Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/30/1997 03:03 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 54 EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM Number 1896 GEORGE DOZIER, Legislative Aide to Representative Kott, the sponsor of HB 54 testified before the committee. He said the bill creates an education technology program and fund. He said it is Representative Kott's position that the world economy is rapidly evolving, evolving of one being manufacturing based to one of increased technological change and information management. Alaska is part of the world economy, we are not a separate enclave. What happens in the rest of the world directly affects us and we must compete with other components of the world economy. MR. DOZIER said, to be competitive, Alaska must be more sophisticated in the use of technology and that it requires education. Alaska has always had a strong commitment to providing education and, as the economy evolves, we must increasingly emphasize education technology. We haven't done so heretofore, we must do more and as the pace of economic evolution increases we must increase our emphasis in this field. MR. DOZIER said HB 54 is a start in that direction. It creates the Education Technology Fund in the Department of Education (DOE), it provides a mechanism for channeling grant money to various schools and libraries, provides a mechanism to create access to various computer networks and also provides a mechanism for training educators and librarians in the use of this technology. He said HB 54 is not an appropriation bill. It does provide that the legislature may appropriate money into the fund but it does not actually make that appropriation. It envisions public and private donations to the fund. Number 1992 MR. DOZIER said, regarding this fund source, Representative Kott submitted a proposed committee substitute which was drafted in blank which he urged upon the committee. He said the proposed committee substitute doesn't change HB 54 except that it creates a tax deduction. He said Alaska corporations are paying Alaskan income tax. Money that would be donated into the Education Technology Fund would create a deduction for that taxpayer. It is believed that it would encourage donations to that fund. MR. DOZIER said it is common knowledge that many Alaskans are not prepared to deal with rapid technological changes and Representative Kott feels strongly that we must do something about this or Alaska will be left in the dust. He said HB 54 is a step in that direction and Representative Kott recommends this bill to the committee. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY questioned why we need HB 54 as it doesn't seem to do anything that we can't do under existing law. Number 2047 MR. DOZIER said HB 54 creates a centralized authority that would be able to develop expertise in this area to provide guidance to the various entities it would service. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, unless there is something here that he did not know, we do not need a law to that as we can do this under existing law. MR. DOZIER said HB 54 provides an encouragement to donate money to this fund. Number 2088 CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked what the impact the proposed committee substitute would have on the general fund. Number 2094 MR. DOZIER said he did not have information regarding that issue. He pointed out that it is not a tax credit, but a tax deduction. He did not envision that tax payers would be paying money into the fund in lieu of the general fund. Number 2116 KAREN JORDON, President, Alaska Society for Technology in Education, Technology Coordinator for the Juneau School District, was next to testify. She said over the last four years, Juneau has passed two bond initiatives to provide $6 million for eight schools and 5,500 students. She said technology is not a frill, it is a necessity. It is not merely a nice thing to do or something we do when we have some extra money to throw at a special pet project. Technology is now a complete and total necessity for every graduating senior. MS. JORDON said she has appeared the last seven years before the committee to testify for an educational technology bill. She said HB 54, in different forms, has been on the table for about seven years and several times the question has come up that it can be done without a bill. She said the answer is that it wouldn't be done without legislation. Money is not being put towards technology and added that the mechanism towards technology is not being put forward int the state. She said when basic clerical staff are hired in offices, it is expected that they have a high level of technology skills. Degrees or special training are not being sought, it is expected that high school graduates have enough technology skills to be able to come into offices and use the computers that are available. TAPE 97-5, SIDE B Number 0000 MS. JORDON said HB 54 is also about equal access to educational opportunity. In Juneau, voters have approved technology funding for all of their schools, Anchorage has not, and several rural areas are not able to pass bonds or not able to bond their constituents to fund technology. She said it does not mean that we should then fund technology at different levels throughout the state. MS. JORDON said HB 54 sets up a fund. She said money would available through federal grants and through donations such as the recent donation from BP (Alaska) Inc. This money would be coordinated through this fund. There are three things which have to happen statewide; network all of the schools, provide better telecommunications to rural areas and buy computers and software for student use. She said these three issues are not simple and are somewhat expense. It also takes a degree of technological knowledge that is not readily available in every school in the state which includes Anchorage as well as bush communities. MS. JORDON said, during the past Congressional session, $200 million of federal money was put into a federal technology literacy challenge fund and states can apply for that money. She said the biggest hole in Alaska's application is that the state has no mechanism for funding technology statewide and many other states do. She said when the application question arises of how the state is currently funding technology the answer is that we really aren't doing it