DOC

THE COMMISSION ON EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

By Nathan Alexander,2014-03-26 17:05
10 views 0
Eugene T. Paslov, EMC, Inc. CALL TO ORDER: would be incorporated into the State Technology Plan, because it is an essential framework for the plan.

    THE COMMISSION ON EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

    MEETING OF THE COMMISSION ON EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

    May 27,1998

    Department of Education

    Board Conference Room 101 th700 East 5 Street, Carson City, Nevada

    Carson City, Nevada

    Minutes

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

     Michael Kinnaird, Chairperson

     Moises Denis, Member

     Leslie Doukas, Member

     Fred Dugger, Member

     Gary Gray, Member

     Joan Kerschner, Member

     Senator William O’Donnell, Member

     John Siegfried, Member

     John Snyder, Member

     Mary Peterson, Ex-officio

COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:

     Assemblyman Dario Herrera, Member

     Jane Nichols, Member

     Marlene Lockard, Ex-officio

DEPARTMENT STAFF PRESENT:

     Doug Thunder, Deputy Superintendent, Administrative and

     Fiscal Services, Nevada Department of Education

     Frank South, Team Leader

     Christine Huss, Technology Consultant

     Jane Crawford, Management Assistant

    LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BUREAU STAFF PRESENT:

     Pepper Sturm

     The Commission on Educational Technology

     Page 2

AUDIENCE IN ATTENDANCE:

     Greg Holopoff, Clark County School District

    Lee Solonche, KLVX Channel 10

    Jhone Ebert, Clark County School District

    Kelly Kenon, Nevada Department of Information Technology

    Glenda Peake, NV FRW

    Elmer Porter, Eureka County School District

    Dan Piel, Storey County School District

    Arne Gallagher, Apple

    Nancy Dallas

    Janice Arthur-Towns, Carson City School District

    Dan O’Barr, Churchill County School District

    Eugene T. Paslov, EMC, Inc.

1. CALL TO ORDER:

     The meeting of the Commission on Educational Technology (CET) was called to order at 9:45 a.m. by Chairperson Michael Kinnaird, at the Nevada Department of Education State Board Room, in Carson City, Nevada.

2. ROLL CALL:

     Members that were present and absent are listed above.

3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:

     A motion was made by Senator William O’Donnell to approve the agenda. Moises Denis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

4. LETTER FROM GOVERNOR BOB MILLER:

     Mary Peterson read a letter from Governor Bob Miller that was addressed to the Mr. Kinnaird and Members of the Commission on Educational Technology (Attachment A).

    5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4, 1998 MEETING:

     A motion was made by John Siegfried to approve minutes of the March 4, 1998, meeting. Senator O’Donnell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

     The Commission on Educational Technology

     Page 3

6. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF LANDER COUNTY

    SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TECHNOLOGY PLAN:

     th At the May 4 sub-committee meeting for reviewing school districts’ technology plans, Lander County School District was asked to make improvements to their technology plan. Mr. John Snyder stated that Lander County School District had submitted the improvements that were suggested. He also stated that he had no problems with the revised technology plan and suggested that it be approved for 61.1 and 61.2 funding.

     Mr. Fred Dugger made a motion to approve Lander County School District’s technology plan. Moises Denis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

7. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF TECHNOLOGY PLANS

    PRESENTED TO THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON MAY 4, 1998:

     A motion was made by John Snyder to approve these school

    district’s technology plans:

    ; Churchill County School District

    ; Esmeralda County School District

    ; Mineral County School District

    ; Pershing County School District

    ; Storey County School District

    ; White Pine County School District

     Moises Denis seconded the motion. The motion passed

    unanimously.

8. DISCUSSION OF THE NEVADA TECHNOLOGY PLAN:

     Ms. Kathleen Barfield reviewed what was discussed at the

    Commission on Educational Technology retreat. Ms. Barfield reminded the Commission that one of the recommendations at the retreat was to develop a communication mechanism with the school districts and the communities. This communication mechanism would let them know what kind of work the Commission is doing. This would also be helpful with the feedback from interested parties on the draft plan of the Nevada State Technology Plan. The discussion on evaluation both long term and short term was a key issue. The evaluation needs to have multiple measures. Priorities for future funding to help Nevada schools that were discussed and agreed upon, in general were, infrastructure, content/curriculum integration, professional development and technical support. At this retreat the Commission gave Ms. Barfield the permission to draft a vision statement and goals (Attachment B). Ms. Barfield

     The Commission on Educational Technology

     Page 4

    stated that she needed feedback from the Commission on the Vision Statement and goals so that she could proceed with the Nevada State Technology Plan.

