DOC

THE COMMISSION ON EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

By Alvin Anderson,2014-03-26 18:23
9 views 0
Dr. Eugene T. Paslov, EMC, INC. Kathy Tappe McCreary, Elementary Teacher that the report Chancellor Jarvis presented should be used as a framework.

    THE COMMISSION ON EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

    MEETING OF THE COMMISSION ON EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

    NOVEMBER 12, 1998

    SILVER LEGACY RESORT-CASINO

    SILVER/GOLD ROOM

    407 NORTH VIRGINIA

    RENO, NEVADA

    Minutes

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

     Michael Kinnaird, Chairperson

     Moises Denis, Member

     Shawn Franklin, Member

    Fred Dugger, Member

     Gary Gray, Member 1 Joan Kerschner, Member

     Dr. Jane Nichols, Member

     Senator Bill O’Donnell, Member

     John Siegfried, Member

     Marlene Lockard, Ex-officio

     Mary Peterson, Ex-officio

COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:

     Leslie Doukas

     Assemblyman Dario Herrera

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STAFF PRESENT:

    Douglas Thunder, Deputy Superintendent, Administrative and

    Fiscal Services

    Christine Huss, Technology Consultant

    Jane Crawford, Management Assistant

    Gina Molina, Management Assistant

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STAFF ABSENT:

     Frank South, Team Leader

     1 Joined meeting at 9:25 a.m.

     Commission on Educational Technology minutes: November 12, 1998

     Page 2

    NEVADA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BUREAU STAFF PRESENT:

     Jeanne Botts

     Pepper Sturm

AUDIENCE IN ATTENDANCE:

     Jhone Ebert, Clark County School District

     Christy Falba, Clark County School District

     Phil Brody, Clark County School District

     Danny L. Noss, White Pine School District

     Bob Pistner, Lander County School District

     Katrina Meyer, University Community College System of Nevada

     Nancy J. Strader, Carson City School District

     Randy Robison, Lincoln County School District

     Bill Strader, Nevada Department of Education (NDE),

     Standards, Curricula and Assessments

     Duane Barton, Elko County School District

     John Croslin, Humboldt County School District

     Bill McLeod, Elko County School District

     Dr. Eugene T. Paslov, EMC, INC

     Kathy Tappe McCreary, Elementary Teacher

     Lee Peterson, Mineral County School District

     Elmer Porter, Eureka County School District

    Jean Murray, State of Nevada Attorney General’s Office, Bureau of

    Consumer Protection (BCP)

     Pat Miller, KNPB/Channel 5

     Steve Welch, State of Nevada Attorney General Office, BCP

     Mike Mitchell, Carson City School District

     N. Lorell Bleak, C. O. Bastion High School

     Al Bellister, NSEA

1. CALL TO ORDER:

    Chairperson Michael Kinnaird, at the Silver Legacy Resort-Casino,

    Silver/Gold room, Reno, Nevada, called the meeting of the Commission on

    Educational Technology (CET) to order at 9:10 a.m.

2. ROLL CALL:

    Members who were present and absent are listed above.

     Commission on Educational Technology minutes: November 12, 1998

     Page 3

3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:

    Mr. Gary Gray made a motion to approve a flexible agenda and Mr. John Siegfried seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:

    Mr. Moises Denis made a motion to approve the minutes of May ththththth14, May 19 Subcommittee, May 28 Subcommittee, June 25, June 25 rdSubcommittee and September 23. Mr. Gray seconded the motion. The motion

    passed unanimously.

5. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF ESMERALDA COUNTY

    SCHOOL DISTRICT’S AND LANDER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT’S

    61.2 APPLICATIONS AND RELEASE OF FY99 61.2 FUNDING:

    Mr. Gray and Ms. Christine Huss traveled to Esmeralda County School District. They reviewed the application for 61.1 funding and the application for 61.2 funding with Dr. Francom, Superintendent of Esmeralda County School District, and the consultant. Mr. Gray and Ms. Huss reviewed the budget for 61.2 application and 61.1 application. They both agreed that Esmeralda County School District’s plan to utilize the funding would meet the requirements of SB 482.

    Ms. Huss contacted Lander County School District to review their student evaluation process in the 61.2 FY99 application. Lander County School District, under Ms. Huss’s direction, removed the student evaluation process in

    the application of 61.2 FY99 and replaced it with the student evaluation process that was in their 61.1 application. The 61.1 application was approved earlier in the year.

