Re: State's Responsibilty for Technology Provisioning

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Christine Rademan: "Paperwork Reduction"
• Previous message: Laurie Maak: "Update of Survey Analysis"
• Maybe in reply to: Tom Buckley: "State's Responsibilty for Technology Provisioning"

Tom Buckley wrote:
> 
> This is my first posting, but i have been follwing along since the
> beginning - I have not seen any postings re the role of the state dept of
> ed (SDE) or any other state agency with regard to technology provisioning
> in school systems.
> Here in CT, the SDE has offered infrastructure grants to help schools equip
> their buildings with wiring so they can deploy technology in a planned
> efficient fashion.  One of the requirements is a board approved technology
> plan. 

The State of Oregon has an intense planning process underway which
includes education and all other 'communities of interest'.  In 1994 a
group of concerned citizens began meeting to discuss the disparity
between rural and urban telecommunication access.  We termed it the
'sagebrush and rain forest rebellion'.  Those early grumblings led to a
statewide citizens conference involving over 1000 telecommunications
pioneers and has evolved into the Governor's Telecommunication Forum
Council chaired by Gov. Kitzhaber (who actually does chair the monthly,
day long meetings).

The focus has been on 'communities of interest' and the need to share
resources (bandwidth, technology, training, purchasing power &
opportunity) across the traditional boundaries of education, business,
government, health care and citizens.  This has not been an easy task.
Education has traditionaly enclosed itself within fairly high walls.

One of the driving forces here in Oregon was the realization that the
State was paying for 22 separate computer networks and their associated
dedicated leased lines.  Each system was using only a small percentage
of the leased bandwidth and none of the systems could
cross-communicate.  When we added up the total cost of
telecommunications in the State, it became apparent that changing all
systems to TCP/IP compatibility and pooling circuits would allow us to
afford deploying local connectivity everywhere in the State.  Our
legislature passed SB994 which mandated that conversion.

Habits and tradition die hard.  In spite of that mandate, some people
within the education community have continued to build out their own
education only network, duplicating hardware and bandwidth.  Urban areas
don't see much worth in our arguments, and that's OK.  But small rural
towns suffer.  We have many localities which are extremely remote.  They
are working to bring the first toll free POP into their telephone
exchange.  Some educational agencies are also working to bring
connectivity into rural areas.  The problem occurs when the school
decides to bring in this 'education only' network.  Suddenly there is
the need for two POPS, two data circuits, two of everything, one for the
school and one for the rest of the community.

Turf and boundaries must be dissolved, or at least grayed a little, to
allow the full 'community of interest' to cooperate and pool resources. 
Why should the school pay for the separate network?  Why should public
dollars subsidize only one segment of the community?  In towns where
there has been a spirit of cooperation, we have found there are enough
private citizens, businesses and organizations wanting access to cover
the costs of data circuits, hubs and routers.  The schools gain
connectivity at substantially reduced costs and they are able to develop
greater bandwidth and service.

In summary, I would ask our participants on this list to look out their
window, across the school yard, over the fence and begin to wonder who
else out there in the community is interested in telecommunications and
how could we partner with them to pool resources and improve access and
reduce costs.

For more information on Oregon's developing strategy, check out:
http://www.das.state.or.us/OTF/govrpt.htm

Thank you for listening.
-- 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  In Balance,  Link Shadley                          *
*  LANCE - Ecotrust - Clatsop Community College       *
*  (503) 325-9657  lshadley@orednet.org               *
*  lshadley@seasurf.com                               *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

• Next message: Christine Rademan: "Paperwork Reduction"
• Previous message: Laurie Maak: "Update of Survey Analysis"
• Maybe in reply to: Tom Buckley: "State's Responsibilty for Technology Provisioning"