EduTech Steering Committee
EduTech Steering Committee
December 9, 2005
December 9, 2005
RIT Inn and Conference Center
RIT Inn and Conference Center
Members Present:
Members Present:
Joe Backer, Letchworth Bruce Amey, Avon
Gary Hammond, GV BOCES Maria Ehresman, Williamson
Bob Leiby, Manchester-Shortsville Tom Manko, York
Camille Sorenson, EduTech Dan Starr, NR-Wolcott
Jack McCabe, WFL BOCES
Members Absent:
Members Absent:
Mike Glover, GV BOCES Joan Cole, Elba
Guests:
Guests:
Lisa Roberts, EduTech Keith Henry, WFL BOCES
Jeff Decker, EduTech Chris Saxby, EduTech
· Lisa Roberts – Data Warehouse
·
Lisa Roberts – Data Warehouse
This week Lisa Roberts met with district data administrators. Presented the information to steering committee on what was shared with administrators.
Data Warehouse Current State – December 2005
We are in the process of collecting data from student info systems and putting into Level 0 Warehouse. Each RIC is hosting, for their own districts, a staging area. Monthly we extract data from supported systems into the Level 0 warehouse. This is typically done the first of the month. Districts can go into Level 0 warehouse and look at records with errors in them. First stage was loading demographic records from all the districts. Error reports will be emailed from scrubber and Level 0 warehouse once a month to data administrators. Working with vendors on demographics of students that are placed out of the district.
If you have a student system we do not support, the district is responsible for the extract.
Do not have to track AIS this year. It will need to be done sometime in the future.
504 students are treated as special education
Data Administrators feedback – starting to understand not one person in the district is going to know all the data. Districts need to work on communication among the personnel in the district. Data Administrators need to know who to go to regarding student information.
Cafeteria systems we don’t support will need to send monthly extracts.
Some districts keep their data in spreadsheets. Districts need to write extracts.
Lisa passed out information on each of the districts present. Only information loaded to date is demographics. Poverty information will be loaded next and 504 after that.
Where we hope to be in the spring. Allow you to look at data daily to make corrections. In January and February we will be working with districts on how to capture data.
Two key personnel from SED left in the beginning of December.
Not sure at this time how to resolve near matches, but the good news is we have very few near matches.
Next training on Level 0 and NYSISs
Information available on the web.
· Jeff Decker – Future of Moving Data
·
Jeff Decker – Future of Moving Data
Been working over the last few months with CPSI that has worked with a number of large school districts implementing SIF.
VISION
In the near future education software applications will have all data
Business Problems
Software applications do not have data:
Horizontally with in the district
Vertically between district – BOCES – state
Applications run on various hardware and software platforms
Database, Operating System
SOLUTION
- Adopt data and technology standards developed to enable interoperability.
- SIF – School Interoperability Framework
Began in1997 – now has 300 members – standards for automatic data exchange
- US Dept of Education National Education Technology Plan
Horizontal Integration – current data flow
Elements of SIF
- Zone integration server (data traffic cop)
- SIF Agent (software for communicating with application)
- Data Objects (types of data – student personal, enrollment)
- Infrastructure
- Certification
Advantages
- Single point of data entry
- Improved data accuracy
- Delivers information in a timely manner (l000 students in 22 minutes)
- Costs reduction/avoidance
- Reduced time needed to manage multiple data sources
Who is using SIF---
State Level SIF experiences
- Oklahoma - Delaware
- Virginia - Rhode Island
- Alaska - Arizona
Large School districts using SIF
- Chicago - Indian River, FL
- Orlando - Toronto
- Jacksonville - York, CA
- St Lucie, FL - Many more
R&D: We are now at the point of asking districts to pilot with us. Start at lower level and expand as time goes on.
·
2006-2007 EduTech Budget
Process
- Expenditure Budget – Review, Input by EduTech Steering Committee – November 8, 2005
- District Pricing – Review, Input by EduTech Steering Committee; Recommendation to
proceed – December 9, 2005
- CSO Information GV and WFL (December 2005, January 2006)
- Review by Wayne-Finger Lakes BOCES Board (December 2005, January 2006)
Factors Driving the Budget
Increase Areas
- Salary -- +3.9%
- Fringe
* 12% ERS, 8% TRS
* 6% medical, 0% dental
* 4% Workers Comp
Budget 06-07 as compared to 04-05 and 05-06
- Equipment -/+ 0%
- Supplies -/+ 0%
- Travel -/+ 0%
- Training -/+ 0%
- Other Expenses -/+ 0%
2006-07 EduTech Budget
- Budget—determine expenditures for the year
- Cost Study—determine direct and indirect (overhead) costs. Allocate by billable cost
centers
- Match proposed costs (combined direct and indirect) against revenue using existing prices
- Estimate Miscellaneous Revenue based on historical trends for revenue and services
- Adjust service pricing
- Analyze impact to districts
EduTech Revenue Sources
- Annual service fees (required service delivery standards, buy-in services [i.e. finance,
student])
- One-time service fees (install income, extra reports)
- Grants
- Cross contracts (Project Accelerate, Student, Finance)
Miscellaneous Revenue
- One time charges to the district for services, such as—installation of workstations, printers,
servers, additional tests scored, additional reports, electronic files requested
- The budget is based on the existing services base. If a district subsequently drops a service
(i.e. finance), then the loss of that income must be made up.
EduTech District Pricing
- Based on services as of 11/1/2005
- District Pricing increases:
* +1.5% overall
* +1.5% additional student systems (SASi, Schoolmaster, PowerSchool)
Budget Summary
- +2.7% increase over last year’s budget
- Budget increases in salary, health care, retirement; all other areas remain flat
- Flat budget in equipment, supplies, travel, training
- District Pricing increase +1.5% overall;
+1.5% additional, student systems (SASi, Schoolmaster,
PowerSchool)
When we put all the districts together the average is 1.25%
Camille and Chris will give GV BOCES data to Bruce Amey for their CSO meeting next week.
Bruce Amey thought Camille and staff did a great job putting the budget together.
Camille will send out information to WFL Superintendents
Next Meeting:
March 10, 2006
RIT Inn and Conference Center
8:30 a.m.
Back to top