School Technology Commission (STC)
Meeting Notes
December 16, 2009
Attending:
Bill Harrison (BH)
June Atkinson (JA)
Sen. Josh Stein (JS)
Rep. Joe Tolson (JT)
Rep. Earl Jones (EJ)
Dr. Bill Randall (BR; Rep for Dr. Saundra Williams who arrived later)
Reid Parrot (RP) (not present)
Jerry Fralick (JF)
Derek McCoy (DM)
Julie LaChance (JL)
Neill Kimrey (NK)
Meeting called to order at 9:12 a.m. by Dr. Harrison, Chair.
Dr. Atkinson provided greetings, and commission members introduced themselves.
Director Neill Kimrey asked DPI and Instructional Technology staff to introduce
themselves.
Neill Kimrey shared his PPT presentation.
JF: asked if staffing for the plan is the same as the advisory committee. A separate
committee will staff the plan and craft its creation with advice from the STC.
JT: would be a good idea to allow CIO and/or staff to be involved somehow in reviewing
or being aware of the plans.
NK: we can continue to make the plans available for input from the CIO – will be put in
place.
Discussion prompts:
How can the STC guide this process?
What does the STC envision for the format of the plan?
BR: they have developed a set of business requirements for instructional tech in the CC
system. It is an example of how a statewide K-12 set of resources could be implemented.
They allude to the fact that they have money that funds tech industry and therefore should
be driving directives for vendors.
• All technology should be scalable, standards based, and available through a
consortium contract or an open-source mode.
• Another goal is integrated functionality for vertical structure of resources
(not provided by a vendor), but created by state for alignment. Goal is menu
of services that the state owns or buys inexpensively. At micro level,
everything works for the instructors and students (standards based).
• Everything should be based on assessment.
•
•
Goal should be K-20 solution. Otherwise, CC will pay much more than
necessary to negotiate contracts.
Would like to see e-Learning Commission recommendations incorporated.
JA: How much time would it take to bring the commission up-to-date on these business
requirements?
NK: work with chair to put update on the agenda of upcoming meeting.
JS: is the plan unique to CC? Does UNC co-operate with CC on requirements?
BR: developed in concert with eLearning Commission; collaborating with UNC to some
extent such as connectivity effort, e.g. Moodle initiative (contract with MCNC and UNC
that also involves CC)
BT: any discussion with private colleges for interest in joining?
BR: yes, did involve representative from Duke and other independent colleges; 4
committees looking at important components of tech infrastructure.
BT: happy that we have a technology teacher representative on this commission. He
asked Julie to bring teacher needs to the group, also what the students need.
JA: she mentioned a student who is interested in being part of the commission.
BH: have Dr. Randall present for 15 minutes at next meeting, also someone from UNCGA, and a student to join.
JT: we need to show that we value their opinions. There are bright student minds that we
need to consider. We need to hear from teachers and students so that decisions are
related to what will enhance the work of teachers.
JL: I have several and tech facilitators I can talk with and totally agree with student
representation. It would be awesome to have a student from every region for group
consensus.
JF: Re: student involvement – consider a project engaging the universities with an “An
American Idol of Technology”. Provide a problem from a university and students would
post potential solutions on a blog. Provide a cash prize. Great incentive to engage
universities and community colleges.
JA: ASU did something similar.
JT: Build a free-way with universities, CCs, public schools – all come up with ideas.
JF: Re: format of plan – get a baseline tech wise within state government – some agencies
better equipped than others with equipment. Has anyone baselined all K-12 schools with
tech? We may be proposing technology that some LEAs can not reach. I am having a
hard time seeing the inventory in state government where agencies are with technology –
probably the same for schools.
May need a methodology for this baseline and getting schools to a level playing field.
JT: that would be great for legislature to determine funding. He volunteered to help
develop such a plan. What do we need to help the rural parts of the state?
JF: we are in collaborative mode on cloud computing for public sector with hybrid for
offering services. Trying to free up staff to put forward needed concepts.
JA: it would be helpful to hear about connectivity – status report, what schools are doing
to use tech, federal grant impact, project impact. This would give a better base and
framework of knowledge.
DM: Montgomery superintendent has provided directives that have enabled more
technology access and resources etc. than other LEAs. NC has done a good job defining
the 21st c student. Would like tech plan to develop some descriptors and PD for teachers
– how should it be delivered, evaluating the training, how to put it together best for
students. Re: Facebook, if we put activity out in this venue we would get dynamic
feedback from students. Teachers need to be trained on how to use tech resources
effectively. Will PD be part of our tech plan? Re: K-20 alignment – that is awesome.
We always ask if teachers know what they need when they come out of higher education.
We need alignment to 21st century teaching and learning skills. It is not just hardware
training; it is an awareness that is needed.
JL: PD – she notices at conferences, etc. that PD is a big concern, support from tech
facilitators.
DM: administrators must be confident and modeling with tech or teachers will not “dive
deep” and students will not get what they need.
JT: key to 1:1 so far has been training for teachers; anything we do with tech must
include in-service because it is the key. We need to buy tech that will be used. I will
support funding that provides in-service.
BH: there is considerable variation from one LEA to another – next meeting we need to
share a baseline for every LEA and also share a couple exemplars, I-S, Cabarrus, Onslow,
etc. PD has to be a component. Tech used to be part of teacher renewal cycle. We can
emphasize it that PD is a strong component – preceding any tech implementation.
EJ: we should carve local niche for low-performing schools; a special focus on their
needs and challenges.
