RINET BOD Meeting

RINET BOD Meeting

November 1, 2002

Minutes

Attendees: Bill Fiske, Cathy Sperdutti, Sheila Carlson, JimMonti, Peter Adamy, Jonathan, Mike, Jim Halley, Joe Caparco

Review and approval of minutes from October 4, 2002 meeting - approved

New Business

Proposed FY04 Direct Access Price Schedule –

Bill Fiske recused himself from the vote.

The Proposed FY04 Direct Access Price Schedule was Approved.

Unfinished Business

Discussion

Upcoming proposal for Administrative System Support

Jim Halley, Sharon, and Lee described the progress of the Comprehensive Statewide Data System initiated by the Superintendents’ Leadership Council’s (SLC) and the proposal for RINET to act as the application service provider for the districts. RINET has been asked to participate in a presentation to the superintendents on November 13 and to respond to a request for a business plan from Hewlett Packard to complement the grant proposal made by the SLC and RIDE. If the grant is awarded, RINET will receive $1.2M to fund the start up.

The major goal of the presentation on the 13^th is to describe in detail the 2 projects that involve commitment of district resources to RINET: In addition, the attendees will hear about 3 future projects which will tie together ongoing curriculum and standards projects under development by RIDE and the districts:

1. Build a Data Warehouse (OLAP with ETL)

§ Steps, Benefits, Requirements, Costs

2. Integrate District SIS Data

§ Steps, Benefits, Requirements, Costs

3. Develop Web Based Resource

4. Provide on-going Integration of Assessment Tools and Results

5. Integrate Financial and Geographical Information System (GIS) Data

The following are the issues members raised during the meeting

§ How much interest is there among the districts?

At least 22 districts are interested now in participation

§ Why will districts feel that this is not a RIDE responsibility?

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is forcing districts to provide finer levels of detail in regards to reporting back on performance and meeting standards.

The Superintendents are more and more seeing RIDE as a non-player.

There is concern about that, because there are necessary things that RIDE brings to the table. How do the districts get the things that need to be done, if RIDE is not going to do them?

The political commitment to the collection of this type of information is waning – there isn’t long-term guarantee to the funding from the State

· Will there be a return on investment if the districts invest in this?

Immediate and most important result will be state data and the implication for continuous improvement in instructional pedagogy:

Curriculum customization down to the student level is a projected benefit.
Inclusion of off-grade testing and customized teacher evaluations
Cost analysis showing district cost implies there will be big savings by the districts if they choose to participate in a statewide data system.
Collaborative responsibility includes the development rubrics by teachers and the enhancement of teaching as a profession

· How does this coexist with InfoWorks? SALT?

InfoWorks is static, OLAP is dynamic. SALT is an extension of accreditation and is valuable, but relates more to the curriculum and practice of teaching, using research to assume student performance, and OLAP will support that research. SIS is not Felner’s issue, but the data management and analysis is.

· What will the RINET Board want to see when a proposal to take this project on as a business is brought forward for approval?

· Who are the naysayers in the State?

When it was a strictly K-12 initiative, it wasn’t as critical an issue. RINET’s participation puts its reputation as a collaborator on the line if the appropriate folks aren’t included in discussion during the planning phase.

o Who are the other folks who have a stake in this already?

Joe P., the SLC, RIDE, CELT and other state agencies have driven this project, but Joe P.’s involvement leaves the misperception that RINET is the driving force here. There is also on inter-state consortium involving Vermont, Maine, NH.

.E-rate workshop planning

E- rate workshop and advanced networking symposium will be on November 15 at the Radisson. Will follow last year’s agenda fairly closely. In terms of Y6 for the E-rate, there are no new rules, mostly a need to stress importance of new deadlines.

Topics to include in the advanced networking symposium:

Bandwidth requirements and video usage

Internal infrastructures and switched networks

Model districts

Similar to last year

Issues with firewalls and pix’s

Q&A

District points of view

T3 and facilities complications

Progress

Process with Verizon, process with RINET

Joe Pangborn's career move

Joe describe the contributions that Joe P has made to RINET’s networking and technical activities and the expectation that we will be able to cover them with assistance from the URI staff at CCE, a new part-time hire, Joe’s own expertise and experience, and Joe P’s informal participation.

Bill introduced the concept of inviting formal participation on a continuous basis:

Quid pro quo with RWU

Why wouldn’t we consider RWU having a Board seat?

Governance Committee should consider

Formally invite him to participate in Technical Group

Look at how to expand relationship with Higher Education.

Important to complete Strategic Plan before Governance Committee formally proposes changes to the structure of Board membership.

Get updates to Strategic Plan to Sharon via email for inclusion to hasten this process.

Meeting adjourned at 11:30