     Nevada’s responses to the 1998 QED Core School Technology

    Survey and Hardware: School Site Survey were reviewed by Ms. Barfield. She stated that these surveys are aggregated and it is a very complicated form to compile. The QED survey should be completed by the school districts every year. This survey will provide the information that summarizes technology in the schools (Attachment C).

     Mary Peterson stated that the QED survey is a very rich data source. She asked how this survey would be incorporated into the State Technology Plan, because it is an essential framework for the plan.

     Ms. Barfield had suggestion for priorities for funding in the next biennium, based on the QED survey:

    ; Resources to support access to high quality content;

    (a) Increase the access for students and teachers to

    the Internet; and

    (b) Look at curriculum redesign based on the new

    standards

    ; Professional development to support curriculum

    integration;

    ; Strong technical support; and

    ; A formative evaluation strategy both short term and long

    term that looks at multiple measures.

     Fred Dugger asked what support documents went out with the QED survey. Christine Huss replied that no support document accompanied QED survey. Ms. Huss stated that if items were missing from the QED survey and they were specific to Nevada’s needs they can be added next year.

     Kathleen Barfield stated the Nevada State Technology Plan draft will be provided to the Commission by June 15, 1998 and she would appreciate feedback as soon as possible. The draft will be submitted to the Legislature by July 1, 1998, to meet the requirement.

     Mr. Dugger asked if the suggestions that were mentioned above would be the type of suggestions in the state technology plan. Ms. Barfield stated that these would be her suggestions if the Commission agreed with them. Mr. Snyder agreed with the suggestions and felt that they are the ones that the Commission discussed at the retreat.

     The Commission on Educational Technology

     Page 5

     Mr. Kinnaird suggested that time was needed to look at the goals and priorities that could possibly be used in the technology plan. The Commission then could have a conference call to make suggestions. Mr. Siegfried and Mr. Denis suggested giving Ms. Barfield input by phone or Internet and directing her to draft the plan for the Commission to review.

     Mr. Kinnaird suggested Ms. Huss to be the contact person for the suggestions on the state technology draft and the deadline for the suggestions would be June 5, 1998.

     Mr. Dugger needed a clear picture of what was needed so that he could give suggestions. Ms. Barfield stated that she needs directions for writing the plan. The information that was provided by Ms. Barfield will be used as her guideline to write the plan. If there is something that needs to be added or changed the Commissioners needs to provide that information to her.

     Ms. Peterson had some concern that there had not been a

    discussion about Nevada School Network (NSN) and how it may or may not fit in. Also, she stated the Commission might benefit from knowing what the Universities’ plans are in technology. Ms. Barfield stated that she has met with Dr. Jane Nichols to discuss this issue. A technical network engineer will be brought in to look at the infrastructure at the University and make recommendation. In the draft there will be recommendations and information on NSN.

     Fred Dugger suggested that an executive overview, other funding source besides the state, and legislative proposal for new directions be in the state technology plan. Mr. Siegfried concurred with Mr. Dugger and his suggestions.

9. PRESENTATION BY SUB-COMMITTEE ON HARDWARE, SOFTWARE

    & WIRING STANDARDS:

     Gary Gray stated that this sub-committee has met with several school districts to get input on hardware, software and wiring standards. Mr. Gray thanked Greg Holopoff for his time and his many hours of research to put this plan together. Also, he thanked Sheila Rojas and Lee Solonche for their suggestions.

     Mr. Holopoff reviewed the standards document Draft VI. The

    review consisted of the Quick Reference, Introduction, Section -1: High-Level Functionalities, Section - 2: Hardware, Software & Wiring Scope and Section 3

    Hardware & Wiring Standards (this document is available at

    http://www.nsn.k12.nv.us/nvdoe).

     The Commission on Educational Technology

     Page 6

     Mr. Siegfried complimented Mr. Gray and his staff for an excellent document. Also, he suggested that this document and the State Technology Plan should interface very closely.

