Connecticut State Educational Technology Goals and Plan 2017 – 2022

State Educational Technology Goals and Plan 2017 – 2022 June 26, 2017 Version 1.0 Page 2 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Contents Introduction..........................................................................................................................................3 Vision and Mission................................................................................................................................3 Goals and Initiatives............................................................................................................................4 Digital Learning ................................................................................................................................5 Open Education Resources........................................................................................................5 Education Innovation Study .......................................................................................................6 Student, Teacher, and Administrator Technology Standards................................................7 Infrastructure.....................................................................................................................................9 eRate Maximization.....................................................................................................................9 Digital Equity ...............................................................................................................................10 Educational Technology Standards and Best Practices.......................................................11 Data and Privacy...........................................................................................................................13 Privacy Compliance..................................................................................................................13 Privacy Best Practices Framework ...........................................................................................14 Advocacy.......................................................................................................................................15 Funding............................................................................................................................................16 Summary Timeline..........................................................................................................................17 About the Commission for Educational Technology....................................................................18 Members.........................................................................................................................................18 Advisory Council Members...........................................................................................................19 Page 3 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Introduction Technology holds great potential and has proven a powerful force in supporting teaching and learning at all levels in Connecticut. Linking schools through high-speed data networks, personalizing and making learning engaging on scale, and leveraging data to inform instruction have all stemmed from, and could not exist without, the effective and creative use of technology. In fact, while educational technology was once seen as a novel “addon,” it has become a constant amid often changing trends, nomenclature, and even pedagogy in education. In most learning environments, technology is becoming less of a separate practice area and more as an element that enables and helps measure every aspect of learning and professional practice. With the evidence and promise of technology to further education in our state, the Commission for Educational Technology has developed the goals and initiatives defined in this plan. They reflect research-based best practices, national and international standards, and the expert guidance of thought leaders from across our state who represent a diversity of constituents. This document includes both broad, long-term goals as well as detailed initiatives already underway. The Commission’s work over time will continue to align with and support the shared goals of our stakeholders while producing deliverables with measurable results in such forms as increased engagement, expanded access to resources, and greater efficiencies. The specific activities of any particular period will vary, but all will support the long-term goals of our state. Vision and Mission The Commission for Educational Technology was established in 2000 by Public Act 00-187 and defined in the Connecticut General Statutes (Section 4d-80) as the principal educational technology policy advisor for state government. The Commission’s stated vision reflects the breadth of its charge and stakeholders: That every educator and learner in Connecticut benefits from the full potential of technology to support opportunities for personalized, impactful teaching, learning, research, and advancement The Commission’s vision for learning in K – 12 schools, universities, libraries, professional organizations, businesses, adult learning centers, and homes across our state defines and guides its mission: Design, steward, and promote policy, programs, insights, and resources that support the effective use of technology for all learners, educators, and