    Mr. Dugger made a motion to approve and release the FY99 61.2 funding for Esmeralda County School District and Lander County School District. Mr. Siegfried seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

6. REVIEW AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL AND ALLOCATION OF THE

    REQUEST SUBMITTED BY CARSON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR

    SPECIAL PROJECTS FOR THE 20% SET ASIDE MONIES FROM FY98

    AND FY99:

    The CET tabled the action on this item until the December 9, 1998. At that time Carson City School District, Lincoln County School District and White Pine County School District must submit an application. Also, the CET requests ththat these three school districts attend the December 9 meeting to present their

    applications.

     Commission on Educational Technology minutes: November 12, 1998

     Page 4

    Mr. Siegfried made a motion to table agenda item 5 until December 9, 1998. Mr. Dugger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

7. REVIEW OF THE PARADIGM GROUP REPORT:

    Kathleen Barfield from WestEd reviewed the Paradigm Group Report. In the contract that State of Nevada has with WestEd it requires them to look into telecommunications, comment on telecommunications and include the finding in the Nevada State Technology Plan. WestEd commissioned an outside communications group to provide an independent review of this issue and prepare a report. This group prepared the report called Paradigm Group Report. Dr. Jane Nichols, Mary Peterson, Kathleen Barfield and Christine Huss reviewed this report with some research that had been done by the University Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN). There were three issues of concern that the UCCSN had:

    ; The governance suggested in the plan would deal with covering

    both K12 and higher education;

    ; The University’s plan with a very broadband with backbone for

    the state as opposed to the Paradigm Report suggestion of

    adjusted time strategy for provided bandwidth; and

    ; Dial-up access.

    Ms. Barfield had received feedback from the school districts. Their concerns are:

    ; The school districts need to be more involved with issues

    related to telecommunications planning in the state;

    ; The school districts are very dependent on the dial-up services

    that are available to them; and

    ; The school districts want to make sure that the dial up service

    will be in place while they wait for the process of something new

    and better.

    These issues have been revised in draft #5 of the Nevada State Plan for Technology.

    Ms. Barfield stated that the QED report showed that only 61% of the schools in Nevada have access to the Internet, which is below the national average. Out of that 61% only 50% stated that their access was from dial-up connections. In many cases the dialup access is only text based and doesn’t

     Commission on Educational Technology minutes: November 12, 1998

     Page 5

    have graphical interfaces. This translates into 300 schools in Nevada that do not have dedicated Internet access. What is needed is to create a set of recommendations that will insure every school in Nevada has access to the Internet by the year 2003. The recommendations from WestEd are:

    ; Organization for clear governance of telecommunications, the

    key issue is not to duplicate what already exists;

    ; Resource for advice to the Commission to put together a

    statewide telecommunication plan;

    ; A specific detailed telecommunication plan that would build the

    backbone connectivity for every school in Nevada; and

    ; Prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) that would be able to

    solicit and identify a highly qualified third party to provide the

    services from the telecommunication plan.

    Ms. Barfield stated that the Commission needs to work with the UCCSN and school districts to insure that the transition from the dial-up access to something that is acceptable and feasible for the long term.

    Senator William O’Donnell asked Ms. Barfield what she suggested. She responded by saying what is being suggested is building on the UCCSN’s backbone, but the issue is to insure that every school obtain connectivity from their school to the UCCSN’s backbone.

8. PRESENTATION OF K-12 INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND

    RELATIONSHIP WITH HIGHER EDUCATION NEEDS:

    Chancellor Jarvis made a presentation on NevadaNet and the UCCSN (Attachment A). Chancellor Jarvis stated that the Internet that schools and the public connect to is the commercial Internet. The research network is a consortium of research universities around the country that have bought into a substantially bigger Internet. If the University of Nevada in Reno and in University of Las Vegas is going to continue to be a research university, the larger Internet is essential. A vital mission is to get the north/south backbone in place.

    Representing the Nevada Education Technology Consortium was Mr. John Croslin. Mr. Croslin stated that the report Chancellor Jarvis presented should be used as a framework. The details can then be worked out with K-12, UCCSN and NDE.