     A suggestion was made by Ms. Peterson that the standards

    document interface with the Standards Council, because the functionalities in section one is the beginning of content studies for students. This sub-committee should meet with the Standards Council or a sub-committee of the Standards Council. The Standards Council will need to start work on the content studies in technology. The sub-committee needs to make sure that this excellent work is presented to the Standards Council so that it can be a starting point for them.

     Joan Kershner stated that the Nevada State Libraries and

    Archieves have the responsibility to set the minimum standards for Library, mass storage and imaging. Ms. Kershner stated that she would share the information with this sub-committee.

     Mr. Gray also thanked Senator O’Donnell and Leslie Doukas for their work on the curriculum side to get the levels. He added that this document is a living document and will need to be updated over and over again.

10. DISCUSSION OF 61.2 FUNDING APPLICATION PROCESS WITH

    POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF DATES FOR APPLICATIONS:

     Ms. Huss stated that a lot of the 61.2 funding for FY99 is tagged for staff development and instuctional software which would have a direct correlation on student acheivement. Some school districts have expressed to Ms. Huss that they would like to see the funding distributed as soon as possible.

     Leslie Doukas stated that the application for 61.2 funding for FY98 should not have to change that much. If the school districts get the application in by August then the allocations can be decided in September.

     Mr. Dugger stated that he would like to see what the districts have done with the funding that has been allocated to them at this point. He would like to receive feedback from the school districts before more funding is allocated.

     Mr. Kinnaird reminded the Commission and audience of the

    deadline date for spending the 61.1 and 61.2 funding. He suggested that possibly the Commission can allocate the funding and receive feedback from the school districts.

     Senator O’Donnell suggested that with the application for the 61.2 funding for FY99 school districts should include what was done with the 61.2 funding that was allocated in FY98. It is the Commission on Educational

     The Commission on Educational Technology

     Page 7

    Technology’s responsibility to allocate the funding and know what is being done with it.

     Mr. Gray and Mr. Denis concurred with these suggestions.

     Frank South stated that the staff could get the information needed from the school districts on what the funding was used for and report back to the Commission at the next meeting.

11. DISCUSSION OF THE CALENDAR OF TASKS FOR THE COMMISSION

    AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS THROUGH JUNE 30, 1999:

     The Commissioners discussed what the time line would be to put a budget in for another go round of one-shot monies. Pepper Sturm stated in the bill under section 28, subsection 5F, it allows the CET to make recommendations both to the Department of Education and to the Legislative Committee on Education. This Committee is an ongoing committee and can receive recommendation at any time. He suggested as early as possible before session starts so it is part of the budget.

     Ms. Huss will draft a letter to the school districts that will ask the school districts to report back in a narrative format what has been done with the present 61.2 funding and provide the application developed by DOE staff for approval for FY99 61.2 funding.

     Mr. Kinnaird requested Ms. Huss to develop a work chart for the Commission and to see that each Commissioner receives a copy.

     Mr. Dugger suggested that the next agenda should have an item that states there is an opportunity to allocate funding in an emergency situation for things like planning.

     Jhone Ebert requested clarification of the special funds money. It was stated previously that the 20% that was set aside from FY98 61.2 funding for special projects was going to be added to the FY99 61.2 funding.

     Ms. Huss reviewed the dates of things that would be happening in the near future. The first draft of the Nevada State Technology Plan is due in Ms. Huss’s office by June 15, 1998 and June 25, 1998, will be the next CET meeting.

12. DISCUSSION OF THE ALLOCATION OF THE REMAINDER OF 61.1

    FUNDING AND OTHER FUNDS:

     Michael Kinnaird stated that there was $35,392.00 remaining from the 61.1 allocation of funding.

     The Commission on Educational Technology

     Page 8

     At the last meeting C. O. Bastin School made a plea for the

    remaining money. John Siegfried at the last meeting suggested if Elko County School District would agree to monitor the extra funding for this school then this possibly could be a choice for this money or another school that might be in need of the extra money.

     Gary Gray suggested that the money be held for awhile for schools that may need it if they run short of funding. Ms. Kershner agreed with this suggestion.

     Mr. Dugger agreed with Mr. Gray. Also, he stated that if the Commission held on to this money it would give them more flexibility when they look at the special funding issue.

     The Commission on Educational Technology agreed to not act on this agenda item.

13. PRESENTATION BY THE NEVADA EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY

    CONSORTIUM:

     Jhone Ebert is the chairperson for the newly formed Nevada Education Technology Consortium (NETC). The NETC is made up of a representative from each of the seventeen school districts that. Also involved with NETC are private schools, the University System, WestEd and the DOE.