educational organizations in Connecticut Page 4 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 This mission takes the form of priorities and initiatives defined in the Commission’s statute and organized around the three core focus areas of Digital Learning, Infrastructure, and Data and Privacy, with supporting activities in the form of Advocacy and Funding: Goals and Initiatives The Commission’s statute, members, and Advisory Council members have defined a set of long-term goals that speak to each of these focus areas in the sections that follow. To support these multi-year goals, the Commission has planned a number of specific initiatives, also detailed below. Each follows a framework with the following elements: • Challenge: The problem we are solving, the audience(s) it impacts, and evidence that quantifies it • Solution: Approaches, participants, and required resources • Outputs: Intended body of work, such as contracts, standards, frameworks, media, plans, programs, publications, research studies, etc. • Measures: Baseline metrics as well as demonstrable benefits and impact, such as engagement, expansion, gains, usage, etc. • Risks: Dependencies and environmental factors that could help or hinder the effort • Tasks and Timing: Detailed list of activities and timing Page 5 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Digital Learning Statewide Digital Learning goals include the support of effective teaching and learning for students of all ages and abilities, across a range of effective environments and instructional frameworks (pedagogies). The work of the Commission and its network of partners will also support best practices in technology-enabled learning by defining and supporting the application of standards for students, teachers, and educational leaders. Translating standards and frameworks into applied practice in the area of digital and media literacy continues to be an ongoing objective. Equity of access remains a common goal across all Commission activities, whether in the form of making high-quality educational materials available to all teachers and students, supporting computer science education, or helping to ensure training for teachers to integrate technology effectively in support of engaging instruction. The Commission also strives to provide educational technology professionals with best practices in policy, governance, and operational efficiencies, with close alignment to national and international platforms such as the U.S. Department of Education’s Future-Ready framework. Open Education Resources Challenge Schools and university students pay a high cost for instructional and learning materials that they often do not leverage to full effect. Teachers, professors, and students need affordable, dynamic, modular, standards-aligned materials of high quality that take advantage of today’s digital learning environments. Solution The Commission and its partners will plan and launch a campaign to support the use of open education resources (OER) to reduce the costs of learning materials without sacrificing quality. This initiative will enlist leaders from K – 12 and higher education as well as libraries for planning, choice of a sharing and collaboration platform, governance, and professional development (see Statute section 33.5.B). Work will leverage the GoOpen framework of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) as well as resources and best practices from higher education. Key participants include the Commission’s Digital Learning Advisory Council, the state’s Open Source Textbook Working Group, members of the OER community in K – 12 and higher education, the ED’s Office of Educational Technology, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA). Outputs This work will include the selection, configuration, and launch of an OER platform to allow districts and colleges to create, publish, curate, share, and control access to digital learning materials (see Statute section C.2.F). The design and support of professional development events and resources will engage educators on the use and application of OER across a host of concerns, including technology, copyright, and effective use. Commission work will also include the pursuit of grant and other funding sources to support OER use in our state across schools, colleges, and libraries. Page 6 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Measures This initiative should produce measurable results for K – 12 school districts in the form of decreased costs in instructional material expenditures, based on data collected through the Common Chart of Accounts. Survey data (baseline and yearly) on teacher adoption and annual district adoption of the GoOpen framework will also reflect progress made on this front. Use of OER by institutions of higher education should result in student materials cost savings across public and private institutions and the increase in favorable attitudes toward and adoption of OER for instruction by higher education faculty. Risks Possible threats to this initiative include state or federal legislation impeding adoption of OER materials and practices. Support for free publishing and collaboration platforms could discontinue because of a shift away from OER use and external funding by educational companies and philanthropic organizations. Finally, lack of adoption by educators or governing bodies (e.g., boards of education or regents) could