Technology Readiness in Michigan

Transcription

1 Technology Readiness in Michigan Slide 1

2 FY : $50,000, for technology infrastructure grants to districts or to intermediate districts on behalf of their constituent districts. Funds received under this section shall be used for access to a computer adaptive test or for the development or improvement of a district s technology infrastructure, including, but not limited to, hardware and software, in preparation for the planned implementation in of online growth assessments. $45 million in FY the shared services consolidation of technology and data added to the requirements used for access to a computer adaptive test was removed. Slide 2

3 25 $2 million each OR 726 participants 56 ISDs (100%) 530 Districts (96.5%)* 139 Charter Schools (50%)* 1 EAA *second application window open. Slide 3

4 Statewide interconnected network to support reliable unencumbered access to online assessments Establish collective purchasing contracts for learning devices and online content Leverage regional networks to facilitate consolidation and increase the level of network based services available to all regions Build capacity to assist educators in planning and implementing the best practices and technology required to support the next generation of assessment, teaching, and learning Slide 4

5 Funds to Local Districts and Consortia $15,905,400 Categories One, Two, and Four Funds to Activities $18,094,600 Category Three Funds to Connectivity $16,000,000 Category Five Total $50,000,000 Slide 5

6 Category Two: Consortium Leadership Consortia Map Greater Michigan Educational Consortium (Genesee ISD) Intra Michigan Technology Readiness Leadership Consortium (Wexford Missaukee ISD) Kent ISD Consortium (Kent ISD) Rural Northern Michigan Consortium (Copper Country ISD) Southwest Michigan Consortium (Kalamazoo RESA) Slide 6

7 Building a Framework for Collaboration in Michigan 1. Intranet Backbone 2. E rate Eligible State Master Contracts (SMCs) 3. E rate Statewide Consortium Slide 7

8 1. Internet Backbone Statewide network backbone providing access to voice, video and data services and the public Internet to all participating educational entities Slide 8

9 2. E rate Eligible State Master Contracts (SMCs) To provide least cost pricing regionally and statewide for all necessary services and electronics for participating educational applicants Slide 9

10 3. E rate Statewide Consortium The E rate statewide consortium will bid for E rate services needed statewide and in each region evaluating these services in the context of state, local and E rate applicable bid regulations. Slide 10

11 Connectivity State Education Network (SEN) Design SEN Build Collaborative Services Data Systems Integration Device Purchasing E Rate Professional Learning Operations Office MI Technology Readiness Assessment Tool (MTRAx) Classroom Readiness Assessment and Curriculum Slide 11

12 Collaborative Services: E Rate Intra Michigan Technology Readiness Leadership Consortium Wexford Missaukee ISD Awardee Project Manager: Bill Thompson Slide 12

13 Outcomes Design and implement a statewide bid for Internet connectivity Establish training for school staff and consultants that oversee the USF process will be ongoing and will integrate the statewide bid process Slide 13

14 Outcomes Develop state master contracts that districts can leverage to drive down their cost of Wide Area Network (WAN) connectivity Successful implementation and utilization should ensure that every school has enough Internet bandwidth to take high stakes online assessments Slide 14

15 Benefits to the Local Districts Drive costs down as low as possible Simplify E rate filing Make sure all legal assurances are met Maximize E rate to the most benefit Slide 15

16 Connectivity: State Education Network Design Greater Michigan Educational Consortium Genesee ISD Awardee Project Manager: Dave Childs Slide 16

17 Outcomes Clearly defined K 12 infrastructure assets Data center collaboration and improved/efficient administrative mechanisms for network integration and fiber sharing Slide 17

18 Outcomes Reduced fixed and support costs of network infrastructure Set stage for collaboration with local municipal entities (network services/sharing) Slide 18

19 Benefits to the Local Districts Improved ability to respond quickly (virtual data centers/shared infrastructure) to changes in K 12 environment (competitive/regulatory/instruction) Cost containment (economies of scale/specialization) in the face of growing demands for bandwidth and networks that make educational content sharing easier, mobile, and targeted Districts can be more responsive to parent/student demands Slide 19

20 Awarded to the five Consortia. Interconnect all existing ISD WANs and district LANs into a statewide intranet backbone. $16M

21 More reliable networks Keeping up with the demand for bandwidth Reliable platforms on which to share data center services. The more connections a network makes the more valuable (useful) it becomes. Slide 21

22 First Inventory (Mapping) We need to know what we have We need to be able to show what we re doing (and have done!). Critical tool for managing the assets in the long term. Slide 22

23 Slide 23

24 Second Design What do we mean by connected Third The business model: how do we sustain the network? Slide 24

25 Slide 25

26 Slide 26

27 October 24, 2013 Slide 27

28 Slide 28

29 Slide 29

30 Wish list (K12, MDE, DTMB) Overhead Fiber Cable Underground fiber cable Digital loop carrier Digital cross connect Fiber interconnect Mux Optical repeater Patch panel Splitter Wireless layer Tower layer Copper layer Leased circuit layer Internal building/land layer Server layer Data center layer MTRAX layer Slide 30

31 Avoid duplication Establish a site for publishing our build plans and connection needs. Under development no firm plans on how this will work yet. Include vendors on a list serve? Clearly map what we already have in place. Slide 31

32 Sharing make ready costs or conduit for common routes. Maintenance and repair on common routes. Do we have existing routes that you can leverage to reach your customers? Learn more about these from our mapping effort. How do we keep providers informed as we plan routes, build and enter into leases? Slide 32

33 Slide 33

34 10/29/ /5/ /12/ /19/ /26/ /3/ /10/ /17/ /24/ /31/2013 1/7/2014 1/14/2014 1/21/2014 1/28/2014 2/4/2014 2/11/2014 2/18/2014 2/25/2014 3/4/2014 3/11/2014 3/18/2014 3/25/2014 4/1/2014 4/8/2014 4/15/2014 4/22/2014 4/29/2014 5/6/2014 5/13/2014 5/20/2014 5/27/2014 6/3/2014 6/10/2014 6/17/2014 6/24/2014 7/1/2014 Testin g COMPLETE MAPPING MAP DATA CENTERS GAP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN BUILD Slide 34

35 Feedback Comments Questions or to submit questions. Slide 35

36 W2site Slide 36

37 General Information Tim Hall Technology Readiness Infrastructure Grant Project Director Questions Bruce Umpstead Michigan Educational Technology Director Slide 37