HB 104-ALASKA PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIPS  CHAIR DICK announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 104, "An Act renaming the Alaska performance scholarship and relating to the scholarship and tax credits applicable to contributions to the scholarship; establishing the Alaska performance scholarship investment fund and the Alaska performance scholarship award fund and relating to the funds; making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date." [In front of the committee was Version I, which had been adopted as the work draft on February 9, 2011.] CHAIR DICK opened public testimony. 9:09:16 AM STEVE PINE, SERRC (Southeast Regional Resource Center), Alaska's Learning Network, indicated that the infrastructure of Alaska's Learning Network provided and enhanced opportunities, as well as answering connectivity, staff development, and course content issues. 9:11:00 AM RYAN STANLEY, Technology Director, SERRC (Southeast Regional Resource Center), Alaska's Learning Network, offered to address any specific or general inquiries. The committee took a brief at-ease. 9:12:19 AM CHAIR DICK asked how every student, specifically in rural areas, could receive the classes needed to qualify for the scholarship program. MR. STANLEY replied that SERRC worked with a variety of distance delivery initiatives, and that one of the main objectives was to locate the existing programs and incorporate them together. He reported that there was a focus on customizing courses. He shared that there was a suite of solutions designed for both broad band internet and low band width, as well. He described much of his work to be within the school network capabilities. 9:16:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked when these programs would be available. MR. STANLEY replied that five priority course areas would be available to 240 students in the summer of 2011, with considerably more growth for the fall. 9:17:19 AM MR. STANLEY, in response to Representative P. Wilson, listed math, foreign language, social studies, science, and language arts as the upcoming priority course areas. He pointed out that these would vary for the needs of each district. 9:18:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked about the funding for these courses. 9:18:16 AM MR. STANLEY replied that funding models included grants, pay per service, and a formula by population which was paid by each district. 9:18:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if video teleconferencing was possible between students in remote communities. MR. STANLEY pointed out that the Alaska Learning Network would include a community feedback and interaction loop. 9:21:22 AM CHAIR DICK asked for a demonstration to how a course might work. MR. STANLEY replied that course materials were not available, but he described the course bits and reviews that had been submitted. 9:23:19 AM CHAIR DICK asked if courses would be available to rural communities that would allow for qualification to the performance scholarships. MR. STANLEY replied that there were many courses, and that a frame work would be available by the summer. 9:24:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that graduation requirements varied between districts, and asked what incentives would be available for modification by the small districts. 9:25:15 AM MR. STANLEY quoted a superintendent, "we would love to be involved as long as we don't have to change what we're doing." He noted that guidelines for application of the program had been developed. He pointed to the ability to match a student's specific needs to a specific program. 9:26:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked how the lack of technology by remote schools was being addressed. 9:26:55 AM MR. STANLEY replied that a set of solutions, called portable courses, were being designed specifically for non broadband schools, which would allow for copying and pasting directly onto the local school network. 9:28:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked about the origin of those courses. 9:28:16 AM MR. STANLEY explained that there were course providers outside of Alaska, but that SERCC was pursuing courses already developed in Alaska. He explained that the pieces of courses already submitted, the "artifacts," were being reviewed for use in future courses. 9:29:23 AM MR. PINE pointed out that these would be aligned with the course standards. 9:29:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI emphasized the need for culturally relevant courses, and asked if the courses from outside Alaska could be adapted. MR. STANLEY replied that professional developers had been hired to assist and train teachers with the use of the new technology. 9:31:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that the funding should be provided by the State of Alaska, in order to allow students in rural areas the same opportunities for performance scholarships. 9:32:50 AM MR. STANLEY offered agreement that the access should be free to all the students and teachers. 9:33:21 AM CHAIR DICK offered support for proposed HB 104, but he questioned the means for the remote villages to meet the requirements. 