limit the potential positive impacts of OER. Tasks and Timing Task Timing General Planning Q4 16 – Q2 17 Obtain GoOpen Status Q1 17 Promote OER Framework and Initiatives Q2 – Q4 17 Establish Statewide Repository Q3 17 Engage in National OER Communities Ongoing Design and Deliver Educator Training Ongoing Pursue Grant Funding Ongoing Education Innovation Study Challenge Connecticut K – 12 schools have not systematically leveraged innovative teaching and learning practices that benefit from technology, including personalized and mastery-based pedagogies. In contrast, education systems across the country and in nearby states have established initiatives, policy, funding, and private-public partnerships that support education innovation. The Commission seeks to identify the current climate for adopting and leveraging technologyrich, innovative teaching and learning practices, as well as the factors that vie against changes that would lead to positive student and school outcomes. Solution Through a study funded by the Jacqueline Hume Foundation, the Commission will collaborate with Innovation Partners, an educational consultancy, and the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents (CAPSS) to define barriers to and opportunities for innovation within what we call our state’s educational “ecosystem.” Analysis will concentrate on our district and school leaders, state administrators, and professional organizations as well as laws, standards, educational culture, and collective understanding and attitudes around educational opportunities and effective practices. Page 7 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Outputs The study will identify the human and institutional strengths, weaknesses, and relationships that support or hinder progress in our state’s education system. These findings will position Connecticut to pursue funding and practices that support school-improvement and student achievement models that leverage technology through robust partnerships among schools, nonprofits, state agencies, and the private sector. Measures The initiative will gather and report on input from key stakeholders regarding opportunities for educational innovation in our state, a baseline from which to gauge future progress. The study will also produce a series of recommended solutions to maximize Connecticut’s ability to scale personalized, blended approaches with a focus on speed, quality, efficiency, and sustainability. Another measure of success will come in the form of future investments in Connecticut’s education initiatives, as has taken place in other states that have completed similar studies. Risks Lack of feedback from the school, district, policy, and advocacy group leaders defined above could limit the insights and impact that this study will produce. As valuable as the report may prove to educators in our state, failure to adopt its recommendations will limit positive impacts. Tasks and Timing Task Timing Project Planning and Information Gathering Q4 16 – Q1 17 Interviews with External Partners Q1 17 Draft Assessment for Connecticut Stakeholders Q2 17 Interviews of Connecticut Stakeholders Q2 – Q3 17 Report Write-Up and Recommendations Q3 17 Student, Teacher, and Administrator Technology Standards Challenge The currently published student technology standards date to 2003 and provide little useful guidance to educators looking to support 21st-century teaching. In addition, Connecticut has not recently endorsed or shared any official teacher or administrator technology proficiencies. Educators, district leaders, students, and families require clear, research-based standard frameworks upon which to gauge progress in preparing learners for college and careers. Solution During its September 2016 meeting, the Commission endorsed the standards defined by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) for student technology proficiency. In addition to taking this step, required by our Statute (section 33.2.E), the Commission has contributed to the redesign of the teacher standards through direct interactions with the ISTE standards team and by garnering input through presentations statewide among teachers and district leaders. These efforts will continue as ISTE updates the administrator standards beginning in the fall of 2017. Feedback from Commission and Advisory Council members points to the need for awareness and training for teachers and school leaders, and so the Executive Director will continue to advocate for the development of professional development resources through the Page 8 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Commission’s network of partners. These organizations include the Connecticut Educators Computer Association (CECA), our state’s ISTE chapter; the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) and its state chapter, Connecticut Educational Technology Leaders (CTETL); the CAPSS Technology Committee, and others. Outputs The Commission will influence the development of, endorse, and work with other state leaders (e.g., State Board of Education) to support updated standard sets. In addition to the publication and promotion of proficiency frameworks — with clear definitions of and supports in teaching technology proficiency and digital literacy skills for all learners — outputs will include curated collections of professional development resources such as open, digital guides and instructional videos for teachers and school leaders