Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/20/2012 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Delta Greely School District | |
| HB242 | |
| SB8 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 242 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 242-PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING: DIGITAL LEARNING
8:26:29 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 242, "An Act relating to funding for digital
learning as a component of public school funding."
8:26:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON presenting HB 242 as the prime sponsor,
paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
House Bill No. 242 establishes a "digital learning
funding factor" in law to assist school districts in
implementing a full range of digital technology.
The bill proposes to multiply the Average Daily
Membership (ADM) by 1.005 to create a new digital
learning factor. The new factor should provide about
$6 million per year to spread across the state. Funds
can be used to acquire a range of technologies, such
as mobile devices, tablets, notebooks or smart boards,
plus software and services like professional
development and technical support. School districts
will retain complete flexibility to use the funds
based on local priorities.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric around the building
about education and how there is resistance to just
increasing the Base Student Allocation. The bill
provides the direct method for change that will
improve our educational outcomes. The digital Learning
program has been proven with the "Leveling the Playing
Field" Pilot Program. I think it fits the goal of
spending funds to get measureable improvements in
outcomes.
I have been asked by the Association of Alaska School
Board's Consortium for Digital Learning (CDL) on
digital learning, the implementers of the pilot, to
introduce this legislation. I believe the Digital
Learning program could be one of the tools we need to
engage our students and help keep them in the
classroom.
There are Consortium for Digital Leaning members
present that will be able to answer your questions
relating to this program much better than I. Mr.
Chair, with your permission, I ask that they come
forward and answer program questions the committee may
have.
8:29:25 AM
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), directed attention to the committee handout
titled "Transforming Alaska Education through Digital Learning"
[Included in members' packets] and indicated how quickly the
change had progressed since 2006. Referring to Representative
Wilson's testimony, he declared that the infrastructure to
support this rapid advance was necessary to ensure that the
network would work. He shared that curriculum apps were now on
line, and that the infrastructure support was growing as
connectivity became available. He opined that the impetus
behind proposed HB 242 was to sustain this effort for technology
seed money.
8:32:52 AM
BOB WHICKER, Director, Consortium for Digital Learning (CDL),
stated that the proposed bill accomplished some necessary
sustained program funding. He detailed that it would enable new
projects, expand existing projects, and refresh other programs.
8:34:51 AM
MR. WHICKER reported that, since his iPad demonstration during
the past year, the Consortium for Digital Learning had
progressed to become a service organization which provided
aggregate ordering, broad reaching professional development,
leadership training, projects, and a library of courses based on
Alaska themes.
8:36:58 AM
MR. WHICKER directed attention to the Consortium's latest
project, detailed in the HD6 IPADS4LITERACY handout [Included in
members' packets], which described that nine school districts
had received a total of 600 iPads, targeted at the third grade
level. He said that the data results of the program were still
being received. He indicated page 3 of the handout, "Have the
iPads changed your instruction?", noting the overwhelming
affirmative response. He referred to an additional handout
titled "Rationale for Inclusion of Digital Learning in Education
Foundation Support" [Included in members' packets] and stated
"we're in a place of change right now where all the efforts that
you see with these [digital learning] projects are starting to
move to ... change." He opined that proposed HB 242 would
encourage this forward movement.
8:40:05 AM
MR. ROSE, referring to page 2, line 8 of the proposed bill,
explained that the funding factor of 1.005 equaled $5.9 million
from the state to be used as "seed money." He opined that "when
districts have skin in the game, they pay close attention to
what they're doing." He suggested the three funding options for
sustainability to be the general fund, grant processes, and
capital budgets. He declared that this was a model for all
schools to follow, and this seed money would create opportunity
and impetus.
8:41:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, directing attention to the aforementioned
ratio for 1 to 1 distribution of the iPads, asked why the
devices were left in the classroom. He relayed that other
reports indicated that it was educationally beneficial when the
devices were taken home by the students. He offered his belief
that some of the gains for extending the educational day were
being lost if this optional use was not allowed. He asked if
the consortium was considering an expansion to the usage.
8:43:21 AM
MR. WHICKER voiced his agreement, stating that research
supported the expanded use outside of the classroom. He pointed
out that, since 2006, the laptop take home policy was strongly
encouraged, even though each district made its own
determinations for management of the devices. He reported that
the iPad program policies were not scrutinized and, referring to
the graph in the aforementioned handout titled "Rationale for
Inclusion of Digital Learning in Education Foundation Support,"
he declared that the adoption of change in schools did not come
as quickly as the change in technology. He professed his strong
support for the use of iPads outside the classrooms.
8:45:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, addressing concerns for the breakage of
technology when taken from the classroom, reported that the
students were very responsible and protective of the devices.
He pointed out that the apps on the devices allowed for use
without connection to the internet.
8:47:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, directing attention to page 4 of the
aforementioned HD6 IPADS4LITERACY handout, asked to clarify why
Fairbanks had such a small number of users. He opined that
tying proposed HB 242 to the average daily membership (ADM)
student count would not allow for the necessary program seed
money in all the school districts, and he asked how to ensure
equity among all the school districts.
