Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/13/2014 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB231 | |
| HB179 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 179 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 179
"An Act providing for public school funding for
telecommunications or Internet services."
1:57:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BENJAMIN NAGEAK, SPONSOR, read an opening
statement (copy on file):
Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. Thank you for hearing my bill, HB 179, An
Act providing for public school funding for Internet
services.
The federal E-rate program provides funding for a
portion of a school district's telecommunication
costs. HB 179 will provide state funding for the
portion not covered by the federal discount. For FY 15
that amount is approximately $13.8 million dollars.
This bill also allows school districts to increase
their bandwidth. Right now about 1/3 or approximately
170 schools have less than 10 megabits per second of
Internet services. HB 179 will allow school districts
below 10 megabits per second to come up to that
minimum level and receive state reimbursement. For
schools that are already at that level or higher, HB
179 allows those schools to increase 10% over their
prior year and receive state funding. This bill does
not limit any school district to higher increases but
does limit the state contribution at that point.
This bill will benefit all school districts across the
state. HB 179 will assist school districts with their
Internet needs and bring all schools across Alaska to
a minimum level of Internet services.
According to the Statewide Broadband Task Force
Report, "Schools that cannot afford enough broadband
or do not have available broadband have to limit what
kinds of educational content can be downloaded and who
can access this information." The report says that
"access to adequate bandwidth translates directly to
better opportunity and improves chances of higher
student achievement."
And with the mandated online testing on the horizon,
this is even more important. Many schools, especially
in rural areas, will be limited in their educational
opportunities.
Just as a side note, to give you an idea of what we
are looking at in terms of Internet service for these
school districts under 10 megabits per second - the
Alaska Legislature operates up to 100 megabits per
second. When my staff asked our information services
manager what it would be like if we were at 10
megabits per second the answer was "complete
standstill."
Thank you for again, Mr. Chairman, for hearing this
bill today. I am happy to answer any questions from
the committee. My staff is on hand to assist me and
there are people from the Department here to answer
technical questions those related to the fiscal note.
2:00:34 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze thanked the sponsor for bringing the bill
forward. He had visited districts that had pointed to
bandwidth as one of their largest challenges.
Representative Holmes wondered if the bill would actually
require schools to use the money for the upgrade. She
relayed that the Department of Administration (DOA)
subcommittee had spent significant time on the issue
earlier in the day. She noted that currently schools
received an E-rate discount. She believed that if funding
was available the base amount would pick up the difference
between what schools paid and the federal subsidy. She
referred to a second component that allowed for an
adjustment of up to 10 percent of the amount paid or the
amount needed to bring the base rate up to the applicant's
share for 10 megabits per second.
Representative Nageak replied that the money would only go
to the upgrades. He elaborated that the money would enable
schools to provide improved learning services.
Representative Holmes agreed that most schools would take
the money to use on upgrades; however, she did not believe
the requirement was included under the bill.
2:04:33 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if a megabit had to do with speed
and a megabyte had to do with storage capacity.
Representative Nageak believed megabits were smaller than
megabytes.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if there were eight megabits in
one megabyte. Representative Nageak believed so.
Representative Costello pointed to the bottom of page 1 of
the legislation. She had read that of the schools that
would qualify there was only one school that was currently
at 10 megabits. She asked if the sponsor had spoken with
the telecommunications industry about potential costs
associated the increased speed. She wondered if the
legislation would increase the current foundation formula.
She asked if the sponsor had considered tying the increase
in funds to the project proposed in the legislation in
order to prevent funds from being spent on other items.
Representative Nageak replied that the bill only pertained
to increasing broadband for schools. He did not believe the
funds could be used for another purpose.
Representative Costello wondered if there was someone to
speak about the current status of broadband.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that staff members from the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) were
present.
Representative Nageak relayed that schools, libraries, and
rural healthcare facilities currently used broadband.
2:08:26 PM
Representative Costello remarked that some of the committee
members did not sit on the DOA subcommittee. She did not
know about the broadband status in Alaska. She wondered
whether the bill was the best place to address the issue if
increased broadband was also needed in areas other than
education. She asked for comment on the status.