     Ms. Ebert read the mission statement to the Commission. It reads as follows: To provide and insure coordination integration and sharing of effective use of educational technology through the cooperative efforts of all school districts in Nevada. NETC put together an application for the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. It was approved and NETC is going to have a state wide technology conference for teachers. The theme of the conference is “Digital Dreams Becoming Classroom Realities.”

     NETC is looking forward to working with CET to support the

    intergration of technology into the classrooms.

     John Snyder stated that this group would be a good group to apply for the 20% of the FY98 61.2 funding. Mr. Thunder stated that the way the law is written a school district would have to serve as a finacial agent.

14. REPORT ON DECISION BY ETHICS COMMISSION:

     Mr. Thunder check with the Deputy Attorney for the Ethics

    Commission. This person informed Mr. Thunder that the Ethics Commission was close to a decision. Mr. Thunder advised her that he had prepared a statement

     The Commission on Educational Technology

     Page 9

    that he had presented to the Commissioners at the last meeting. This statement would allow the Commission to move ahead and allocate the funding. A copy of this was sent to the Attorney Gerneral’s Office.

15. STANDING REPORT ON THE FUNDING DISTRIBUTED TO SCHOOL

    DISTRICTS:

     Mr. Thunder provided the Commission with a report to bring them up to date on where the money is. One area that will need to be addressed in the future is budget account 2702 that is the Educational Technology Trust Fund. There is less that $20,000.00 in this trust fund, but it is one of the duties of the Commission to work with the DOE to set up the procedures and policies for distributing this money. If any groups or companies etc. donates money for educational technology is would be deposit in that budget. This money has to be used in schools for technology. The trust fund was established in the 1995 Legislature.

16. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION FOR A FUNDING REQUEST

FOR THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION:

    Christine Huss stated that with all the information the school districts have provided for funding the DOE staff could analyze what the school districts need. This information could be a good source for funding request for the next legislative session.

    Doug Thunder stated that he wanted the Commission to be aware of what kind of discussions are going on at the present time concerning future budgets. In a meeting Perry Comeaux stated that about 95% will be for base and 7% of the budget will be for enhancements. The sales tax revenue in Nevada has fallen significantly short of what was projected. The Distributive School Account (DSA) is the primary funding for school in Nevada. In order for the DOE to meet this year’s DSA obligations, DOE had to borrow from the FY99 DSA account. Mr. Thunder stated if the Commission desires to include a funding request for the next biennium in the DOE budget, the Department would be happy to do it.

    Mr. Kinnaird suggested that at the IFC meeting the next day there should be mentioned about the budget 2673-32 (expense budget for the Commission). Due to the number of meetings the CET has had to complete that task that the Legislature gave them this budget is dwindling.

    It was decided by the CET to wait to review the Nevada State Technology Plan before funding request would be made. The Commission also decided to go through the DOE for the funding requests.

     The Commission on Educational Technology

     Page 10

17. DISSCUSSION OF HOW TO REPORT TO THE LEGISLATIVE

    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

    Mr. Denis will present the report to the Legislative Committee on Education in Las Vegas on May 28, 1998. Ms. Huss will prepare a report for Mr. Denis to give an overview of what the CET has done up to this point.

    Mr. Doukas suggested to stress that the Commission is conscious of the need to work with the Standards Commission on assessment and the Commission is starting that work also.

    Ms. Peterson suggested that the Commission inform the

    Committee on Education how the school districts plan to spend the money and how it will be used to support the standards in our schools.

18. PRESENTATION OF STATUS OF THE TECHNOLOGY LITERACY

    CHALLENGE FUND:

    Through the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF) there was 2.1 million dollar allocated to Nevada school districts. TLCF is dedicated to staff development and it can be used for instructional software.

    Ms. Huss reviewed the amount of money that was allocated to Nevada school districts. Also, she informed the Commission of other funding sources that are available for the school districts.

     Senator O’Donnell stated that the E-rate and the federal

    government’s two billion dollars of funding in now tied up in the courts. The

    phone companies have filed a suit, because the federal government is now saying it applies to intrastate as well as interstate and the phone companies are objecting to it. This will affect the rural areas of Nevada’s school that are relying on E-rate for access to the Internet.

19. PUBLIC COMMENT:

     There was no public comment.

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com