on integrating the new standards into lessons and assessments. Commission leadership will also work with state, regional, and national organizations to infuse the new frameworks into other standard sets for efficiencies and alignment. Goals will include integration with rubrics from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, the Connecticut State Department of Education, and other organizations to ensure fidelity of practice across standard sets. Measures The Commission will design and gather input through a statewide survey of schools to gauge baseline and increased adoption of the ISTE standards over time, as well as barriers to adoption. Other progress indicators include download of standards and the development and use of educator professional development materials that support technology integration. Risks Establishing clear standards for students, educators, and school leaders would have minimal impact if district leaders do not support and infuse them into teaching and learning. Dependence on other organizations to develop and curate support materials represents another risk to the successful adoption of proficiency standards. Tasks and Timing Task Timing Student Standard Endorsement Q3 16 Teacher Standards Input and Design Q4 16 – Q2 17 Commission Endorsement of Teacher Standards Q4 17 Curation of Educator and Leader PD Supports Q2 17 – Ongoing Administrator Standards Input and Design Q3 17 – Q2 18 Adoption of Administrator Standards Q3 18 Page 9 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Infrastructure As defined in its governing Statute (Sec. 4d-80), the Commission’s ongoing work and longterm goals address connectivity to and within schools. Through its oversight of the Connecticut Education Network (CEN), the Commission will expand upon this work, with efforts underway to connect libraries, universities, municipalities, and other community anchor institutions. Based on CEN member needs assessments, the Commission will work closely with CEN leadership to explore the provision of new services that support educational networking demands statewide. Efforts will continue to eliminate inequalities of access to technology by supporting the provision of broadband outside of school and equipping students with affordable, highquality devices. This work will come in the form of sharing connectivity and infrastructure best practices with educational technology leaders and practitioners. eRate Maximization Challenge The federal Universal Services Fund program, commonly referred to as “eRate,” provides offsets to pay for school and library telecommunications services in all states, including Connecticut. A top-level analysis of funds requested and allocated but never committed (used) by our state’s schools and libraries indicates that these institutions are under-utilizing the program. Solution As defined in the Commission’s statute, Section 35.b, the Commission will work to reduce the administrative burden and maximize the return on investment of the federal eRate program for educational institutions in our state. An analysis of data from the Universal Services Administrative Company (USAC), which oversees eRate, regarding awarded but uncommitted funds will help to identify institutions that have not fully leveraged the program. Input from representatives from of the State Department of Education, USAC, the national State eRate Coordinators Alliance, and individual districts and libraries will help to clarify these potential discrepancies. Outputs The Commission will likely conduct a statewide eRate survey to identify district and library use of the eRate program, which should help identify barriers to utilization. This initiative will result in a report for review by the Commission and other state technology stakeholders to identify areas of potential underuse. The report will also provide recommendations on how Connecticut can best utilize eRate funds and appreciate efficiencies in providing supports to schools and libraries. Measures Fiscal Year 2014 data from USAC indicate a total of more than $6M in uncommitted funds in Connecticut schools. The proposed analysis in this initiative will aim to validate this apparent untapped fund surplus through feedback from districts and libraries, with the intent of identifying potential ongoing cost savings by these institutions. If conducted, a survey will also produce response rates and data on the general understanding and use of the eRate program. Risks As with other initiatives, the work described above depends on identifying and garnering the input of district and library leaders as well as other stakeholders from state and federal agencies. Page 10 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Misrepresenting data reported to USAC could also skew the findings of the report, pointing to the need for careful analysis and validation of source inputs (e.g., districts and libraries). Tasks and Timing Task Timing Initial Research and Analysis Q3 17 Statewide Survey Design and Feedback Q4 17 Survey and USAC Data Review and Reconciliation Q1 18 Findings and Recommendation Report Q2 18 Digital Equity Challenge Despite the preponderance of technology availability and use in Connecticut schools, many students do not have access to broadband outside of the classroom, a challenge referred to as “the Homework Gap.” Our state has invested heavily in technology, and personalized learning can take place anytime, but not if