Representative Wilson wondered if the funding would go only
to schools or to libraries as well. Representative Nageak
replied that schools, libraries, and rural healthcare were
already in place.
Representative Wilson noted that there were currently some
allocated funds used to offset the E-rate through the
Online with Libraries (OWL) program. She wondered if the
bill would help to pay for broadband in libraries in
addition to in schools.
Representative Nageak replied that the legislation only
pertained to schools.
Representative Wilson was interested in data showing the
current broadband in each school district.
2:10:56 PM
LINDA THIBODEAU, DIRECTOR, LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES AND MUSEUMS,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, communicated
that DEED had surveyed school districts the prior year to
determine which of the schools were under and over 10
megabits per second in order to compile the fiscal note;
DEED had created a spreadsheet by school district. The
department had also surveyed vendors to determine what the
upgrades would cost. Additionally, DEED had looked at
districts that were already at 10 megabits per second or
greater and had multiplied the figure by 10 percent to
estimate costs in the out-years shown on the fiscal note.
The fiscal note had been compiled the prior March and could
be updated in March 2014 when the new E-rate filing year
began. She detailed that the information only pertained to
schools. She remarked that libraries located in schools
would receive the bandwidth upgrade.
Representative Costello asked for verification that the
cost to cover the difference was approximately $9 million
and the cost for schools without broadband would be
approximately $32 million. Ms. Thibodeau replied that it
would cost $7 million to bring schools up to 10 megabits
per second in the first year; approximately 170 schools had
reported their bandwidth as below 10 megabits per second.
The remaining undiscounted portion of the broadband cost
for public schools above 10 megabits per second was
approximately $15 million. Therefore, the first year would
cost approximately $22 million. She stated that broadband
costs were a moving target. The department believed that a
portion of the 170 schools below 10 megabits per second
were currently negotiating for an increase to 10 megabits
or more. The department would gather the information as it
became available.
Representative Costello asked if the legislation would
require the state to pay for maintenance associated with
the bandwidth speed.
2:14:43 PM
Ms. Thibodeau asked for clarification on the question.
Representative Costello clarified that she was interested
in infrastructure that would keep equipment updated. Ms.
Thibodeau believed that some infrastructure costs were
included in the discountable portion of E-rate and would be
included in the broadband costs. She deferred to the
department's E-rate consultant for further detail.
2:16:02 PM
VALERIE OLIVER, E-RATE COORDINATOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, provided a brief e-rate overview.
She helped all of Alaska's schools and libraries to apply
for their discounted portion of E-rate universal service
fund monies. She explained that E-rate dollars were awarded
to schools and libraries depending on the poverty level in
the local communities as measured by the Department of
Agriculture or the national school lunch program; not all
schools and libraries received the same discount. She
detailed that a location such as Unalaska (with a 60
percent national school lunch program discount) would not
be the same as Kuspuk (with a 90 percent national school
lunch program discount). She estimated that Alaska's
average discount on phone and internet connectivity was 75
percent. The E-rate program primarily related to internet
connectivity; each district had a different discount.
Communities were responsible for funding whatever
percentage was not covered; a 90 percent discount was the
highest discount that could be received. She clarified that
the applicant's non-discounted share referred to the
portion of the bill not covered by E-rate.
2:18:21 PM
Representative Wilson pointed to language on page 2 of the
fiscal note indicating that approximately $7 million would
be appropriated to bring 170 schools up to 10 megabits. She
did not understand why 10 percent would be added once the
$7 million was paid. She believed that $14 million would be
what the state actually paid for the internet cost. She
wondered why the $7 million would not be taken out once
schools were brought up to the 10 megabit level.
Ms. Oliver replied that it would cost a certain amount to
elevate schools to the 10 megabit level. Currently school
districts were paying just under $10 million out-of-pocket
for their non-discounted share. The out-of-pocket cost
would increase significantly if the broadband minimum was
increased to the 10 megabits per second level. She detailed
that it would cost approximately $7 million to bring
schools with less than 10 megabits per second up to speed;
the figure would be added to the close to $10 million of
out-of-pocket expenses currently incurred by districts. She
relayed that in the future the costs would be the higher
dollar amount; it was not possible to bring schools up
without incurring future costs. She likened the ongoing
broadband costs to a utility. She believed the 10 percent
included in the fiscal note represented an estimate for
growth in future years.
