EduTech

Regional Steering Committee

October 1, 1999

Hampton Inn - Victor

Bea Parker, Facilitator

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.
 
 
 
 

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
 

1.  Budget
2.  Communication
3.  Planning and Assessment

Nov 5^th, Friday 8:30 to 12:00

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
 

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.

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.

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.

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 6^th 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 2^nd 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 3^rd change in 6 years
5.  How do we process 3^rd time? Time needed (who, when --all need history, info & knowledge)
6.  Uncertainty about unwanted impacts (staffing)

Discussion

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: 1 ^st 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

•            

Back to top

---

1