or it is funded by districts who are able to come up with the money in their limited operations funds. Number 0094 MS. JORDON said there is a need for centralized help. She said she is not normally a proponent of centralized administration, but in this instance she is. She said she gets calls from all over the state looking for information on how they go about networking their school or what kinds of things they should look at in implementing a technology program. She said this is an area that needs a clearing house for information, a central place for assistance. MS. JORDON said, as the legislature goes through the budget cutting and takes a careful look at how to prepare this state for the future, funding technology should be considered so that students in Alaska are prepared to support themselves. She suggested that HB 54 will help the state build the capacity for economic development, it will help people find jobs wherever they live in the state. Number 0184 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked her how the determination would be made as to how much of the grants went to what schools when all the schools were requesting the latest computer technology. Number 0223 MS. JORDON said there would be two initial steps; organizing materials in a clearinghouse of information which can be distributed to all of the sites and going after money for the fund. She said there is no appropriation for this fund, it is a zero fund at this point. The fund would seek out federal grants, Alaska Scientists and Technology grants and money from BP, ARCO, Exxon or whoever wants to fund technology in the state. After that as it is anytime you organize and administer any large project, determinations would have to be made on a needs basis, a capacity basis and said there are some places that are further along in their readiness. She said there are community people who have thought through how they would implement technology. Number 0287 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said a couple of people would be established to look for funding and asked if there would be more incentive if the salaries were paid by the funds they collect. He said this could be done rather than establishing an organization which may or may not get something. He said it seemed to him that if the staff was self supporting, they might have more of an impetus to seek funds. Number 0323 MS. JORDON said it makes sense, but you have a start up costs. You cannot start a program with no people. She said she would support at least an initial year of funding and out years it could be funded by the fund itself. Number 0341 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the fiscal note shows a six year funding mechanism on the general fund. He asked if HB 54 needed to be re- drafted to eliminate this funding. MS. JORDON said to start the fund you would have to provide money for staff. Number 0375 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the first year couldn't be started with existing people. Number 0395 MS. JORDON said the DOE had a person that was paid for through Star Schools or some other grants, but that person was lost. She said DOE does not have anyone dealing with technology. Number 0394 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked how many students homes have computers. Number 0410 MS. JORDON said she thought it was one-third and growing. Number 0417 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if she felt the kids would independently pick up a level of proficiency without being in a formal class. Number 0425 MS. JORDON said some kids will pick up a level of proficiency. She said this fund not only talks about technology, so that students can sit down and someone can teach them to use the technology. She said kids pick up technology fairly quickly, but we are talking about technology for kids to use as tools throughout their daily work. She said, in Juneau, the quality of student work and products skyrocket as kids have access to technology tools, the internet, CDs and data bases that are in the schools now. She said Anchorage and other places are not able to do that. She said a system and a quantity of money is needed to set up this fund. Number 0485 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said the people in the Anchorage community decided that they did not want to invest, perhaps almost blindly, in funds for technology. He said just because you build it does not mean they will come. Number 0511 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked, "would it be fair to infer with what you said that kids that, children who learn on their own don't tend to have such a dramatic impact on their scholastic performance as those kids that learn in a more structured situation, or has more geared applications." Number 0540 MS. JORDON clarified that he was asking where would technology have more of an impact on academic performance and said she thought it would be both. She said it approves student's academic performance when they are able to use technology tools as it is a whole other media for teaching all students. When we talk about the amount of jobs that are basic entry level, non-skilled work, she said the state has to reach far more kids than are currently reached through basic text based resources. Number 0569 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said we used to be able to correlate how a child performed academically based on whether or not the child came from a home where the parents were readers and there was a library in the home. He asked if there are segments of the Alaska population that have a disproportionate need for help in getting on board with technology. Number 0604 MS. JORDON said you could say that. In Juneau to address the fact that some kids have access to technology at home so that they can continue their work outside of school, the city looked at community access points; public libraries, community centers, housing projects and other places where students could go in other hours and get access to technology tools. She said in rural areas the school is a public access point and has longer hours than some of the more urban schools. Number 0641 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked her if she would extrapolate that the resources from this program might be more utilized in rural areas. Number 0654 MS. JORDON said she would not say that because the