2:20:54 PM
Representative Wilson understood that it would cost more
[in the future]. She did not understand why there would
still be a cost of $7 million plus 10 percent after $7
million was funded. She stated that the item was currently
included in the education formula. She surmised that the
bill would remove the item from the formula; most of the
items were currently paid by school districts. She wondered
why the Lower Kuskokwim district was at $19 million and
asked if it was a good example of what the state could be
looking at for the 170 schools that were currently not up
to speed.
Ms. Oliver replied that the Lower Kuskokwim School District
had voted two years earlier to significantly increase its
broadband connectivity to 70 to 80 megabits per second at
its 22 village sites. Most other locations were hovering
around 10 or 15 megabits per second. She recognized that
the cost would be more on par with how much high speed
broadband connectivity would cost in rural Alaska. She
clarified that the funds would not be used to create
infrastructure within the school facilities; it would
strictly be used for the monthly bandwidth cost.
Representative Wilson requested a breakout of school
districts to determine costs in each location.
2:23:30 PM
Representative Holmes asked if the capacity currently
existed to get each of the schools up to 10 megabits per
second. Ms. Oliver replied that the capacity was available
in some areas but not others. She explained that if the
broadband cost was paid by the state the districts would
have freed-up money to improve their infrastructure in
order to utilize the increased bandwidth if it became
available. She detailed that not all districts had the
infrastructure in place to handle bandwidth like the Yukon
Kuskokwim district; it would require extra electrical and
different routers. She deduced that school districts had
the capacity for 10 megabits per second, but believed a
needs assessment should be done to determine existing
infrastructure.
Representative Holmes agreed that research should be done
to determine existing capacity. She shared the concern that
once schools were up to the 10 megabits per second that a
10 percent cost was added annually. She worried that school
districts would choose to upgrade despite potentially
astronomical costs if the state and federal government were
picking up all of the costs. She did want to work towards
increasing internet access across the state, but she
believed the cost-benefit analysis needed to be taken into
account.
2:27:32 PM
Co-Chair Austerman recalled that a number of years earlier
when discussing the Alaska Performance Scholarship and the
issue of equality between rural and urban schools that the
DEED commissioner had assured that broadband would be
provided to rural schools. The commissioner had
communicated that the broadband the department would pay
for the broadband with reallocated assets.
Representative Nageak pointed to a letter from the
superintendent of the North Slope Borough School District
(copy on file). He read the second paragraph from the
letter:
E-rate provides federal funding for a portion of a
school district's telecommunication costs. Your bill
will provide state funding for the balance of those
expenses and allow districts to increase their
bandwidth. This allows those rural districts primarily
served by satellite to increase the bandwidth
available to students to 10 megabytes per second. This
is a very basic level of service. The capitol has 100
megabytes per second service. Although basic, it will
be a tenfold increase for some rural schools in
Alaska. Ten megabytes will be three times faster than
our district's current service to village schools.
This is a step in the right direction to address the
equity issue of educational opportunity for rural
students in Alaska.
Representative Gara asked if 10 megabits provided enough
bandwidth to offer online live video streaming between
communities. Representative Nageak replied that he did not
know.
Ms. Thibodeau replied that the OWL program had brought 1.5
megabits per second into the public libraries, which was
the lowest bandwidth that would support video conferencing.
She believed that 10 megabits per second would support
video conferencing in distance classrooms.
Representative Costello asked if access to internet had
improved school performance. Representative Nageak answered
that he did not know.
Representative Costello understood that access to broadband
in rural communities was valued from a community
development standpoint. However, she noted that the cost
would be approximately $32 million in FY 20, which was
close to the amount needed for a $100 Base Student
Allocation (BSA) increase. She asked if the state valued
more teachers in its classrooms or increased internet
access. She wanted to hear from DEED about which option the
state would choose if it was asked to pick between the two.
2:33:16 PM
Representative Nageak answered that the current world was
very different than it had been in the past. He spoke to
the use of new technology and provided a personal example
related to his five-year-old granddaughter's use of an
iPad. He asked the committee to imagine the type of
learning that could take place with increased technology;
he believed every student should have access to the tools.
