Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/21/1996 03:07 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 216 - EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM Number 233 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, Sponsor of HB 216, said he had a committee substitute to address for the committee. Number 266 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt CSHB 216, Work Draft 9- LS0765\M, Ford, 3/12/96. Hearing no objection, CSHB 216, Work Draft 9-LS0765\M was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that educational technology is a major concern in modern society. Of the eight million high paying jobs in America, almost one-fourth were in the technology arena. He felt it was an important way to approach education and training. The intent of the original bill was to set up the Alaska educational technology program; that intent is maintained in the committee substitute. Section 1 of the proposed committee substitute deals with the legislative findings and the purpose of the bill. Section 2 of the original bill which dealt with school districts being required to submit reports was deleted. He learned there is a new report being generated in the Department of Education, and their intention is to continue to publish that report. Section 2 of the committee substitute, contains several things being required as far as the major purposes of the education technology program. Most of the requirements that were in the original bill to administer the fund were eliminated because there is no general fund monies involved and most likely it will be operated by pass-through grants. The structuring will be done in a manner he believed very similar to the Alaska Children's Trust Fund. He dropped the requirement that the Department of Education could not use any of the fund money for administrative expenses. It is his experience that grant money that has flowed into various funds that have been established in the state generally come through with the understanding that normal administrative expenses would be deducted from the grant. Number 450 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT informed the committee he had recently learned the federal government has billions of dollars that will be available to the various states for inclusion into various funds around the states for education technology. It is currently before Congress. Number 470 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said Section AS 14.30.810 basically covers the duties of the department. The requirement for the department to administer the details of the fund has been shifted and instead overview language borrowed from other states was inserted. Those states include Georgia, Florida, California and Minnesota. The duties of the commissioner of revenue are identified in Section 14.30.820. Those duties are basically to administer the fund once the department is empowered with monies. He noted this was the standard procedure for handling funds for trusts in Alaska. Section 14.30.850 is the Definitions section of the bill and is pretty straightforward. Finally, Section 3 of the bill is the effective date of the Act. He explained that basically the framework has been set up in which to receive monies from the federal government that appears to be forthcoming. There is also an opportunity for the legislature to appropriate money and an opportunity is allowed for the private sector to make contributions into this framework. The Department of Education will actually oversee the fund, with the Department of Revenue disbursing the fund. Number 609 LARRY WIGET, Director of Government Relations, Anchorage School District, testified from Anchorage that the Anchorage School District supports the establishment of the Alaska Education Technology program and urges support of the program by the legislature. One year ago to the day, he first testified in support of HB 216; since that time, much has changed. For example, the ability to share information with each other around the state and around the world (indisc.) through awareness in the use of Internet. The development of new software now makes accepting this information network by students and teachers more user friendly. The Department of Education, Anchorage School District, Municipality of Anchorage and other organizations, individuals and businesses around the state have recognized the importance of this communication avenue. Unfortunately, what has not changed in the past year is the ability of the districts and the state to provide equitable access to information through the information highway to all students. In the past year, the Anchorage School District has developed a (indisc.) of instructional technology plan with the help of the instructional technology committee consisting of over 40 community and school personnel. Their vision begins with a student in the classroom, eager to learn because of the instructional technology tools he or she is using. This student is connected to the district network which is connected to the global information highway. Computers are used to access information. However, the technology available to the students in the Anchorage School District to fulfil this mission is inadequate and outdated. The district budget cannot provide adequate funds to meet existing or future district instructional technology needs or eliminate the present inequity among the schools in providing access to technology, information resources and communications. To this end, the voters of Anchorage (indisc.) $35 million for technology. The outcome of their efforts will not be known until after the April 16 election. House Bill 216 will establish a technology fund. It will lay the foundation for future monies to be set aside for technology needs statewide. It recognizes the importance of technology to the future of Alaska. He urged the committee's support of HB 216. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY expressed her concern that if we wait for the grant money, children will be graduating with no schools at all. She would like to see this concept taken to the Board of Education so they can incorporate it into their planning. Number 821 CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards, said he views this legislation as enabling; it gives direction. He said he would like to see this fund established, to be able to at least focus on it as a means of providing the opportunity and equitable access to technology. From a personal point of view, he has found that having access to E Mail helps him to communicate with people. He feels the many uses of technology are critical to the global economy. He believes the future of young people is dependent on their ability to use technology. He supports HB 216. Number 913 KIMBERLY HOMME, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Education, testified in support of CSHB 216, which establishes the education technology fund and the consequent program that would result. The department feels that having a technology fund is the first step to having a commitment to appropriating the funding that's needed. The goal of the fund is to create a better trained and more productive work force. The department is concerned that the bill doesn't appropriate dollars for technology for libraries and schools because it's an empty shell, but it does provide the frame work for future deposits by private business, perspective grants from the federal government and hopefully future appropriations by the legislature. These monies would then be applied for by school districts and libraries for the purchases of education technology and the associated training that goes with new technology. The department would be allowed to deduct administrative fees from the account to pay for the work associated with administering the fund and the program. The department believes if the frame work for the fund is established, there ultimately would be a mechanism available to enable the state and local school districts to provide the ability for children and citizens with the opportunity to learn technology and its uses. Ms. Homme referred to Co-Chair Toohey's comment on the Board of Education's concern about technology and education and said just last fall the board adopted statewide voluntary technology standards for students. The department has outlined in regulation what children are expected to know and do with technology, as well as other areas of the curriculum. Number 1050 CO-CHAIR BUNDE turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Toohey as he had to leave for another committee meeting. Number 1061 KAREN JORDAN, Past President, of the Alaska Society for Technology and Education, testified the Society fully supports HB 216. She is the technology coordinator for the Juneau School District and personally supports the bill. She shared an anecdote about a girl who had a new E Mail connection with her father, whom she previously saw only twice a year, but now was able to communicate with him daily. She cited several other examples of how technology is currently being used by students. The Juneau School District is connected to the Internet throughout the district. As had been previously testified, this bill will set up a fund; it will be a zero balance fund to begin with, but there are many people throughout the state that are eager and willing to work on subsequent funding through grants from private corporations and other sources. We need to make sure that students as they are graduating have the skills needed for jobs and employability. She said that one estimate is that 70 percent of the technology jobs after the year 2000 will be high technology jobs. The world is changing, economics are changing and that needs to be addressed in our school systems. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there were other individuals to testify on HB 216. Hearing none, she closed public testimony. Number 1246 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to pass CSHB 216(HES) out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|