8:49:02 AM
MR. ROSE explained that the 53 school districts were each
governed by a local school board, which allowed for different
policies and approaches. He gave examples for different means
of implementation by the districts, and pointed out that smaller
school districts had more flexibility for change. He explained
that funding was from a block grant.
8:50:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked how the technology interfaced with
culture and local knowledge.
MR. WHICKER, in response to Representative Cissna, said that
students were able to use the laptops to record cultural
activities, including the filming of dance groups, conferences,
and oral histories by the elders. He said that CDL had helped
bring people together around a common infrastructure, which
brought many different projects to light.
8:53:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA offered her belief that built-in
incentives were motivators, and she asked whether the separate
school boards were involved, especially as mentors to each
other.
8:54:34 AM
MR. ROSE replied that the diversity of the school districts was
broad and that, although the technology and information was
shared with each of the districts, it was necessary for each
district to determine its local need and to find the money to
invest.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if legislators were invited to the
AASB meetings.
MR. ROSE extended an invitation to the annual conference.
8:57:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, referring to the handout [included in
members' packets] titled "Transforming Alaska Education through
Digital Learning" and read: "The challenge is that all children
do not have access to an equitable education experience." She
expressed her agreement with the statement, and continued
reading:
Additional designated funding will help school leaders
meet that responsibility. Adding funds to the
foundation formula and collaboration between
individual legislators and school districts to expand
digital learning opportunities for students can
transform education in Alaska. For us to miss this
opportunity to change the face of teaching and
learning now would be a tragedy.
She offered her belief that it was necessary to recognize this
as a sustainable opportunity and for the legislature to make it
happen.
8:59:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE stated his support for the advantages of
digital learning. He questioned whether enough money was being
requested in the proposed bill.
MR. ROSE replied that the requested amount was a starting point,
but that it could be larger. He opined that it was better to
ask for an amount that would be accepted rather than rejected as
too large.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE remarked that technology, as it changed,
required an ongoing capital investment. He suggested that it
would require more funding to accomplish what was necessary. He
asked if there were controls in the proposed bill to ensure that
the funds were spent on digital learning.
MR. ROSE expressed agreement that definitions for accountability
should be included.
9:02:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the Alaska apps were free to the
school districts.
MR. WHICKER replied that all the content at iTunes U was free,
and that CDL was continually working with partners to "help to
fill that repository." He noted that other groups were also
working to collect and distribute information, and he stated,
"That's a good thing in that this is too big of an issue for any
one entity to take on by themselves."
9:03:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referenced a report from a school district
that district purchases of iPod Touch were double that of iPads.
He reflected that the iPod Touch offered the same applications,
was smaller, and was less expensive. He asked if iPads were
more effective for increasing education.
MR. WHICKER replied that the proposed bill allowed each
individual school district to select its device. He agreed
that, although there was a lot of current excitement about the
iPad, many devices were available and that proposed HB 242
allowed funding for a variety of devices to meet the differing
needs. He stated that there was no explicit advantage to any of
the devices, but rather it was "a decision of form factor."
9:07:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify that the consortium would
offer a comparison of each technology, instead of focusing on a
single piece, to ensure the best results for each user group.
9:08:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked what controls would be implemented
to allow that individual users would not be distracted by other
uses.
MR. WHICKER, in response to Representative Pruitt, explained
that each school loaded different apps on the iPads, based on
its instructional strategy, and that the distractions were a
result of work online. He shared that schools had installed
filters to support established policies and were offering
professional development for teachers to learn how to teach with
this technology. He suggested that kids would often use the
tools for their own learning enhancement.
9:13:26 AM
CHAIR DICK relayed that Dell was developing a system to allow
teachers to monitor each student's use of the device.
9:13:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked if there was a way to ensure that
teachers were ready to integrate these technologies, even though
some teachers were resistant to change.
MR. WHICKER offered his belief that professional development and
training for the use of these tools were the most necessary
fundamentals, and that funding was usually the key to both of
these.
9:16:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that the technology had to be
synched with the school computers which could erase any
unauthorized applications.
MR. WHICKER confirmed this, and he pointed out that future
technology allowed for easier management, noting that the iPads
had teacher, rather than tech, managed solutions.
9:18:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON directed attention to page 2 of the
fiscal note, and read: "this legislation will need to be
updated to include new vocational education factor, or CTE,
which passed in the 2011 legislative session and signed by the
governor into law." She asked if the committee would like this
included.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE opined that the House Finance Committee
would request it.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, directing attention to page 2, line 8 of
the proposed bill, asked if the funding factor of 1.005
eliminated the 1 percent which had been passed during the prior
year.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON replied that that the 1 percent had
been a one-time distribution.
MR. ROSE offered his belief that this was now 21 percent in the
block grant, and he agreed that it was ongoing.
9:20:15 AM
CHAIR DICK announced that HB 242 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 242 Supporting Document AASB.pdf |
HEDC 2/20/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 242 |
| HB 242 Supporting Document CDL Leveling the Playing Field.pdf |
HEDC 2/20/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 242 |
| HB 242 Version A.pdf |
HEDC 2/20/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 242 |
| HB242 Sponsor Statement Version A.pdf |
HEDC 2/20/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 242 |
| HB242-EED-ESS-2-17-12.pdf |
HEDC 2/20/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 242 |