EduTech
Regional Steering Committee
October 1, 1999
Hampton Inn - Victor
Bea Parker, Facilitator

Members Present:  
Joe Backer, Supt. Letchworth					Tiffany Phillips, Supt. Bloomfield
Gary Hammond, Asst. Supt. GV BOCES			Bob Smith, Supt. Elba
Chris Manaseri, Supt. Romulus				Camille Sorenson, Director of EduTech
Dr. Marinelli, District Supt. W-FL BOCES			Dr. Stephen Uebbing, Supt. Canandaigua (12:45)
Jack McCabe, Associate Supt. W-FL BOCES		Yvonne Watkins, Supt. Geneseo
Bev Ouderkirk, District Supt. GV BOCES

All were present at the start of the meeting, except Dr. Uebbing who arrived after lunch.

Review agenda and minutes: 
Gary Hammond suggested sharing the minutes with the technology group from GV BOCES.  The committee     
discussed the benefit of sharing the minutes with the technology coordinators from both BOCES.  This will   
be done beginning with the August 23rd minutes.

Motion made byTiffany Phillips to accept minutes of the August 23, 1999 meeting.  Seconded by Chris
Manaseri.  Motion passed.

I.	Decision making process
Discussed the pluses and minuses of voting verses consensus or the combination of the two.

Tiffany Phillips - Model what we want our individual school boards to do. 
Joe Backer raised the issue of if the decision is made by vote who gets to vote? Is is a majority vote or  2/3 vote?  Quorum?

Chris Manaseri recommended vote of the 8 non-edutech employee representatives. (six superintendents and two BOCES superintendents) 

Bob Smith has concerns over voting on certain topics.  Only comfortable representing Elba on certain topics.  Are we voting on recommendations or decisions?

Chris Manaseri suggested the possibility of voting electronically?  Tiffany Phillips raised the concern over not being able to benefit from the discussion.  With further discussion it was suggested that in an emergency the group convened could ask for an emergency electronic vote.  Concern was raised that if the vote is 4-2, the four can then ask for an emergency vote to get their way.  Bob Smith suggested modeling the use of technology to get ready for the vote, but on the day of the vote actual presence to vote.

What happens with the recommendation?  Situational, depends on what you are recommending on.

Recommendation

 

					
    Board of Education					Districts				EduTech
Policy					             service				  advise
Budget
Personnel

When you make a recommendation include where it goes in writing.

Who do you represent?  District,  BOCES,  Region  (Need to look to the greater good)  

Who are voting members?  Committee agreed on the eight non-EduTech employee representatives (six superintendents and two BOCES superintendents) If  BOCES District Superintendents are absent Assistant Superintendent and Associate Superintendent can vote in their place. Need five out of eight possible votes to carry a vote.

Unanimously carried, Dr. Uebbing absent

II.	Mission Statement
Option I
The mission of EduTech is to provide quality products, support services and training to schools so as to advance the integration of technology into the workplace and the success of students in the classroom.

Option II
The mission of EduTech is to provide reliable, timely, and cost effective technology services which support the goals of its member school districts

Option III
Working together with its member schools, the mission of EduTech is to provide leadership, support and quality technological services that assists them in optimizing student and employee suceess.

After discussion, the following mission was suggested:
The mission of the Genesee Valley/Wayne-Finger Lakes Educational Technology Service is to provide quality leadership, support and services in technology to optimize student and employee success throughout our region.

Motion Passed 7-0, Dr. Uebbing absent

III.	Finalize role of the EduTech Steering Committee
Goals
•	To create an effective communication system with our constituents.
•	To develop a structure for providing continuous feedback from the constituents to EduTech.
•	To establish the standards to measure continuous progress.
•	Measure the continued improvement of EduTech Services.
•	To select an appropriate pricing structure for the service
•	To model the use of technology
•	To provide for professional development of committee members.
•	To increase the committee's focus on instructional application technology.

Goals fall under five categories:
Communication, Planning and Assessment, Budget, Instructional Application, Professional Development

Prioritizing:
1.	Budget
2.	Communication
3.	Planning and Assessment

Meeting Dates
Length of the Meeting:  1/2 day meeting in the morning
Day of the week:  1st or 2nd Thursday/Friday   
Nov 5th, Friday 8:30 to 12:00 
		Dec 8, Wednesday
		Tentative	  Feb 4, Friday  Feb 10 as backup in case of bad weather
		Tentative	  April 7, Friday  (Newark)

Location:  Marriott - Thruway  If Marriott not available, Hampton Inn Victor

Facilitator/Chair for the year:  Bob Smith nominated Chris Manaseri.  Passed and accepted

(Dr. Stephen Uebbing arrived)

IV.	Data Analysis Recommendation 
Camille Sorenson presented information on data warehousing and data mining.  WNY RIC following the lead of SED has been working with a tool called "Cognos".  Six of the 12 RIC's in the state have acquired the tool.  100 licenses training, software, resources to develop the tool $120,000/year one.  Annual operating expense $60,000.  

Phase I
Edutech would build technology infrastructure.
Use WNY RIC to develop LEAP database
Train our resources
Pilot schools from each region to work with
3-4 month timeframe approximately

Subsequent Phases  
Work again with pilot schools and committee to develop user requirements to add state, student, and financial information.

Assumptions:  EduTech service would be based on a standard architecture.  The architecture fits into the  
 SED direction of a standard student database

Service would be priced at $4,000 for year one, $2000 each year after based on 30 schools subscribing to the service.