He believed that rural Alaska needed the ability to get
information to the students through the schools. He
believed the more access to learning would be beneficial
for education.
Ms. Thibodeau provided examples of items that were often no
longer available in print including encyclopedias and
college applications. She relayed that there were many ways
that the internet could assist students.
2:36:23 PM
PEGGY COWAN, SUPERINTENDENT, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT (via teleconference), introduced her colleague.
DEBBY EDWARDSON, PRESIDENT, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the legislation and thanked the sponsor. She
read from a statement:
HB 179 will provide state funding for the applicant's
share or the local share of the E-rate program. The E-
rate program currently pays 60 to 90 percent of all
internet services in public schools or approximately
$55 million. The applicant's share of this program is
about $14 million based on estimates from the
Department of Education. What this means is that the
return on the investment is about 4 to 1 on average.
Ms. Edwardson believed the [4 to 1] return was good. She
surmised that the state would look favorably on a road
project with a federal match of $4 for every state $1. She
asked committee members to think of the internet and
broadband as the information highway where the state's
children could access educational programming. She stressed
that the internet was not a teacher, but it was a tool that
was increasingly used by young people nationwide. She
relayed that there were certain things that were no longer
done outside of the internet. She emphasized the importance
of the technology as a tool in the education system. She
communicated that a key feature of HB 179 allowed schools
with less than 10 megabits per second to increase to 10
megabits. She shared that seven of the eight North Slope
Borough schools had broadband below 10 megabits; the
schools were all around 1.5 to 2.5 megabits per second.
Ms. Edwardson relayed that on a statewide basis about one-
third of the state's public schools were below 10 megabits.
She discussed that DEED had projected the costs to be
around $7 million. She asked the committee to remember the
return on investment; for $28 million in services the state
would share approximately $7 million. She communicated that
the statewide broadband task-force had issued a draft plan
the prior August; page 38 of the report listed the state
funding options (copy on file). One of recommendations was
a state grant program to reduce the local match in the E-
rate program. She believed HB 179 addressed many of the
recommendations made by the task-force and that it would
increase educational opportunities for all children in the
state. She reiterated the borough's support for the
legislation. She opined that a digital divide would be
created if the issue was not addressed. She pointed to many
communities that did not have a video streaming option.
2:40:52 PM
Ms. Cowan clarified that the 1.5 megabytes would allow
video conferencing with a dedicated server on a
teleconference system; it would not allow streaming video
onto a desktop computer. She appreciated the complexity of
the broadband issue and all of the components that came
along with it; she thanked DEED and the legislature for
helping to navigate the complexity. She emphasized that
students in rural Alaska were at a disadvantage in the 21st
century without improved broadband access. She addressed
the 10 percent increase and relayed that students in urban
Alaska could have better access; the bill would allow urban
districts to increase and serve their students better. She
shared that 15 districts had caucused recently and
broadband access was a top priority discussed. She
communicated that other states provided funding to school
districts for help with items such as cable,
telecommunications, and associated processes. She thanked
the sponsor and committee for consideration of the bill.
2:43:42 PM
Representative Wilson asked how many megabytes were
available in each of the North Slope Borough schools. Ms.
Cowan replied that Barrow had 11.5 megabytes per second.
She explained that the seven remaining villages had
asymmetrical internet service of 2.5 megabytes down and 1.5
megabytes up.
Representative Wilson asked other public testifiers to
provide the information as well.
2:45:13 PM
DAVID NEES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), had
concerns with the legislation. He pointed to disparity in
money spent on internet access. He shared that the amount
the Yukon-Kuskokwim school district was spending on
internet access was $4,880 per student, which was only $600
less than what was provided by the state for basic needs.
He stated that as soon as the state moved to online testing
the demand for increased speed would rise substantially. He
discussed that the costs [estimated in the fiscal note]
were only for an increase to 10 [megabits]. He believed
DEED would need 70 to 90 [megabits] for online testing in
2015. He opined that the cost estimates included in the
fiscal note were very loose. He equated internet service to
paying rent. He communicated that telemedicine could use
all of the bandwidth with one application if the access was
shared. He stressed the need to be careful because the cost
was outside the education formula funding; because it was
outside the formula it could be open-ended and distributed
unfairly. He suggested that the fiber optic would be a
major player for connection. He noted that 50 miles outside
of Seattle marked the end of broadband delivery in the
State of Washington. He stressed that broadband dropped
significantly outside large cities.
