K-20 Educational Network Meeting Minutes – December 8, 2005
Department of Information Services Boardroom, the Forum Building
Olympia, Washington
Members Present:Gary Robinson
Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles
Joanne Wiszman (proxy for Dr. James Sulton, Jr.)
Marty Daybell (proxy for Dr. Terry Bergeson)
Dr. Douglas Astolfi
Mike Scroggins (proxy for Earl Hale)
Jan Walsh
Dr. Twyla Barnes (via video conference)
Dr. Les Purce
Roll Call / An insufficient number of voting members were present to constitute a quorum. Gary Robinson announced that Dr. Chip Kimball, Assistant Superintendent and Chief Information Officer of the Lake Washington School District, has been appointed as a non voting member of the Board.
Approval of the Minutes / Approval of the minutes of the September 7, 2005 K-20 Board meeting was deferred until the next Board meeting.
K-20 Education and Outreach / K-20 Executive Director Connie Michener provided the Board with an update on K-20 Education and Outreach activities. Based her on conversations with Board members, K-20 Network Technical Steering Committee (NTSC) members and other key education sector representatives, Ms. Michener determined that a more proactive approach was needed regarding K-20 Education Network communication execution. Over the last 100 days, Ms. Michener and her staff have met with the following K-20 constituencies:
· Office of Financial Management
· Department of Information Services Legislative Liaison
· Educational School District 112 Superintendents Executive Advisory Council in Vancouver, Washington
· Regional Education Service District Superintendents Meeting
· Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission
· Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs
· President, TVW
· A briefing with 25 school district superintendents from ESD 105 is schedule for December 15, and additional meetings are being scheduled for superintendents in Spokane, Olympia, Bremerton, Renton and Wenatchee.
Dr. Barnes commented that the briefing in Vancouver was excellent, and that she believes that K-20 has been taken for granted. She said that although many see the value of K-20 as providing transportation for content or instructional purposes, it also provides the important ability for school districts to meet state reporting requirements. She discussed some of the challenges that small rural communities face when attempting to implement cross-district instructional programs. She said that these small communities are beginning to take advantage of the network to provide high quality education, and that they do not want to lose access to the K-20 system.
Marty Daybell mentioned that the level of communication between the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the K-20 Education Network has dramatically increased since Ms. Michener assumed the role of Executive Director.
Program Subcommittee Report / K-20 Executive Director Connie Michener provided the Board with an update regarding Program Subcommittee activities. Highlights:
· A project plan and timeline was developed and provided to the Board members
· The Subcommittee will be developing an extensive communication plan, to include activities of the other two subcommittees
· The Subcommittee will be looking at a variety of issues, including shared services offerings and the expansion of distance learning,
Finance Subcommittee Report / Tom Carroll of the K-20 Education Network Staff provided the Board with an update regarding Finance Subcommittee activities. Highlights:
· A project plan and timeline was developed and provided to the Board members
· The Subcommittee is developing recommendations for a revised co-pay model
· A working group has been formed to develop financial models and has met twice to start analyzing the data
· The new co-pay model needs to be determined prior to the development of the K-20 Education Network budget for FY 08 and FY 09
Marty Daybell asked if the Finance Subcommittee was leaning toward a particular co-pay model this is time. Mr. Carroll responded that the Subcommittee had not identified a co--pay model, and that they are attempting to incorporate input received from all of the educational sectors.
Technology Subcommittee Report / Frank Leeds of Seitel Leeds Associates provided the Board with an update regarding Technology Subcommittee activities. Highlights:
· A project plan and timeline was developed and provided to the Board members
· The main focus of the Subcommittee is to develop the architecture and detailed design of the next generation K-20 Education Network
· A core group of education and state government customers was created to develop business requirements for the network
· The business requirements will drive the architecture and design
· A technical working group has been formed and is meeting weekly to develop the architecture/design
· From those designs, procurement process will be developed to enable the construction of the next generation network
Mr. Leeds mentioned that K-20 customers currently can connect in a peer-to-peer relationship with Internet 2 (Project Abilene) sites. He further stated that the next generation network design likely would serve the K-20 customers for the next ten years.
Gary Robinson noted that the Finance and Technology subcommittees are further along than the Program subcommittee. He asked what measures are in place to ensure that the Finance subcommittee is not making decisions that could impact the Technology subcommittee, and vice versa. Ms. Michener responded that Mr. Carroll and she attend all subcommittee meetings to ensure the subcommittees are in sync.
Dr. Barnes mentioned that the Education Technical specialists provide good district perspectives regarding program requirements, and she hoped that they will be involved with the effort. Marty Daybell responded that plans are underway to involve those specialists.
Mr. Leeds stressed that the next generation network design effort is focused on enabling education sector program goals and objectives. The design will be extremely flexible and will support a wide variety of technology services that can be delivered anywhere in the state. This flexibility will allow the state’s education programmatic needs to evolve without technical constraint.