students have limited or no access to the Internet at home. The challenge of digital equity — providing access to high-quality devices, broadband, and the skills to use technology effectively — also applies to adult and lifelong learners, as witnessed by the dependence many people have on the technology and training resources offered by their local libraries. Solution To identify learners in every community who do not have access to technology outside of schools and libraries, the Commission will develop a Digital Equity Toolkit. This initiative stems from research and guidance by Infrastructure Advisory Council members as well as partners such as the Office of Consumer Counsel, Department of Economic and Community Development, and the Connecticut Economic Resource Center (CERC), pointing to the need to equip families and communities with the resources they need to get online. The Commission will also enlist the resources of commercial carriers to identify and rectify the challenge of providing all learners with broadband access outside of school. Outputs In the short term, the Commission will publish and promote a digital Toolkit already in draft form (see https://goo.gl/Miw5BH) that articulates the general need and solutions to getting learners of all ages online. Leveraging a community-based approach, the Toolkit will provide guidance on data collection through schools, libraries, and other anchor institutions to identify resident broadband access needs. As mentioned above, CERC and the team from Project Tomorrow, national leaders in addressing K – 12 equity issues, will assist with the development of surveys that provide state and local-level data around broadband needs and attitudes. In parallel, the Commission has begun design of a statewide WiFi hotspot map, with input by local community leaders, to help learners identify safe locations outside of schools and libraries where they can get online for educational purposes. Page 11 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Measures This initiative will include the collection of quantitative and qualitative outcomes such as Toolkit downloads, survey usage by communities, and increased rates of online access, where possible. Developers of the Toolkit, primarily members of the Infrastructure Advisory Council, will gather input from community leaders on their use of the Toolkit and suggestions for improvement through future versions of the document. Launch and analysis of the state WiFi map’s usage will provide another set of metrics upon which to gauge impact of this work. Risks Historically, district-level broadband surveys have seen low response rates, making measurement of need difficult. Lack of engagement by individuals and families as well as lack of promotion and support by communities around data collection may hamper the impact of this initiative. Ongoing support for the Toolkit content will draw resources from the Advisory Council members; limited input from this group could lead to outdated guidance and resources. Tasks and Timing Task Timing Equity Toolkit Version 1 — Publication and Promotion Q3 17 Identification of “Beta” Communities to Use Toolkit Q3 17 Design of Community-Level Equity Survey Q1 18 Development and Launch of State Hotspot Map Q1 18 Educational Technology Standards and Best Practices Challenge Ensuring the design, development, operation, and governance of a robust technology infrastructure pose challenges to leaders of schools, libraries, and universities. Technology professionals benefit from having clear sets of standards and best practices to help ensure the efficacy and efficiency of their work in service to students and educators. Solution To support the networking (see Statute Section c.2.B) and other technology needs of its constituents, the Commission will curate, publish, and share educational technology standards and best practices. Many research-based standards and frameworks already exist to guide connectivity to and within schools, security, privacy, procurement, and other key facets of planning and supporting technology in educational settings. The Commission will curate and review, with the assistance of CEN staff as well as Advisory Council members and national educational technology leaders, a list of resources to support our state’s schools, libraries, and universities. Page 12 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Outputs This work will result in the creation of a technology Standards and Best Practices section on the Commission’s Web site. Content will provide frameworks, standards, and best practices in core areas of educational technology, including leadership, governance, connectivity, procurement, communications, data management, and privacy. The Executive Director will work closely with CEN and other state and national educational technology organizations to keep content current and promote professional development opportunities. Measures Completion of this work will come in the form of a published Web page or pages on the Commission’s site. On at least a quarterly basis, the Executive Director will measure use of these resources. Other measures of need and usage will come through monitoring of discussion threads on the Commission’s statewide K – 12 listserv, which may drive additional content curation and development on the Commission Web site. Risks The research and publication of standards and best practices will require moderate effort for the first