Co-Chair Stoltze thanked Mr. Nees for his service on the
bandwidth task-force. He recognized that the fiscal note
was large. He relayed that the issue would be held and
discussed as a part of the broader education package.
2:48:14 PM
ED GRAFF, SUPERINTENDENT, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT (via
teleconference), supported the legislation. He believed
driving factors for increased bandwidth speed were the
state's requirement to provide online tests to students and
the data-driven teacher development accountability system.
He communicated that there was a potential cloud-based
software solution for the district to support the
initiative. He noted that the Anchorage School District
would have a need for increased bandwidth. He mentioned the
benefit of digital learning resources to students. He
discussed education with district-owned and personal
devices in the district's schools. He believed that the
legislation would be beneficial.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if Mr. Graff was speaking on behalf
of himself or the Anchorage School District. Mr. Graff
responded that he was speaking on behalf of the Anchorage
School District.
Representative Wilson asked about current megabytes offered
in the Anchorage school system. Mr. Graff answered that the
Anchorage school system had a much larger megabit
breakdown; the district had a total of 700 megabits shared
between its schools. He explained that one school may use 2
megabits while others used up to 100 at twenty-four of the
district's schools. Anchorage's position as a metro hub
allowed it to have access to significant usage. The
district currently paid approximately $22,000 per month; 65
percent of the figure was paid for by the E-rate. The
district was proposing to increase its capacity by seven
times or 5 gigabits.
2:51:34 PM
PETE HOEPFNER, PRESIDENT, CORDOVA SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL
BOARD (via teleconference), testified in favor of the
legislation and thanked the sponsor. He communicated that
the bill would help all school districts and students. He
stated that the bill would enable school funding to be used
for education rather than for the costs of broadband. The
legislation would help bring Alaska children into the 21st
century and would help them to be competitive with all
other children in the U.S. Cordova currently had a 6
megabyte service at a cost above the E-rate of $14,000; the
district was looking to increase its service to 10
megabytes the following year, which would bring the
district's cost to $20,000.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the costs were per month or per
year. Mr. Hoepfner replied that the costs were for one
year. Increasing broadband speed would enable the district
to stream classes on the internet. He relayed that small
districts wanted their children to have the ability to
apply for the governor's performance scholarship; the
courses needed for a student to apply had increased in
rigor. He stressed that small districts could not offer all
courses necessary to fulfill the performance scholarship
eligibility requirements. The solution relied on the
streaming of courses to the rural districts, which required
additional bandwidth. He emphasized that internet access
helped increase learning and knowledge. He stated that the
internet was a huge resource for students. He thanked the
committee for its time.
2:54:16 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Ms. Thibodeau stood corrected by Ms. Cowan related to the
difference between dedicated bandwidth and streaming
internet.
Representative Gara wondered if the correction impacted the
answer to a question he had asked earlier. He asked if 10
megabits would allow live video streaming from another
classroom. Ms. Thibodeau replied that according to Ms.
Cowan the increase was not sufficient for streaming from
classroom to classroom. She clarified that her earlier
statement had related only to dedicated bandwidth as
opposed to shared bandwidth.
Representative Wilson relayed that for years a subcommittee
had been asking whether schools had enough broadband, how
much was enough, and the difference between dedicated and
shared services. She relayed that the task-force had heard
that there were districts that did not believe they would
have access to required courses for the performance
scholarship. She acknowledged that the price tag was
significant. She recognized that some of the small
districts did not have a teacher for every subject;
therefore, other means were required for students to
qualify for the scholarship. The state had to determine how
much it was willing to pay and where the education formula
fit in. She believed it was important to hear from experts
on broadband.
Co-Chair Stoltze spoke to innovation in the Mat-Su Borough
School District and recalled that a prior superintendent
had put the optical wiring of the school system as a higher
priority than the BSA. The school had made the investment
and had provided other innovations. He shared that the Mat-
Su School District had made the choice to invest in
infrastructure and had not regretted it.