Data Matching Project Report / Mike Scroggins of the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges and Joe Egan of the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction provided the Board with an update regarding the Data Matching Project. Highlights:
· The K-20 Data Matching Project is funded by $972,000 from the Qwest Settlement Funds.
· The project, initiated in March 2006, has completed development and is in a production status with the ability to easily share the Statewide Student Identifier, demographics, and WASL scores with SBCTC. The project has now entered a data analysis and utilization phase. Initially, the data has provided the ability to identify students in Running Start and Tech Prep, forecast SBCTC student enrollment and to locate students with an unknown enrollment status inside K-12.
· Future development calls for the continuation of data research and furthering the development of a system that allows organizations such as the Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB), the Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program, and the Department of Community, Trade & Economic Development to access the systems and share the State Student Identifier.
· Text. Once these links are established, agencies can access data to help forecast enrollments or drill down to an individual student's WASL score. Currently we are working on projects that will provide additional information about a student’s performance, including course identification and the GPA. Having this information and the ability to share it will allow for the evaluation of traditional K-12 courses, vocational programs, and student performance, thus creating a more detailed statewide student longitudinal data system.
Joanne Wiszman commented that the project is at its beginning stages, and that the tool will eventually enable educators to make better informed decisions regarding education programs. She stated that the Higher Education Coordinating Board is attempting to get data centralized from the four-year institutions, and that an attempt will be made to match up with the community college and K-12 data in the future.
Senator Kohl-Welles mentioned that she noticed that OSPI is using unique student identifiers. She asked if there is an issue regarding privacy throughout the project. Mike Scroggins responded that a very small set of data is actually transmitted, ensuring privacy concerns are eliminated.
Senator Kohl-Welles asked if education faculty and/or staff information is part of the project. Mr. Scroggins responded that only student data is within the scope of the project.
Senator Kohl-Welles asked if a similar project was underway to match data between the community colleges and the four-year institutions. Mr. Egan responded that OSPI and the SBCTC are starting conversations with the Higher Education Coordinating Board to understand how the framework developed by the Data Matching Project can be used to share information with the four year institutions.
Marty Daybell asked questions regarding the status of the project budget. Mike Scroggins responded that the project is within budget. The small amounts of funds remaining have been allocated for research purposes.
Federal E-rate Program Report / Susan Tenkhoff of the K-20 Education Network Staff provided the Board with an update regarding Federal E-rate Program. Highlights:
· Developed as a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Education-Rate (E-rate) Program is a discount mechanism that allows qualified K-12 schools, libraries, and consortia to receive discounts on telecommunications infrastructure. The E-rate program has been providing discounts on eligible services since 1998. The discounts range from 20% - 90%, and are determined based on the urban/rural status and poverty level of the populations served.
· The K-20 Education Network submits consortia applications on behalf of the 324 eligible entities that are part of the Network, including schools, school districts, and libraries. Currently, K-20 qualifies for a 66% discount on all eligible services procured to serve these eligible sites, based upon the statewide average discount rate.
· Each year, K-20 applies for e-rate ‘funding commitments’ based upon estimated need for the upcoming Funding Year. Applications include the eligible portion of all estimated transport circuits within the state, including both primary and secondary transport.
· After the Funding Year has ended, actual expenditures for that time period are calculated and K-20 files documentation supporting the request for reimbursement of actual expenses.
· K-20 has received $10.9 Million in E-rate discounts for services delivered between FY99 and FY04. Additionally, K-20 has been approved for over $2 Million in funding for FY05, and is awaiting final USAC approval of our $2 Million application filed for FY06 services.
· The FCC is in the midst of a thorough review of the program, and as part of that review has requested comments from interested parties regarding improvements that could be made to the E-rate program. K-20 is working in close collaboration with OSPI, the State E-rate Coordinators’ Alliance and the State Educational Telecommunications Directors’ Alliance to develop a consistent and comprehensive approach to E-rate reform.
Marty Daybell mentioned that he had heard rumors regarding cuts to the E-rate program. He asked which services are being targeted and why that might be.
Ms. Tenkhoff responded that there are two E-rate levels of service, Priority One (telecommunications services of the type provided by K-20), and Priority Two (internet access). Ms. Tenkhoff stated that there have been instances of fraud regarding Priority Two services (but not in Washington State), and that there is some chance that those services will not receive funding. She further stated that she believes that the Priority One services will continue to receive funding.
K-20 Board Future Meeting Dates / Connie Michener directed the Board’s attention to a list of suggested meeting dates and asked that the Board consider adopting the suggestions at the next Board meeting. Ms. Michener also suggested to the board that a future meeting might be held at a K-20 site in a location other than Olympia. Members of the Board concurred that Board meeting in other locations would be valuable.
Adjournment / The meeting was adjourned.
Page 4 of 5