9:34:01 AM NORMAN ECK, PhD, Superintendent, Northwest Arctic Borough School District, reported that there were 10 high schools in the district, but that Kotzebue was the only school large enough to offer this curriculum. He stated that six of the high schools only had one or two teachers, and that it was not possible for the teacher to provide the required courses with the necessary depth to the students. He stated that the students deserved the opportunities. He pointed to the difficulties, even in the high schools with five teachers, which included the lack of capacity for video streamlining courses. He confirmed that the district had all the high schools on the same 55 minute class schedules to allow for distance classes, but he admitted the difficulties for motivation when there was only one student in a class. He stated the need to address the small high school in Alaska. He announced that magnet boarding schools allowed older high school students to channel into nursing, teaching, and process technology. He expressed appreciation for proposed HB 104, but he declared the need for equal access to courses for all students. 9:39:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if the bill should be postponed or to have a later effective date. 9:39:31 AM DR. ECK replied that the bill should not be postponed, but that the reality of the delivery system and the possibility for students to immediately attain scholarships should be considered. He stated the need for post high school training, though not necessarily a college Bachelors degree. He stressed that the computer screen did not "meet the need of those students who do have that potential, just needs to be unlocked; a computer screen, as much as they're into technology, still doesn't unlock that deep part of what makes a student a student, and develops you into a true human being, and brings you into full citizenship in Alaska." He questioned whether grade point average should be included in proposed HB 104, as many students had not yet matured. 9:41:38 AM CHAIR DICK referred to the Alaska Performance Scholarship district survey on course offerings, which indicated whether the schools in the district could provide students with the necessary courses to meet the requirements for the Alaska performance scholarships. He pointed out that the Northwest Arctic Borough had indicated its ability to meet the requirements. DR. ECK agreed that the courses were available in some of the schools, but he suggested that there must have been confusion on the survey. He agreed that the potential was there for some, but not all the high schools. 9:43:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA reported that it was necessary to better connect urban and rural needs with mentoring. 9:45:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify if the district would be able to offer the courses when the program was fully implemented. 9:46:03 AM DR. ECK replied that it was not physically possible for one or two, possibly four, high school teachers to teach all of these requirements to the levels necessary. He opined that reliance on the computer would attract some students, but would not provide all of the answers until there was an infrastructure for video streaming. He declared the need for a high level of individual student motivation to be successful with this process. 9:47:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that, until that level of streaming occurs, the students will not have access to the skills to perform in today's society. DR. ECK, in response to Representative Seaton, said that a student did not need physics to perform in today's society or to attend college. He declared a need for small, regional boarding schools or for instructors to be available to fly out to remote sites, all of which would require increased funding. He emphasized that the option of a distance delivery class didn't guarantee student success. 9:50:11 AM LARRY "WOODY" WILSON, Superintendent, Wrangell Public School District, President, SERRC (Southeast Regional Resource Center), agreed that, although the performance scholarship was not the final answer for all the issues, it would provide an incentive to students. He endorsed distance education as the way of the future, and he noted that some states required a distance class for graduation. He offered his support for any opportunity that "was an improvement, if it moves the right direction, if it's best for kids." 9:52:56 AM JEFF THIELBAR, PhD, Superintendent, Skagway School District, Board Member, SERRC (Southeast Regional Resource Center), endorsed the scholarship program and HB 104 as an incentive for students to do better. He listed motivation, robustness, and technology as pertinent issues. He defined robustness as the ability to deliver a "deep and enriching content in a course." He agreed that although a face to face teaching situation was the best, video and correspondence courses were better than nothing. He observed that Skagway did not have the best technology or the ability to deliver all of the courses with teachers, but that the district was doing its' best. 9:55:59 AM STEVE BRADSHAW, Superintendent, Sitka School District, Board Member, SERRC (Southeast Regional Resource Center), said that education had historically "tried to band-aid things together." He said that the mandate for on line classes needed to be funded appropriately at the state level. As an educator, he questioned where the money was being placed. He offered his opinion that to motivate students, it was important to invest the funding in early childhood education at the pre-school level. 9:58:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, directing attention to the needs based component of the bill, asked if it would encourage a greater diversity of students than the merit based component by itself. 9:59:45 AM MR. BRADSHAW stated his belief that, although it was important to have the merit scholarship available for every student, the needs based component would motivate many additional students. He pointed out that the top 10 percent of the graduating class in the prior year had a high percentage of their school costs paid. [HB 104 was held over.]