2:58:06 PM
Representative Edgmon referred to a prior bill he had
sponsored that expanded the definition of school districts
to include early learning facilities in the qualification
for E-rate services. The bill had passed; however, the
Universal Services Fund had relayed the change was not
adequate. For the future he asked for a definition of a
school district in order to know if early learning
facilities would be included. He was intrigued by
Representative Costello's questions related to quantifying
the results of having the services available. He mentioned
a school district with contracts with Brigham Young
University and other. He spoke to the notion of putting $22
million into the K-12 formula. He was interested in more
information on the issue related to values.
Vice-Chair Neuman pointed to the cost of telemedicine and
pointed to villages that did not have the resource. He
wondered whether there was an opportunity to have a shared
system program to expand broadband where there was an
opportunity for telemedicine. He spoke to the high
transportation cost when individuals had to be transported
from villages to larger communities for medical treatment.
He wondered whether there was a savings potential.
Representative Nageak believed it could work. He deferred
the question to the department. Ms. Thibodeau replied that
the issue would be tricky because there were different pots
of federal money involved.
Representative Nageak addressed rural health. He read from
a statement:
Congress mandated discounted services for rural
healthcare capped at $400 million. Nonprofit providers
paid no more than their urban counterparts for
telecommunication services. The Rural Healthcare
Division aims to provide support to rural healthcare
providers for telecommunications services related to
use of telemedicine and telehealth. In addition, any
not-for-profit healthcare provider whether in a rural
or urban area qualifies for internet access assistance
where the organization must pay total charges long
distance in order to access an internet service
provider. In this case a healthcare provider may
qualify to receive 30 hours or $180 per month,
whichever is less, to pay for the total charges. All
of Alaska, outside of the Anchorage area is classified
as rural for the purposes of this program. As you can
see from Table 2, during the first year, funds were
available to rural healthcare providers. Alaska
providers received $444,000, nearly 20 percent of the
total distributed nationally. Rural healthcare
providers in House election district 37 including
providers in Ambler, Buckland, Deering, Kivalina,
Kobuk, Kiana, Kotzebue, Noatak, Noorvik, Point Hope,
Selawik, and Shungnak, received nearly 43 percent of
the amount or $188,000.
Vice-Chair Neuman spoke to areas with developed
infrastructure such as telemedicine areas. He wondered
where bandwidth could be expanded to the schools in those
areas. He surmised that it may not be possible to make the
change all at once, but that it could be possible to create
change a bit at a time.
Representative Nageak would look into the issue.
3:04:33 PM
Representative Guttenberg appreciated the bill that
demonstrated disparity around the state. He referred to a
research report published in 2000 and noted that even when
it had been current it had been outdated. He had never paid
less than 5 times the amount listed at the top of the
report for minimal services. He communicated that
legislative committees had repeatedly asked the
administration for information on the "big picture." He
noted that some companies had major fiber optics plans for
Alaska. He stated that there were other nations that were
far ahead of the U.S. on broadband that paid a fraction of
the costs paid by Alaska. He addressed a cost of $55
million for school districts alone. He believed the state
could negotiate a better cost if it added together the
costs spent by schools, local governments, and departments.
He wished the administration would address the issue.
Representative Gara appreciated the bill. He agreed that
the committee had not received answers when the discussion
had occurred related to the Alaska Performance Scholarship
in the past. He spoke to items he believed were missing
from the discussion. He wanted to move ahead with broadband
expansion as quickly as possible, but currently much of the
broadband in rural Alaska was accessed by satellite, which
was very expensive. There were projects coming through the
state in the next few years that would bring the ability to
provide broadband through fiber optics and possibly other
cable. He discussed the ability to expand internet and
broadband through cable, which was much less expensive. As
a statewide plan was developed he wanted to hear from the
administration on how the issue could be dealt with in the
most efficient and cost-effective way.
3:08:49 PM
Representative Nageak shared a personal example related to
overuse charges on broadband. He believed the costs were
horrendous, but it was a cost of doing business in the
state. He stated that costs needed to be reduced, but in
the meantime demands needed to be met. He believed help
from the state system was needed.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for comments from DEED.