same condition exists in Anchorage as exists in some rural areas. She said Wendler Junior High has 15 computers for 1,200 students. She said Juneau has a four or five to one ratio. Number 0676 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said, if he could correctly quote what he read, that every high school student in Galena has a power notebook. Number 0714 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said it was the chair's intention to form a subcommittee to look into the impact on the general fund by the proposed committee substitute. Number 0742 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute for HB 54, Version B. Hearing no objection CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced that the committee had adopted CSHB 54(HES). REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would be interested to see what the impact on the general fund would be from the DOR. He said he would like someone from the DOR or DOE to tell the committee precisely why they can't perform these services using existing personnel. Number 0787 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if CSHB 54(HES) creates a fund, within the DOE, administered by the DOE which means that the Commissioner of Education is the trustee of the fund. Number 0825 MS. JORDON said she believed the fund would be in the DOR. Number 0815 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said CSHB 54(HES) creates in Title 14, the education statute, a fund in DOE. Number 0825 BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director, Income and Excise Audit Division, Department of Revenue, was next to testify. He said CSHB 54(HES) sets up the fund within DOE and thus they would be the overseer of how it is implemented on the programmatic side. The role of DOR would be limited to the investment of the funds. Number 0846 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY clarified that the dispersement of the fund would be up to the DOE. He said this would again create a centralized pool within the DOE with the whole state arguing over how to disperse it. Number 0863 REPRESENTATIVE J. ALLEN KEMPLEN asked if CSHB 54(HES) would serve as an incentive for local initiatives to develop and acquire computers and educational technology. Number 0883 MS. JORDON said she did not know if CSHB 54(HES) includes this provision. She said former versions of this bill used to have a match set up and then it would act as an incentive. She said it would be an incredible incentive to get people organized, have a plan in place and have figured out what their technology support and their training should be, etc. She said it would be a very big incentive. Number 0935 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked if the fund would also serve as a vehicle for private sector contributions from corporations in the state. Number 0935 MS. JORDON said yes, and added that it would be a vehicle for contributions even without the tax deduction portion of CSHB 54(HES). She said the tax deduction would be a substantial incentive for corporations to choose this as a donation point. Number 0962 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if it was customary, that the cost for DOR to administer a new fund, to come out of the fund itself rather than needing a new fiscal note. Number 0970 MR. BARTHOLOMEW said he was correct and the fiscal note from the Treasury Division is now zero because there is no money in the fund. He said the division states in the fiscal note that they would use the fund itself as a funding source, but there are some upfront costs that are charged to DOR as soon as the fund or account is set up. He said if, at that point, there was no money available money could be advanced with the idea that there would be contributions coming in. He said this would be a safe bet because... REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there was a fiscal note from DOR. MR. BARTHOLOMEW said there should be a fiscal note from the DOR. He said that fiscal note addresses the Treasury Division's investment cost and added that the CSHB 54(HES) version would require a new fiscal note. Number 1025 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said a subcommittee could look at some of these questions including the general fund impact as a result of the tax deduction and the idea that if the fund could be operated on soft money so that whoever was administering the fund would have to raise money to pay their own way. He asked Representatives Kemplen and Vezey to serve on the subcommittee and Representative Green to serve as chair. He asked the subcommittee to report back to the committee a week from Tuesday, February 11, 1997. Number 1088 LARRY WIGET, Director of Government Relations, Anchorage School District, and coordinator of (indiscernible) and previous to that he was the coordinator of the library program (indiscernible) technology for the Anchorage District, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said the Anchorage School District supports the passage of HB 54 and said they have been working for several years to meet the needs of getting technology to their students and to students around the state. He said the needs are greater now than ever before and they can not be met through the state district budgets. For example, the entire Anchorage School District instructional technology budget, with a projected 48,000 students for next year, is about $33,000 or about 70 cents per student. He said instructional technology and getting this technology into the hands of teachers and student is a priority of the district. MR. WIDGET said they have a technology commission which will be looking at developing and further refining the district's technology. He said given the cost of technology and the budget constraints the district is unable to fund that money. MR. WIGET said CSHB 54(HES) will establish an endowment fund, it will not meet instructional technology needs. It will lay the foundation for teacher monies to be set aside for technology needs statewide. It recognizes the importance of technology to the future of Alaska and it recognizes that the local community technology increases by the use of a matching grant. He asked the committee to pass HB 54. Number 1184 CHAIRMAN BUNDE added that the subcommittee examine what the local match should be and if that was advisable.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|