JT: plan that legislature needs is what are the priorities, what do we fund first? E.g.
funding of connectivity – what do we need to do next? We need to look at lowperforming schools – they may need to provide something special for them. What can we
fund that will bring quick results? We have greatest opportunity right now with stimulus
funding to provide broadband – every student needs a computer to take home to take
advantage of the access. We all need to work together to provide tech for K-20.
JA: Also focus in upcoming meetings on federal focus and best practices in some of the
LEAs.
JL: we are dealing with security issues, e.g. using Facebook – there are many factors that
prevent us from using this type of resource, esp with students under 13. We need to
know from state and national level, what schools can and can not do. She gave example
of getting ready to implement Google applications but doing considerable research being
done with students under 13 and sharing.
JT: does the attorney general’s office have someone who could help with this effort –
pull this information together and share statewide?
BR: every CC will be making decisions and his role is to help these schools identify these
decision points, needs, and how they can be helped.
JT: can we develop a request list of information needed from every school system and
share across the state?
JA: could be done with survey of superintendents and principals.
JF: please send this info to him as well. We have some guidelines on certain things that
could be shared.
JT: As much as we can coordinate it will be helpful.
JA: we could work with Julie and share with Jerry Fralick and Bill Randall.
EJ: what assessments are needed to focus on this issue for low-performing schools?
JA: DPI has District and School Transformation Section does a needs assessment for
low-performing schools. It includes tech needs.
EJ: This info needs to be put together as a starting place, guide recommendations from
this group.
JA: you are talking about tech needs and uses in low-performing schools? (YES)
Neill Kimrey:
These needs and recommendations will be reviewed by staff for action.
BH: five major issues
• CC talk about process for management
• Determining our baseline in all LEAs and where are the exemplars to
determine where to go next? Go to GA for funding?
• Look at low-performing schools – where are the tech gaps and what support
is needed.
• PD – make sure it precedes any purchases/implementation
• Policy issues – what can the STC and SBE help to provide direction for
LEAs.
BR: has been brainstorming with Brian Setzer (NCVPA) to determine visual picture of
where we want to go. They have struggled how to point all efforts – in any course, there
is a line in the interface between teacher and student.
• Roll out of everything (including technology) must be rolled out within the
context of that course content. That interface is the point where everything has to
happen – feedback has to come back from assessment for improvement (feedback
loop).
• We could focus all of those resources on the low-performing schools directly,
with goal of talented students in these schools be able to program in computer
languages for gaming, 3-D worlds, etc.
DM: We also can promote virtual learning, not just NCVPS. Make it a focus to broaden
access to middle and elementary schools. This commission could make this push.
Neill Kimrey: used PPT to review operating and staffing the DPI internal committee.
They will begin working in January on a plan to bring to the STC at the next meeting.
We will utilize some online tools to get info to the STC.
Dr. Williams: how will determination be made for identifying staff?
NK: have already met with DPI management to identify needed representatives. We are
modeling the way it should work in the LEAs. It is a weakness of tech planning that
often one person does the major writing. We will work the LEAs and with some students
on the plan.
Progress report due to JLEOC in Feb. 2010 (see key points in PPT). There is a very early
draft in place but input of STC is critical in moving forward with state tech plan; will be
posted online for STC members to provide input.
JL: public input as well?
NK: private initially and external feedback later,
JS: is current plan 10 or 100 page document? How valid is current plan?
NK: about 60 pages, divided into sections of current status (not as granular as baseline),
and steps to move forward.
JT: we need to look at current plan and what is valid that needs to be kept and built on. I
would review last plan for legislature and then how to build on it, including the 5
priorities identified by Dr. Harrison (see above).
JS: have we been able to check off any goals from current plan; what remains to be done
should be evaluated as potential priorities?
NK: we can add where we have been, what we have done, what we will do.
JT: make the report as brief as possible.
NK: we want to make sure the report is seen.
JL: how is the report shared with the LEAs and used by LEAs to write their own plans.
NK: state tech plan is the guide for LEA plans. It is shared with LEA tech directors.
JA: when we do the needs survey we need to include tech directors as well.
JF: I need to find out where the plan has fit into the state CIO’s plan he delivers to GA. I
need to make sure where the current K-12 plan is included in the state CIO plan – I will
research it and report back at next meeting.
JA: we can meet in more detail about this, including Neill K.
Proposed Timeline: see PPT
New plan to SBE for discussion Dec. 2010, to JLEOC in Feb. 2011.
Discussion Qs: are two meetings this year enough to thoroughly cover the state tech plan?
JT: as long it is between sessions I think we need to meet more often - this is critical for
where education is going in the next 10-15 years.
EJ: meet more often between now and May.
JF: proposed monthly (or bi-monthly) with virtual access to supplement.
JA: consensus to meet monthly.
JT: coordinate with legislative calendars; avoid Tuesdays.
JAL: Wednesdays was suggested – morning.
Future Correspondence: (see PPT); paperless goal
Chart in packet with contact information for members.
Also check boxes for mode of communication – asked members to check whatever they
prefer.
Check on whether they will bring own computers or use DPI eqt.
Please provide contact info for your scheduler.
JA: Any other items/discussion?
Announcements:
Dr. Harrison is working on determining on a chair for the future. NK will work with the
chair on upcoming agendas.
June Atkinson made closing comments and stated that we will provide members with the
link to current tech plan, business requirements and exemplars, plan next meetings,
provide brief report on tech use in low and high-performing schools.
JT: is 2 hours enough the next time?
JA: let’s have it from 9:00-12:00 or 9:00 – 1:00 with lunch break.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:37 a.m.
Notes recorded by Gerry Solomon gsolomon@dpi.state.nc.us
Next Meeting: Jan. 27, 2010