LES MORSE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, remarked that there were things that the
internet could bring and access it could provide. He
referred to the comments related to the Alaska Performance
Scholarship and opined that there were ways to meet
scholarship requirements regardless of broadband, but the
issue was more about the quality. He discussed that it was
possible to take correspondence online or with paper and a
pencil; the quality level would be different. He was not
advocating for or against the approach proposed in HB 179.
He believed a policy discussion would need to occur on
policy choices that needed to be made in relation to a
targeted assistance or through the BSA. He did not believe
that everything could be done. He believed it was important
to consider all options.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the legislature was jumping the
gun on a digital initiative when the framework was not set
for broadband and other access. Mr. Morse did not believe
so. He elaborated that the digital initiative stepped into
the issue slowly; it included three pilot districts in the
upcoming year and five the following year. The program
would then bring information back to the department on
whether efforts were successful. He believed the initiative
fit in well at a point when the legislature was trying to
make decisions on the issue using a cost-benefit analysis.
Representative Wilson asked if there was data showing that
the governor's digital initiative would have better results
than the one-on-one initiative. She wondered about
information showing which program would provide the most
cost-effective strategy.
3:13:12 PM
Mr. Morse did not have the data on hand. The department
would bring any related data to the DEED budget
subcommittee meeting later in the day.
Representative Wilson discussed that money was requested
for a significant number of programs. She remarked that she
was not trying to say the bill was a bad idea, but she did
not know if it was a good idea. She furthered that both
broadband and teachers could bring good things to students;
however, she was uncertain a calculus correspondence course
would work for all individuals. She stressed that answers
would not be available until data was collected to
determine how to spend money in the right areas. She
invited members to attend the DEED budget subcommittee
meeting that evening for more detail.
Representative Costello was unsure that putting the onus on
the state and tying increased broadband to the school
system was the right course of action given the need for
broadband in other areas such as community development. Her
vision for education in rural areas included the concept of
regional hubs where the best access could be provided to
students. She discussed the idea of a school-year with
three sections that would enable students to return to
their villages for a different type of learning. She
discussed helping teachers to transition into the rural
lifestyle in Alaska. She asked whether the Division of
Teaching and Learning Support helped teachers to design
lesson plans that tapped into internet resources.
Mr. Morse replied that DEED frequently used video
conferencing for district trainings. The department's role
was to help districts to provide support for their
teachers. The department did reference resources that were
available on the internet. He summarized that DEED used a
mix of platforms.
Representative Costello had seen research indicating that
schools with a full-time librarian performed better on
tests. She had visited libraries in her district where the
librarian had asked for digital resources. She wondered if
it more valuable to have resources provided to school
libraries versus individual school classrooms. Mr. Morse
replied that it depended on the structure of the learning
environment. He believed that in some cases it may make
more sense to centralize the resources and in other cases
it may not. He had worked as a teacher and in some cases it
made more sense to decentralize, but it depended on the
structure of the program and school. Many of the decisions
were made at the local district and school level. He would
want the structure to fit best within a school's learning
environment.
Representative Costello agreed. She believed everyone would
like to see the local districts and teachers getting what
they needed. She had heard that the funding source would
prevent helping districts in creative and innovative ways.
She hoped that however the legislature moved forward that
student performance would be improved.
3:19:08 PM
Representative Edgmon referred to the Lake and Peninsula
School District and shared that its distance learning
programs had helped its schools to better meet curriculum
requirements. He had been told that overall performance
measures had improved at the schools. He wondered how it
would be possible to quantify something that seemed to be
more qualitative in nature. He discussed stretching the K-
12 dollar in rural school districts that were suffering as
a result of high costs. He wondered what data meant to the
department.
Mr. Morse answered that the Lake and Peninsula School
District had a strong record of showing some improvement.
He added that the district had small sites and would not be
surprised that gains would be seen if the district found
ways to maximize the use of technology and distance
teaching. He believed it would take significant study given
that it would be important to study larger groups and the
issue over time. He remarked that when studying small
groups it was difficult to attribute what had resulted in a
change. In the specific scenario it would be hard to
determine whether a change was a result of distance
education or a dynamic teacher. He relayed that the
department looked at achievement gains, but it was hard to
determine what to attribute the gains to without
qualitative research efforts.
