Minutes+from+May+26,+2009

A meeting of the Technology Committee was held at 6:00 p.m. on May 26, 2009, in the high school library. Hugh Torbert, Technology Coordinator, chaired the meeting. Those in attendance were: Angie McWilliams, Hugh Torbert, Chris Cobb, Dominic Papa, Jeff Fenstermacher, Sue Kanigsberg, Patti Myers, Malinda Diehl, Marie Hersh, John Marc Murphy, Judy McIlvaine, Deb Wirth, Dave Nelson, Chris Kennedy

= Introductions (Hugh Torbert)  =
 * Purpose of meeting is to go over the technology plan as it currently appears in the documents
 * Hopefully will vote on tech plan

= Tech Plan Review  = Mission: Cannot add technology vision. System only allows for a district mission which is linked to all other plans; can save as a Word document and then add a specific technology mission at the conclusion of the overall district plan.

It was noted by Dr. Kanigsberg that staffing does not appear in the technology plan. It was suggested that the plan include the need for a “data steward” and an additional technology employee. Currently, the technology department has been short one person since December of 2008. These two positions will be added into the proposed plan.

= Tech Plan breakdown per year  =

Plan One--Years 2010-2011
The links to the individual plans may display yellow highlights and cross outs. These are corrections/updates that will be implemented. Discussion on various parts of the plan are as follows:

View Plan One with recommended revisions:
 * Recommendation that new laptops have webcams and Bluetooth. This will become a standard for all new staff laptops.
 * Item 6: Foreign Languages
 * How will new foreign languages be presented. It appears that new videoconference equipment is not in the plan until Year 2 (2011-2012)
 * Most likely new foreign languages will be offered through blendedschools.com.
 * Item 2: Laptops
 * Several questions raised
 * What is status of labs at elementary? Intent is not to do away with labs
 * What is status of high school, particularly teacher stations? Intent is to keep teacher stations as long as possible.
 * Why is the high school not listed in Plan One for any replacements? Dom Papa and HT will look at K-6 laps and do a costing; look at teacher stations 7-12 and update years 1, 2, and 3.
 * K-2 teachers at Leib do not want to eliminate labs since they feel more time would be taken up with laptops and getting students “ready” to use them, whereas a permanent lab setting is more time effective
 * Elementary labs and teacher stations at the intermediate and high schools have been out of warranty for several years.
 * Item 4: Compass/ILS Replacement
 * Dr. Kanigsberg indicated additional money should be budgeted
 * Discussion was held on the effectiveness of Study Island and whether studies have been done to assess the effectiveness. Dr. Kanigsberg provided an overview of Study Island, its purpose, and how it ties in with lessons and the curriculum
 * This is first year for Study Island in Grades 5-6. Students are putting in many hours at home for reinforcement
 * Study Island is curriculum related
 * What are current “user” schools saying about the effectiveness of Study Island
 * How widely is Study Island being used?
 * Concern was raised about students not having Internet access, or high speed connection, at home
 * Currently lessons are not required at home via the Internet for Study Island
 * Paper documents are available for reinforcement
 * Item 5: Keyboarding
 * Who will be teaching keyboarding in the future?
 * Will be discussed over next several months
 * Peripherals
 * Peripherals should follow the core team
 * One set per building each year to follow the core team
 * Will study the high school during 09-10 with the ActivExpressions
 * Question was raised on when the Interactive Whiteboards will get mounted
 * Those that are in cohorts should get mounted

Plan 2: Years 2011-2012
View Plan Two with recommended revisions: Item 9: Teacher Web Pages Mr. Fenstermacher indicated the district needs to do a better job of communicating with public and inform the community of the many things the district does technologywise (i.e. what is an IWB and how is it used in the curriculum?) An in-depth discussion was held on our current “not-so-user friendly” web site. Hugh explained why we are using Edline, cost effectiveness.
 * A suggestion was made to conduct a survey to determine if parents are using the teacher pages

Plan 3: Years 2012-2013
View Plan Three with recommended revisions: Item 4: Implement technology competencies
 * Hugh to rework for clarity

Comments Data warehousing not listed on any of the three plans 2010 should say continuation of data warehousing, i.e., Performance Pathways 2011-12 expansion of special ed module

Hugh Torbert will make necessary changes and email corrections of plan to committee

Adjournment: 8:05