     Commission on Educational Technology minutes: November 12, 1998

     Page 6

    Marlene Lockard, Director of the Department of Information Technology, stated that it is wise for the CET not to support a redundant infrastructure that exists in state government. Ms. Lockard suggested continuing with the University System, but the CET could appoint a sub-committee to work with the entities that provide different communication pieces within the State and see where areas could be collaborated to offer different pieces of telecommunication. An RFP process would be appropriate for the individual district networking. When the CET makes a proposal to the Legislature for additional funds to implement the Nevada Technology plan, a careful look must be taken, so that it can be capitalized on. Mr. Dugger stated that there is enough technical support in this state. Also, school districts have enough technical support. His suggestion is the same as Ms. Lockard, to develop a sub-committee, but instead of a RFP use the expertise that already exists.

    After these presentations, the Paradigm Report recommendations were put on hold until a sub-committee was formed and recommendations to WestEd were made.

    Mr. Shawn Franklin asked for clarification from Chancellor Jarvis if the UCCSN has the backbone for all K-12 schools with graphical interface. Chancellor Jarvis stated that UCCSN could handle that traffic without any additional resources for the next two years. Dr. Nichols stated that to get to the backbone a minimum of a T-1 line is needed. The problem of not having graphical interface access is not the backbone problem it is getting to the backbone. The backbone is there if the districts can get connected to it.

    Senator William O’Donnell stated that there are companies that update their backbone everyday and this is their business. His suggestion was to look at contracts with these companies that provide this service just like the State of Nevada has contracts with Sierra Pacific Power Company.

    Ms. Pat Miller from KNPB suggested looking at all of this as an environment. In 2003 KNPB plans to be a digital environment. They will have the capacity to deliver television and data. There will be in the future another potential for delivery of Internet services. She suggested that when the Commission is planning for the future to remember that the environment of delivery of voice video and data is changing.

     Commission on Educational Technology minutes: November 12, 1998

     Page 7

    Mr. Bruce Daley stated there are grants programs available for K-12. He suggested that on the sub-committee there be a member that is familiar with available grants and can navigate the requirements.

9. PRESENTATION, UPDATE AND DISCUSSION OF THE NEVADA

    PRELIMINARY TECHNOLOGY PLAN:

    Ms. Barfield stated a change was made to the professional development part of the plan. She asked the Commissioners to review pages 19 and 20. The final draft will be submitted to the Commission for approval on thDecember 9.

    Mr. Dugger suggested to remove on page thirty-five a reference to the Clinton/Gore administration, because there is no reference to the Miller/Hammargren administration. Ms. Barfield agreed and this reference will be modified.

    Ms. Huss stated the following activities have be done to get receive input on the State Technology Plan:

    ; Ms. Huss has met with the PTA Board in October;

    ; Ms. Huss made a presentation to the Academic Standards

    Council and requested input;

    ; The form for input has been on the NDE web page for two

    months; and

    ; Ms. Huss has provided every school district the State

    Technology plan with the forms for input to be distributed

    throughout the school district.

    She provided the Commission with a form for their input on the State Technology Plan.

10. REVIEW AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION ON

    EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TASK LIST FOR FY99:

    The task list for the Commission on Educational Technology consists of:

    ; Legislative Subcommittee

    1. Technology Plan Budget Request Development

    2. Technology Plan Bill Drafts

    3. Presentations to Legislature

     Commission on Educational Technology minutes: November 12, 1998

     Page 8

    ; Statewide Education Network

     th; Approval of Technology Plan December 9, 1998

    ; Trust Fund Development January 20, 1999

    ; Report due to Legislature January 20, 1999

    Ms. Lockard suggested that the equipment exist now in the school districts should be Year 2000 compliant. The Commission was given the task of distributing thousands of dollars to the school districts and the school districts should insure the Commission that the Year 2000 compliances are met. She also requested the Commission to have the school districts do a Year 2000 report of what their status is, what their strategy for renovation and their compliance with the timeline. Ms. Lockard stated that the Department of Information Technology would assist the school districts with any information or guidance they may need. There will be a telephone conference with the United Stated Department of Education that will give specific information for compliance for the Year 2000 and all school districts may attend that. A form was available to be completed at this meeting. Ms. Peterson suggested that the Year 2000 compliance report from the school district would be suitable in the evaluation part of the State Technology Plan. The Commission directed NDE staff to send a letter to all school districts indicating that a report will be needed for Year 2000 compliance and this report will be due sometime between January 1 and March.