3:22:45 PM
Representative Edgmon observed that it was early on in the
digital era in terms of providing educational services. He
questioned whether programs had been around long enough to
enable a decent trend analysis. He addressed an earlier
question about values and where the dollar was better
applied. He wondered how the determination would be made
with what was known today.
Mr. Morse responded that research-based programs existed
that provided evidence of their success. The department had
not studied all of the programs in rural Alaska and did not
have the numbers to conduct adequate research. He noted
that there were research-based technology programs that did
work; there was published research available for the
department to access.
Representative Munoz pointed to the Digital Learning
Initiative that would begin a pilot program in three school
districts. She wondered if the department had looked at the
current broadband capacity for the three districts.
Additionally, she wondered whether the capacity was a
factor in determining which districts participated in the
pilot program. Mr. Morse answered that the districts had
not yet been selected. He affirmed that the broadband
connectivity would be a factor in the determination. He
added that it was necessary to consider where the broadcast
was coming from and where it was going; the goal was to
reach beyond any one district's boundaries.
3:25:13 PM
Representative Munoz asked if part of the proposal would be
to help the chosen districts to reach the broadband
capacity needed to participate in the program. Mr. Morse
replied that part of the process was to identify where
things were working, to make enhancements to those areas to
increase success, and how to expand the successes to other
locations. He elaborated that the other locations could be
areas to broadcast from or to broadcast to a wider area.
The idea of the initiative was to advance the learning
around the work in order to maximize it across the state in
the long-term.
Representative Munoz asked if the initiative would include
a proposal to help communities come up to speed with their
broadband capacity. Alternatively, she wondered if the
responsibility would be up to the community or district.
Mr. Morse did not believe that the broadband component was
part of the initiative. The initiative focused on
infrastructure and professional skills required to provide
distance delivery as opposed to the broadband subscription.
Representative Gara surmised that the administration had no
comprehensive policy to implement broadband statewide in a
cost-effective way. He mentioned options such as providing
broadband by satellite or cable. He was concerned about a
statement that had been made related to broadband and
teachers. He hoped the department did not mean to say that
the choice would be between more teacher cuts or broadband.
He was not interested in another year of staff cuts in
schools.
Mr. Morse replied that at the end of the day much
discussion would be needed to figure out choices that were
made. One of the choices could be a BSA; the BSA would
offer a choice for districts to make decisions about how to
spend money. He remarked that the bill contained a targeted
resource to address a problem or issue statewide. He
clarified that he had not mentioned teachers in any of his
comments. He relayed that there was a broadband task-force
led by the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development; it had done broad research on statewide
broadband. The task-force currently had a preliminary
report. He noted that it may be worth the time to study the
work done by the task-force. He added that he was not an
expert on the subject.
Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that there would be communication
with the DEED subcommittee chair. He remarked that the bill
preceded the introduction of the governor's omnibus
education legislation. He communicated that broadband had
been discussed at almost every subcommittee meeting. He
knew that Representative Wilson would take the issue to the
task force. He had heard more about the broadband issue
than the digital initiative. He wondered if the cart was
being put before the horse. He appreciated the discussion
initiated by the legislation. He believed it was important
to deal with the issue at hand alongside other education
issues.
HB 179 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed future schedules.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 231 DNR Email-Brand Books.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 231 |
| Research-Cattle Branding.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 231 |
| Sponsor Statement-HB 231.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 231 |
| HB 179 bill_packet ADN Article.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 179 |
| HB 179 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 179 |
| HB 179 FY2012 Total Broadband Cost E-Rate share and Applicant Share.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 179 |
| HB 179 Letters of Support.PDF |
HFIN 2/13/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 179 |
| HB 179 Sectional_Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 179 |
| HB 179 Sponsor Statement H FIN.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 179 |
| HB179_Erate brief.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 179 |
| HB179_LegislativeResearch_Erate section.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 179 |
| HB 179 2013-08-AK-Broadband-Task-Force-Report_A-Blueprint-for-Alaska's-Broadband-Future.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 179 |
| HB 179 DEED FiscalNote Updated 2014.pdf |
HFIN 2/13/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 179 |