The recommendation was to proceed and have EduTech acquire Cognos as a tool.  

Why 100 licenses? More cost effective at 100

Phase I
Developing the architecture of the software
Learning to tool using existing resources
LEAP data moved into database 

Subsequent Phases
SaSI
Schoolmaster
CP
WIN 2000
Regents data
ELA 4,8

Additional Staffing
There would be a need for an additional person that would be shared in other uses.   Tiffany Phillips mentioned that with staff feeling stressed in their current responsibility, doing a staff shift would only create more stress.  Camille stated that the staff that is stretched are from other areas and not involved in this.  

Development
Moved a staff member out of project coordination and into software development last December.   

	Questions
Have we looked at Niagara Falls data?  No, however, the development and extract to and from databases 
would still be required.  

What is the benefit of doing this ourselves and not cross contracting:  If the other RIC does not support the student/finance application that you use.    

Are there any secondary or hidden costs?  The only secondary cost Camille could think of  is that if we keep building a multilevel/multidimensional tool, the cost will go up as additional software and licenses would be needed and potentially hardware and staff.  After the first two years it would be priced more on a menu of service use.  

Identify and develop a standardize student database.  If it is data that is not in an EduTech supported system, District or EduTech could hire someone to build an extract of specific district information into format to fit into database.

Once you are in can you get out?  Yes, after first year.  However, EduTech would be financially 
obligated to $11,000 a year for maintenance while some schools use the software.

If the committee decides to go ahead, do schools need to find the funds this current budget year?  Yes, at least $60-$80,000 this year.

Concern as to do we have a critical mass.  The meeting to demonstrate Cognos was not well attended by superintendents.  Do we need to do another presentation to superintendents?
(NOTE:  21 school districts and both BOCES had representatives at the COGNOS demo. 15 superintendents attended.)

Recommendation:  EduTech will move forward in exploring acquiring Cognos as a data analysis tool.  This is a proposed solution.  Approach from the need districts have and a solution as to how the need can be met.  Proposed solution is Cognos.  Proposal is take it out of refund from Title III.  

Camille will call George Kiley and ask about Niagara Falls data tool.

Who is authorizing the use of Title III money?  Majority of the Title III superintendents vote on it.

Motion:  Dr. Uebbing moved that pending majority approval of superintendents voting at each BOCES to go forward with COGNOS that District Superintendents be authorized to utilize Title III refund money to initiate COGNOS in the EduTech service area.
Seconded Tiffany Phillips
Passed 8 - 0

V.	Customer Service Improvements
SAA tracking system 
Through this process we have improved several areas brought to our attention for improvement.  Camille handed out information with comments that needed improvement and how EduTech has addressed the customer’s issues.

Found this process to be very beneficial and have decided to build on this and meet with student and financial people to improve support.

Gary Hammond shared a note from Terry Coughlin on how well received the improvements were at GV BOCES

VI.	Pricing Discussion
History & Pricing & Other Considerations

Edutech starting it's 6th year, in most respects is a developing (not yet mature) organization
From chaos theory--new systems--refining systems
Wrapped by the digital revolution/technology environment

Pricing
94-95 Major Overhaul of Pricing				large stakeholder process (8 months)
96-97 2nd major set of pricing changes			cost study & steering committee
97-99 mnor adjustments (staff dev)				steering committee
Spring 98 Proposed Pricing change to per call		steering committee
      Rec:  Don't do - focus on customer service/
   look at whole picture

Recommendation:  Hold off on technical price changes

Rationale
1.	New legislation - Impact and Implications?
2.	Displacement of Resources from the direction we received last year
3.	Major communication issue
* steering committee moving towards, but it will take time
4.	Would be 3rd change in 6 years
5.	How do we process 3rd time? Time needed (who, when --all need history, info & knowledge)
6.	Uncertainty about unwanted impacts (staffing)

Discussion
Concern raised that it was agreed that Chris Saxby would be at this meeting to manipulate the figures.
Jack and Camille felt changes in the environment were more compelling so that a pricing change at this time would not be recommended.  Members of the committee were concerned that their request was disregarded.  This was acknowledged.
  
Dr. Uebbing moved seconded Bob Smith to hold off on technical price changes

Bob Smith mentioned that even if the recommendation passes he would like to see the discussion of pricing continue so that there is a process in place.

Jack McCabe would like a sub-committee set to help identify the process.

Bev Ouderkirk suggested reviewing the questions from Needs 8/23 for Next Meeting.

Yvonne Watkins made the comment that the new information of guidelines from the committee that the commissioner will be forming would have on impact.

Vote:  8-0

VII.	Staff Development
New legislation does not impact staff development.
Training:  Develop workshops, train workshops, R&D of tools/applications, software id for aid (CSLO), equip, support labs, workshops, others
Base fee/rwada +$35  = $494,000
Ways to charge:
•	Base fee model with usage model
•	Umbrella - base fee
•	Per participant
•	# of days of training
•	per workshop cost

Options:
Stay the same
One price for x # of slots
Per participant (down size:  have to carry a training force of people without the upfront commitment of districts on what they will use)

Suggestion to move discussion to next meeting 

Next Meeting:			Agenda Items:
November 5, 1999			Budget:  1st look at EduTech budget numbers (not per district)
8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.	Planning piece being presented to BOCES board EduTech 
Marriott – Thruway				measurement
						Revisit process for making pricing decisions
Staff development costs