iteration of the Commission Web pages, and keeping the site current through the shifting demands of educational technology could prove challenging. Active participation by the Executive Director in state and national educational technology organizations will help identify those standards and best practices that the Commission should add to, remove, or modify from the posted list of resources. Tasks and Timing Task Timing Research and Vetting of Standards and Best Practices Q3 17 Draft Web Page(s) Q4 17 Content Review and Editing Q4 17 Web Page(s) Publication Q1 18 Content Additions and Changes Ongoing Page 13 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Data and Privacy The availability of digital tools, devices, and access has expanded the ability of educators — and students themselves — to capture, assess, and act upon educational data. The Commission will continue to champion the effective use of instructional and operational data to further learning while helping to ensure the security and privacy of student and educator information and content. This work will include initiatives that support the effective and responsible use of educational data across a number of initiatives. Privacy Compliance Challenge Legislators and privacy advocates designed Connecticut’s first student data privacy law, with provisions that went into effect in October 2016, to ensure the safety and oversight of students’ personal information and content. However, compliance with the law has had a significant indirect and direct cost on school districts and led to confusion and inefficiencies among educational software providers. Statewide survey results point to an estimated 80,000 staff hours spent in compliance efforts this year, and many districts have also invested heavily in out-of-pocket legal fees, with no state or regional supports in place. Solution The Commission will continue efforts to support schools, software developers, and parents around data privacy. A Privacy Registry, now in design, will provide a platform for software providers to review and vouch compliance against current Connecticut student privacy law. District leaders, teachers, and any interested parties (e.g., parents) will be able to search the Registry to identify the compliance status of the thousands of apps, extensions, and other software currently in use in schools across the state. The Commission will also continue working with the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) Procurement team to vet and negotiate privacy terms with major educational software providers doing business in our state. Through outbound communications, presentations, participation on the State Task Force on student data privacy, and other channels, the Executive Director and members of the Data & Privacy Advisory Council will support school leaders, legislators, and educational technology companies. Outputs The body of work in support of this initiative will include a fully functional Privacy Registry that also provides district leaders the ability to review and post information about educational software terms, costs, and efficacy, leading to its more efficient use in schools. A published list of vetted software already resides on the Commission’s Web site, where more titles will appear after their providers ensure compliance with our state’s law. Measures The Executive Director will work closely with Learn Trials, the developers of the Registry platform, to ensure the tracking and reporting of aggregate usage by individuals, district leaders, and software providers. The design phase of the Registry development will help define success measures, with the intent of tracking provider registrations, compliance assurances, and visitor session totals. Impact of this initiative will come in the form of additional compliant software titles, currently staged on the Commission’s Web site until such agreements can move to the live Registry. Page 14 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Risks As with the rollout of any new software solution, defining and containing scope and timing pose risks to the Registry launch. Lack of use by districts and educational technology companies — not likely but possible — would negatively affect its benefit to schools and software providers. Delays in securing feedback from educational software companies for which districts have requested support could also hamper progress in securing their compliance with Connecticut law. Tasks and Timing Task Timing Priority Software Review by DAS Q1 – Q3 17 Privacy Registry Design and Development Q2 – Q3 17 Privacy Registry Promotion (Districts and Companies) Q3 – Q4 17 Student Privacy Task Force Service (Executive Director) Q3 – Ongoing Privacy Best Practices Framework Challenge Compliance with Connecticut’s student data law represents just one aspect of a broader privacy framework that educational institutions should follow. Some school and library leaders may have not identified or developed a mature set of practices to ensure the privacy and security of personal information, data, and content, and districts would benefit from having a consistent set of standards. Solution Identifying and promoting a framework for protecting student and other types of data would benefit Connecticut schools and libraries by helping to identify areas of risk, reducing the research and due diligence costs of having each institution conduct this work independently, and