EduTech Steering Committee
November 14, 2002
RIT Inn and Conference Center
Members Present:
Joe Backer, Letchworth
Gary Hammond, GV Boces
Bob Leiby, Manchester-Shortsville
Tom Manko, York
Joe Marinelli, WFL Boces
Back to top
Jack McCabe, WFL Boces
Back to top
Tim McElheran, Victor
Bob Smith, Elba
Camille Sorenson, EduTech
Members Absent:
Back to top
Rich Boyes, Marion
Guest:
Back to top
Chris Saxby, EduTech
·
Assessing Current EduTech Environment
We are currently in a down cycle of a six year cycle. We saw the leveling off of technology needs and buying in the districts compounded by hard times with state budget. We always knew we would reach a saturation point and that the needs would change. So, what is next for EduTech? What is out there that you need us to provide? It definitely is a changing period for EduTech (Data Mentor, On-line courses have started that process) What problem do you have in your business/education that we could help you through technology? The hardware gig is over, what service can we provide to you?
·
2003-2004 EduTech Budget
Camille shared a slide presentation with the committee regarding the budget.
We are supporting less workstations this year than last year. It was a difficult year. Seeing a leveling off and a decline. Many of our price points are based on procuring hardware and supporting hardware. The majority of the pricing structure has been based on delivering these services.
Bob Smith stated that when people get in and out of our service, there should be a way that we can charge districts that come and go for an increase value. People dropping out effects the value of our service. Is there any way for us to begin to estimate about how many machines look like a normal amount for the population?
Jack McCabe stated that in regards to pricing, we are at a junction. Districts need to ask am I in this for the short hall or the long hall.
Bob Smith also reminded the committee that in 1990 the budget situation was worse and we were still able to find a way to move forward.
Camille shared with the committee that we have improved our process for delivering hardware and software to districts by 30 days. The flip side is that you have to be cautioned that we are procuring less hardware.
This past summer we internally made cuts in equipment and conference training. We found that the savings from the layoffs still would not b enough to match our revenue. Our budget for 03-04 reflects increases in health care/salary, equipment, and supplies.
Joe Backer asked if we have done anything about surveying the districts to see what they are doing. A survey was sent out this summer and resurveyed the districts again recently and it looks like about $5,000,000.
Tim McElheran is concerned that if the economic conditions continue to deteriorate our projections might be high.
Discussion followed regarding EduTech being cautious and conservative in their expectations. Districts will be cutting technology before staff.
·
Cooperative vs Vendor
The philosophy of cooperative vs vendor has helped us through the past five years. If we are a vendor to you, we only have to meet your needs and don’t have to be fair and equitable to anyone else. If we are a cooperative we have to meet state ed, district needs and be fair and equitable to all. This past year we saw a trend toward districts looking at us as a vendor instead of a cooperative. EduTech cannot survive if we are caught in the middle. Do you want us to be a vendor or a cooperative? It is easier to stay in a cooperative when times are good.
Tom Manko asked what makes the BOCES unique and what would make the school districts buy into BOCES instead of an outside vendor?
Bob Smith commented that the next generation of school administrators has forgotten why BOCES exists.
Gary Hammond said the overall goal of the cooperative is to help you go where you want to go and that the explanation of the base fee needs to be re-explained.
Jack McCabe stated that we are going to have to do a better job of marketing ourselves.
Bob Smith reminded the committee you are paying a base fee every year for items you don’t use, but when you do use it, it is there and you don’t have a huge spike in your expenditure side.
·
Next steps/new services/evaluating new pricing
q
shift to delivery of services not hardware
q
greater dependence on LAKENet
q
Web based services; staff development, instruction, assessments-Data (state, NCLB, collection and analysis), Student, Finance, SAAs
q
Support for installed base of technology (18,000)/replacements
q
Communication, Information, Surveys
q
Evaluate new pricing based on services to be delivered over the next 5 years; obsolete pricing centers; price current “Freebies” services (i.e. Erate, STEP, equipment disposal, network design)
Bob Smith reiterated Jack’s earlier comment that what we are not doing enough is marketing and advertising ourselves.
·
Predicting the Future
q
What do you see as the future of EduTech?
q
What do the districts see, what is the best way to get input from them?
q
Evaluating New Pricing
q
EduTech present options to the Steering Committee
q
Change pricing gradually as services change?
q
Subcommittee? Directive not to do a subcommittee. EduTech will present options to the steering committee
Superintendents will go back to their round tables and ask their peers for input.
Next Meeting:
December 13, 2002
December 13, 2002
8:30 am to 12:00 pm
RIT Inn and Conference Center
Back to top