K-20 Education Network Meeting Minutes – June 12, 2007
Department of Information Services Boardroom, the Forum Building
Olympia, Washington
Members Present:Gary Robinson
Senator Janea Holmquist
Senator Kohl-Wells
Representative Glenn Anderson
Dr. Terry Bergeson
Ann Daley
Charlie Earl
Marty Smith
Theresa Whitmarsh (proxy for Joe Dear)
Dr. Twyla Barnes
Judy Hartman
Judy Jennings
Jan Walsh
Roll Call / A sufficient number of voting members were present to constitute a quorum.
Approval of the Minutes / The minutes of the March 13, 2006 K-20 Board Meeting were unanimously approved.
Network Technical Steering Committee Historical Review / Terry Teal, Executive Director of the Council of Presidents, provided the Board with an overview of the history of the K-20 Network. Items highlighted:
In the mid 90’s, timing was right for a statewide education network.
· Branch campuses and centers were emerging
· Distance learning was gaining popularity
· Running Start programs were expanding
· Technology was improving
A leadership group emerged, consisting of key legislators, education sectors, the DIS and several consultants. Several networks existed at the time (WHETS, CTC Net, WEDNet, Institution networks and the SGN).
In 1998, a mission statement was created to reflect the shared vision of the leadership group: “A collaborative effort among the broad education community to jointly design, develop and operate an educational network: a single railroad that would provide ‘seamless’ services to the education community…” The K-20 Education Network would
· Link technology with education to support world-class schools, colleges and universities, whose students can learn anytime, anywhere…
· Enhance students’ ability to explore information and gain knowledge.
· Provide opportunities to enrich the education of existing students and expand opportunities for new students to achieve their educational goals.
1996 Legislative Proposals
· WHEN Expansion (Synchronous Optical Network (SONET))
· K-20 Education Network Creation (High-speed, high capacity, backbone linking colleges, universities, school districts and libraries
Authorizations and Appropriation History
SB 6705 (1996)
· Guidelines for development of K-20 Backbone
· Created TOPC (Technical Oversight Policy Committee)
$42.3 Million Appropriation (1996)
$12.2 Million Appropriation (1997)
$6.9 Million Appropriation (1998)
SB 5789 (1999)
· Refined governance and created the K-20 Network Board to succeed TOPC.
Network Technical Steering Committee
Operational Roles / Mike Scroggins, Director of Information Services for the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges provide the Board with a description of the roles and responsibilities of the various entities tasked with operations of the K-20 Network. Items highlighted:
The voting and non-voting members of te NTSC were identified. Dr. Ed Lazowska, Bill and Melinda Gates Chair, the University of Washington, serves as the NTSC Liaison to the Information Services Board.
NTSC facts:
· Meets monthly
· Meetings well attended
· Attended by voting and non voting members as well as KOCO staff
· Always have a quorum
· Use the technology to facilitate meetings
· Format is interactive discussion
· Meetings scheduled year in advance
The NTSC as a Key Technical Resource
Special skills subcommittees
· Video Conference Regionalization
· Technology Architecture – Next Generation Network
· ISDN Video Migration
· Strategic Planning Committee
The NTSC provides technical leadership broader than K-20 telecommunications. The members are easily accessible and well known in the education community; they understand how K-20 relates to other educational issues.
K-20 Reporting Structure. Mike Scroggins explained the K-20 Operations Cooperative (KOCO) reporting structure, and how K-20 day-to-day operations are managed via the following KOCO processes:
· Engineering
· Operations
· Administration
· Maintenance
· Provisioning
Network Technical Steering Committee
The K-20 Model:
Why it Works! / Joe Egan, Chief Information Officer of the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, provide the Board with perspectives regarding the reason why the K-20 Network has been so successful. Items highlighted:
The K-20 Education Network provides Washington with one, statewide education network.
· Provides the most cost effective means of satisfying educational needs for data and video communication
· Satisfies the combined telecommunication requirements of the statewide educational community
· Establishes a set of standards to ensure complete, generalized interconnectivity for all Washington State education institutions
· Provides a network architecture that can be scaled to meet changing educational needs
· Shares DIS infrastructure (node sites & backbone) to achieve economy of scale without compromise to either education or general government’s business requirements
The K-20 Network is cost-efficient, scalable and state-of-the-art.
Joe Egan presented the Board with information regarding how the K-20 Education Network delivers information and services throughout the State of Washington.
Network Technical Steering Committee
The K-20 Board:
How to Help? / Clare Donahue, Assistant Vice President for Networks of the University of Washington, provide the Board with suggestions regarding how the Board could assist the K-20 Network. Items highlighted:
· Ensure that K-20 Core Values are preserved: A collaborative effort among the broad education community to jointly design, develop and operate an educational network.
· Support the NTSC in its role of operating and maintaining the K-20 network to serve the broad education community.
· Advocate for the educational use of the K-20 Network and the K-20 Biennial Budget.
Network Technical Steering Committee
Summary and Questions / Mike Scroggins and the other previous speakers formed a panel to summarize the issues discussed and to respond to questions form the Board. Items highlighted:
· Washington’s K-20 model works
· K-20 is effectively and efficiently operated and managed
· K-20 is flexible – able to adjust quickly to a continuously changing high technology environment
· K-20 is positioned for the future
· K-20 is cost effective and sustainable
Several Board members ask questions regarding the K-20 co-pay mechanism and the Federal E-rate program.
Susan Tenkhoff mentioned that approximately 98% percent of all K-12 classrooms are now connected to K-20 (via individual district managed networks connected to K-20).
K-20 Education Network Future Direction / The afternoon’s discussion focused on future directions. Prior to the retreat nearly all of the board members were contacted to discuss issues that should be on the table at the retreat. In addition, several members of the Technical Steering Committee were also interviewed. As a result of those interviews, six themes emerged as a potential starting point for the board’s discussion at the retreat. Those six themes were:
· Role of the Board
· Mission and vision of the Board
· Structure of the Board and relationships to other boards and committees
· Performance and accountability
· Where to go in the future and how to prioritize issues
· Independence and inter-dependence of the network
After a long discussion, the Board concluded that before focusing on the future, they needed to know what has been accomplished so far. The presentations in the morning helped with some of that understanding, but more data needs to be presented on who is using the system and for what purposes. Therefore, the Board decided to focus on gathering more information, understanding that information, and then starting to discuss where to go in the future.
The data gathering will focus on determining what data currently exists and who has the data. Example questions may include:
· Who is using the network?
· How are they using the network?
· How much more usage is possible?
· What is needed to increase usage?
· What are the gaps in access or usage?
· Are there any apparent access inequities?
· Are there sufficient teachers and others trained to utilize the network?
In gathering the data described above, it was suggested that the Network Technical Steering Committee (collectively and individual members) could pull together data that currently exists.
Public Comment / The Chair asked if there was any public comment; there was none.
Adjournment / The meeting was adjourned.
Page 1 of 5