by strengthening relationships between leaders and the community. The Trusted Learning Environment (TLE) framework from CoSN provides a research-based set of standards and practices that address leadership, procurement, data security, training, and instruction in K – 12 environments. The Commission will work with CoSN to promote the use of the framework and encourage districts to attain the TLE seal through a process of internal and external peer review. Participants in TLE training cohorts will also benefit from learning from and sharing resources with each other during and after training and certification activities. Outputs The Executive Director will collaborate with leaders of CTETL to leverage CoSN language and promotional materials to raise awareness of and encourage participation in the TLE program. He will facilitate minimal coordination of schools if significant interest exists to conduct training by CoSN among multiple districts. In addition to leveraging the TLE framework, targeted at K – 12 environments, the Executive Director will curate and share Page 15 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 best practices around privacy and security for other types of educational institutions, such as libraries and adult education centers. Measures Success will come in the form of downloads of the TLE framework and self-assessment, data that CoSN can provide. Regional or statewide engagement in TLE training and certification, if adopted, would also allow the Commission to gauge the level of sophistication of district privacy programs and their progression over time in adopting best practices. Aside from the TLE framework, the Executive Director will cull and publish on the Commission Web site a set of resources around protecting data in educational environments. Risks District leaders may not have interest in adopting a third-party security framework if they already have practices in place. The relatively low cost of taking the TLE self-assessment ($200) also does not reflect the more significant time impact on district leadership teams to complete the review process. Tasks and Timing Task Timing Development of TLE Promotional Materials and Messaging Q3 17 Promotion of TLE Program — District Recruitment Q4 17 Initial Training Cohort(s) Q1 18 Development and Web Publication of Security Resources Q1 18 Usage and Engagement Reporting Q2 18 – Ongoing Advocacy The Commission’s long-term goals include strong advocacy for the effective use of technology in all aspects of teaching and learning. This work will include continued service as the liaison among the Office of the Governor, General Assembly, and the broader educational community. The Commission’s Executive Director and members will work closely with state leaders on current and future educational technology statutes and programs. Efforts will continue to facilitate productive planning and communications that raise awareness of and enlist stakeholder input on the benefits of technology in education. Through its Web site, special publications, and presentations of the Executive Director and members, the Commission will share educational technology standards and best practices. Other efforts will include direct engagement with the state’s educational technology and leadership organizations, educator preparation programs, and national professional and standards associations. The Commission will share progress against the plans in this document with state and national leaders to communicate these accomplishments and calibrate future work against best practices elsewhere. Page 16 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Funding Across all three Focus Areas, the Commission will continue efforts to help educational organizations optimize current funding resources and identify additional supports to support teaching and learning in the digital age. In partnership with other organizations in Connecticut, the Commission will pursue cost-saving opportunities statewide and for individual towns, schools, colleges, and libraries. Work will continue to encourage private sector and philanthropic support of learning in Connecticut. The Hume-funded Education Innovation Study should position the Commission to seek additional resources from national philanthropies in support of effective teaching and learning. Initial efforts to encourage the formation of education innovation clusters in the state will also support public-private partnerships. In the area of efficiencies and cost savings, the Privacy Registry will not only help ensure and minimize efforts to protect student data but also provide a network in which schools and perhaps higher education and libraries can compare and negotiate favorable terms and pricing for educational technology products. The Commission will also work with the Registry platform developers to share de-identified data on software use and efficacy to help educators make better decisions about procuring and using educational technology. Page 17 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Summary Timeline Page 18 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 About the Commission for Educational Technology Members The Commission for Educational Technology was established in 2000 by Public Act 00-187 and includes the following members: Name and Position Representing or Appointed By Mark Raymond, CIO, Chairman Department of Administrative Services Catherine Smith, Commissioner Department