    A motion was made by Dr. Jane Nichols to approve the task list for the Commission on Educational Technology for FY99. Mr. Denis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

11. REVIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION’S

    PROPOSAL TOMOVE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT FOR THE

    COMMISSION ON EDUCATION TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL

    BUREAU:

    Ms. Peterson stated that the Legislative Committee on Education rdwill be meeting on November 23, 1998. One of the recommendations that

    action could be taken on at this meeting would be the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) would provide administrative services for the Council of Academic Standards and the Commission on Educational Technology. The current law states that NDE has that responsibility. Nevada State Board of Education and NDE have gone on record to say that the administration support should remain at the NDE. The major reason is that the work that the Commission does and the work that the Council does directly impacts and gives direction to NDE. If the support stays at the NDE it will cement the communication and the link between both the Commission and the Council. The positions have been filled for this

     Commission on Educational Technology minutes: November 12, 1998

     Page 9

    Commission and it is running smoothly. The NDE will make every effort to improve the quality and quantity of the administrative support. Mr. Siegfried voiced his support for the Commission to stay at the NDE. The relationship between Mary Peterson, her staff and the school districts has been cast in stone for a long time and Mr. Siegfried sees no value in complicating that, because of politics.

12. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF SCHOOL DISTRICT

    SITE VISIT PLAN:

    Mr. Gray stated that it was a very gratifying experience to visit a school district. It gives a greater understanding of what the problems are with technology in the school districts. Mr. Gray invited Nye County School District to come to Clark County School District for teacher training in technology. He provided them with a schedule for the training. When Commissioners make their visits to the sites they need to be coordinated through Ms. Huss.

    Dr. Nichols made a motion to approve the site visit plan for the Commissioners. Mr. Siegfried seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

13. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ON LEGISLATIVE REPORT

    FORMAT AND CONTENT:

    Pursuant to SB-482, the NDE is required to bring a report to the Commission. Then the Commission will bring the report to the Governor and stLCB. This report is due February 1, 1999. The report will be based on the five

    goals that the Commission approved at a previous Commission meeting. The report format will be provided to the school districts, the State Library, C.O. Bastian School and Independence High School.

    Mr. Kinnaird suggested appointing a subcommittee to provide information to the Legislative Session of 1999 to continue funding for the school districts for technology projects. He appointed Mr. Dugger, Mr. Denis and himself to be on this subcommittee. Ms. Peterson suggested that this subcommittee also review the budget priorities and make recommendations to the full Commission.

     Commission on Educational Technology minutes: November 12, 1998

     Page 10

    The two subcommittees that were appointed and subcommittee members are:

    The Networking Subcommittee members are: Mr. Denis; Mr.

    Shawn Franklin; Ms. Lockard; Mr. Dick Bellistegi from the UCCSN; Mr. John Croslin from the Consortium; Bruce Daley from Clark County School District; Mr. Steve Welch from the The Office of the Attorney General; a representative from PBS; and a representative from NDE. The purpose of this subcommittee is to revise the CET plan regarding networking, short-term upgrades, RFP for home access, governance and Internet filtering.

    The Legislative Subcommittee members are Mr. Dugger, Mr.

    Kinnaird, and Moises Denis. Ms. Marcia Bandera will be asked to join this Subcommittee. The purpose of the Subcommittee is to develop budget priorities and develop legislative strategies.

14. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF THE EVALUATION

    PROCESS OF TECHNOLOGY IN NEVADA SCHOOLS:

    Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. Gray and Ms. Leslie Doukas have had many meetings to develop an evaluation process. Ms. Huss did research to see what other states are doing to evaluate technology. From the research that Ms. Huss did, recommendations from Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. Gray, Ms. Doukas and the school districts, she was able to develop a complete evaluation plan, which does not just look at Terra Nova scores. This plan is included in the State Technology plan. Teachers need evaluation in integrating technology and student evaluation should be how technology is being used in the content areas. Ms. Huss stated that what is needed is a complete evaluation process that looks at students, teachers, infrastructure and student achievement. Dr. Nichols commended Ms. Huss on the work she had done and the language is good, but it does not reflect the standards that have driven the CET. Dr. Nichols would like to see more language to indicate that the progress the CET is looking at in terms of learning. The goals should be set in terms of accountability that will track along with the standards based movement in Nevada.

    Senator O’Donnell made a motion to approve the Evaluation

    Process as outlined with the addition of language linking the process to the K-12 standards. Mr. Denis seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously.

Report this document

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