approach and save everything.
Bob Leiby – who is responsible for the accountability? EduTech can check an email to see if it has been tampered with. Who is responsible for producing the information should it be asked for?
This needs to be a regional solution.
Joe Backer is concerned about keeping information that he doesn’t legally have to keep.
Joan Cole asked how the record officer comes into play with this policy.
Mike Glover stated that staff needs to be aware of every key stroke. Joe Marinelli mentioned that this swings the pendulum back to face to face conversations and phone calls.
Jack McCabe summarized that for policy purposes, EduTech will approach this from a regional standpoint, accountability, and penalty.
Mike Glover would recommend that it be a regional solution, start with a 7 year vision, and once this settles down trim down to what we need. Mike Glover suggested going to the lawyers and get a legal opinion on what needs to be saved and for how long. Superintendents will need to make staff members understand that once they hit the send button, whatever they send will be saved for so many years.
Make it a regional solution, start archiving now, get legal opinion, and EduTech will design guidelines.
EduTech Add/Delete Service Process – Camille Sorenson/Jack McCabe
EduTech Add/Delete Service Process – Camille Sorenson/Jack McCabe
EduTech put together a draft on this process and would like the committee’s feedback.
Whenever anyone comes to us requesting a service, we always keep in mind our charter and what our role is.
Major type of item: business applications that we support (student, finance, IEP system)
Minor type of item: individual district request, not significant impact within EduTech
Categories are based on impact within district and EduTech, not importance.
Regional philosophy started by the committee years ago that we want to make sure districts have a choice, yet continue to be a cost effective organization.
As we expand into additional products, what does it cost as to dollars, personnel, maintenance? Cross contracts are not bad.
How do we determine if there is a critical mass? We survey different target groups. If there is critical mass, we continue to move forward.
Maria Ehresman raised the question should there be timelines for districts that are holding on to older applications?
The steering committee can help with the decision to no longer support a certain application.
As interest is growing in an application, make committee aware.
Microsoft office dropped support Windows 98 during the fall of 98. When do we drop support of the system?
Joe Backer asked that it be written in the procedure that it will come to the steering committee before termination.
Camille asked the committee to be able to proceed looking at School Tool. It is a system used throughout NYS. Provides a lower cost web based system. The only negative is that it does expand the number of student systems that we have. Depending on how the transition works, will decide when we can offer
Committee gave their recommendation to proceed with School Tool.
Back to top