of Economic and Community Development Michael Mundrane, CIO University of Connecticut Ken Wiggin, State Librarian Connecticut State Library Ellen Cohn, Deputy Commissioner Connecticut State Department of Education Scott Zak, Senior Director of Learning Technologies CT Board of Regents for Higher Education John Vittner, Director of IT Policy Office of Policy and Management Bill Vallee, State Broadband Policy and Program Coordinator Office of Consumer Counsel Jennifer Widness, President CT Conference of Independent Colleges Nick Caruso, Senior Staff Associate CT Association of Boards of Education Scott Shanley, General Manager, Town of Manchester CT Conference of Municipalities John Elsesser, Town Manager, Town of Coventry CT Council of Small Towns Colleen Bailie, Director, West Haven Public Library CT Library Association Bart Stanco, Vice President, Gartner Governor's Office Russell Feinmark, CT General Assembly Speaker of the House Rich Mavrogeanes, President, Discover Video President Pro Tem of the Senate VACANT Minority Leader of the Senate Jeffrey Kitching, Executive Director, EdAdvance Governor's Office Tom Dillon, Founder, Flagship Networks Minority Leader of the House Page 19 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Advisory Council Members The Commission also convenes Advisory Councils of subject-matter experts who provide guidance on the three Commission Focus Areas: Digital Learning, Infrastructure, and Data and Privacy. Members of the Advisory Councils appear below: Digital Learning Advisory Council • Nick Caruso (Chair) — Senior Staff Associate for Field Service, CABE • Katie Bauer — Director of Library Research Services & Collections, Trinity College • Kevin Corcoran — Executive Director, Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium • Larry Covino — Director, Bristol Adult Education • Jonathan Costa — Assistant Executive Director, EdAdvance • Andy DePalma — Director of Technology, EASTCONN • Sarah Edson — Director of Technology, Ethel Walker School • Josh Elliott — Director of Educational Technology Graduate School of Education and Allied Professions, Fairfield University • Barbara Johnson — Library Media Specialist, Colchester Public Schools • Jason Jones — Director of Educational Technology, Trinity College • Jae-Eun Joo — Director of Neag Online Programs, University of Connecticut - Neag School of Education • Karen Kaplan — Director of Technology and Communications, Hamden Public Schools • Marijke Kehrhahn — Head of School, Independent Day School • Clint Kennedy — Supervisor of Innovation, Personalized Learning and Magnet Program, New London Public Schools • Dawn Lavalle — Director of the Division of Library Development, Connecticut State Library System • Shannon Marimón — Division Director - Educator Effectiveness and Professional Learning, CT State Department of Education • Laura McCaffrey — School Support and Academic Services, Archdiocese of Hartford • Greg Mcverry — Professor, Southern Connecticut State University • Karen Skudlarek — Educational Technologist, University of Connecticut • Josh Smith — Superintendent, New Milford Public Schools • Jim Spafford — Coordinator of Business Services and Partnerships, Manchester Adult Education • Shelly Stedman — President, Connecticut Association of School Librarians • Chinma Uche — Computer Science Teacher, CREC Academy of Aerospace and Engineering and President, Connecticut Computer Science Teachers Association • Jennifer Widness — President, CT Conference of Independent Colleges • Scott Zak — Senior Director of Learning Technologies, CT State Colleges and Universities Page 20 Version 1.0 State Educational Technology Goals and Plan June 26, 2017 Infrastructure Advisory Council • Tom Dillon (Chair) — Founder, Flagship Networks • Colleen Bailie — Library Director, West Haven Public Library • Joe Campbell — Educational Technology Consultant, CT Technical High School System • George Claffey — Chief Information Officer, Charter Oak State College • Robert DeVito — Technology Director, University of Hartford • John Elsesser — Town Manager, Town of Coventry • Aaron Herold — Director of Technology, New Fairfield Public Schools • Fred Kass — Director of Networking & Infrastructure Services, Trinity College • Kerri Kearney — Supervisor of Instructional Technology, Manchester Public Schools • Ryan Kocsondy — Director, Connecticut Education Network • Michael Mundrane — Vice Provost and CIO, University of Connecticut • Susan Shellard — Chief Administrative Officer, Department of Economic and Community Development • Sabina Sitaru — Retired Chief Innovation Officer, Metro Hartford Information Systems • Bill Vallee — CT Broadband Policy and Programs Coordinator, CT Office of Consumer Counsel • Rick Widlansky — System Manager, Libraries Online • Rob Wilson — Director of Technology and Information Services, Somers Public Schools Data and Privacy Advisory Council • Jeffrey Kitching (Chair) — Executive Director, EdAdvance • Brian Czapla — Superintendent, Somers Public Schools • Ben FrazziniKendrick — Associate, Shipman & Goodwin • Brian Kelly — Chief Information Security Officer, Quinnipiac University • Scott Matchett — Director of Technical Operations & Services, South Windsor Public Schools • Jason Pufahl — Chief Information Security Officer, University of Connecticut • Bethany Silver — Director of Assessment, Evaluation, and Research, Bloomfield Public Schools • Michael Swaine — Northeast Regional Manager, Gaggle