Tim Hall, Michigan Association of School

www.22itrig.org
Technology Readiness in Michigan
October 24, 2013
Slide 1

FY2012‐13: $50,000,000.00 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 2014‐2015 of online growth assessments.
 $45 million in FY2012‐13 … “the shared services consolidation of technology and data” added to the requirements
… “used for access to a computer‐adaptive test” was removed.
October 24, 2013
Slide 2
•
25 grants @ $2 million each
OR
726 participants
56 ISDs (100%)
530 Districts (96.5%)*
• 139 Charter Schools (50%)*
• 1 EAA
•
•
*second application window open.
October 24, 2013
Slide 3
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
October 24, 2013
Slide 4
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
October 24, 2013
Slide 5
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)
www.22itrig.org
October 24, 2013
Slide 6
Building a Framework for Collaboration in Michigan
1. Intranet Backbone
2. E‐rate Eligible State Master Contracts (SMCs)
3. E‐rate Statewide Consortium
October 24, 2013
Slide 7
1.

Internet Backbone
Statewide network backbone providing access to voice, video and data services and the public Internet to all participating educational entities
October 24, 2013
Slide 8
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
2.
October 24, 2013
Slide 9
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.
October 24, 2013
Slide 10
Connectivity
State Education Network (SEN) Design
SEN Build
Collaborative Services
Professional Learning
Device Purchasing Operations Office
MI Technology Readiness Assessment Tool (MTRAx)
E‐Rate Classroom Readiness
Data Systems Integration
Assessment and Curriculum
October 24, 2013
Slide 11
Collaborative Services:
E‐Rate
Intra‐Michigan Technology Readiness Leadership Consortium
Wexford‐Missaukee ISD Awardee
Project Manager: Bill Thompson
October 24, 2013
Slide 12
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
October 24, 2013
Slide 13
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
October 24, 2013
Slide 14
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
October 24, 2013
Slide 15
Connectivity:
State Education Network Design
Greater Michigan Educational Consortium
Genesee ISD Awardee
Project Manager: Dave Childs
October 24, 2013
Slide 16
Outcomes Clearly defined K‐12 infrastructure assets
Data center collaboration and improved/efficient administrative mechanisms for network integration and fiber sharing
October 24, 2013
Slide 17
Outcomes Reduced fixed and support costs of network infrastructure
Set stage for collaboration with local municipal entities (network services/sharing)
October 24, 2013
Slide 18
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
October 24, 2013
Slide 19

Awarded to the five Consortia.

Interconnect all existing ISD WANs and district LANs into a statewide intranet backbone.

$16M
 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.
October 24, 2013
Slide 21

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.
October 24, 2013
Slide 22
October 24, 2013
Slide 23

Second – Design
 What do we mean by “connected”

October 24, 2013
Third‐ The business model: how do we sustain the network?
Slide 24
October 24, 2013
Slide 25
October 24, 2013
Slide 26
October 24, 2013
Slide 27
October 24, 2013
Slide 28
October 24, 2013
Slide 29

Wish list (K12, MDE, DTMB)

















October 24, 2013
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

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?

October 24, 2013
Clearly map what we already have in place.
Slide 31
 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?
October 24, 2013
Slide 32
October 24, 2013
Slide 33
Testin
g
COMPLETE MAPPING MAP DATA CENTERS
GAP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
BUILD
October 24, 2013
Slide 34
10/29/2013
11/5/2013
11/12/2013
11/19/2013
11/26/2013
12/3/2013
12/10/2013
12/17/2013
12/24/2013
12/31/2013
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
October 24, 2013



Feedback
Comments
Questions


dchilds@giresd.net or
www.22itrig.org to submit questions.
Slide 35
W2site
www.22itrig.org
October 24, 2013
Slide 36
General Information
• Tim Hall • Technology Readiness Infrastructure Grant Project Director
• thall@gomasa.org
• Bruce Umpstead
Questions
October 24, 2013
• Michigan Educational Technology Director
• umpsteadb@michigan.gov
Slide 37