First Analysis (6-23-98)

THE APPARENT PROBLEM:

Several recent national surveys about the use of telecommunications systems in schools have shown that Michigan ranks below the national average in several categories, including schools with Internet access (60 percent vs. 64 percent nationally), ratio of students to computers, and schools having local area networks (LANs) and wide area networks (WANs). In addition, Michigan ranked 44th in the nation in how many hours of instruction in technology the average teacher had received (just ten percent of Michigan teachers have had at least nine hours of training, as compared to fifteen percent nationally). According to ProjectEdTech, a survey of Michigan school buildings conducted in 1997 by Quality Education Data (QED) and the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), only 15 percent of public school teachers and 11 percent of nonpublic school teachers had advanced technology skills. Statistics such as these have spurred many discussions on how to remedy the situation and increase the technological abilities of both teachers and students.

In 1997, Michigan received over $8 million in grants from the Technological Literacy Challenge Fund, one of several federal initiatives instituted to increase the technological abilities of schools. Participation in the program requires that a state have a state technology plan approved by the U.S. Department of Education. A previous technology plan expired in 1997, and a new plan was approved by the Michigan State Board of Education in January of this year. The new plan addresses the four primary goals (training, hardware, access and connectivity, and content resources) included in the National Plan for Technology in Education, which was created by the president and the U.S. Department of Education. Michigan's State Technology Plan (1998) is intended to be the state's guiding policy document and is built around 21 recommendations, which include competency expectations of K-12 graduates, equity of access, teacher competencies, creating an information clearinghouse, and creation of a model technology plan. The plan was developed with the input of the state superintendent's Educational Technology Advisory Group (ETAG), which consisted of members of over 40 groups and organizations representing public and private schools, public school academies, colleges and universities, libraries, businesses, teachers, school administrators, media and curriculum specialists, and parents and students. This advisory group will continue to provide advice and expertise in implementing and updating the plan.

Some people feel, however, that the legislature should be more involved in assisting the state's schools to become more technologically adept. It has been pointed out that the state has had technology plans since the late 1980s, and the use of technology in schools has increased tremendously in the ensuing years, but there is nothing in place to provide unification between school districts or even to quickly assess current technology capabilities between schools and school districts. Some believe that the establishment of a commission whose focus would be to provide current assessments of technological capabilities and establish models for staff development and Internet usage, and which would have to report its findings to the legislature, would be beneficial in ensuring that the state's schools continued to progress in their ability to maximize technological advances in educating Michigan's pupils.

THE CONTENT OF THE BILL:

The bill would create the State School Technology Commission Act, which would establish a state school technology commission to improve the technological capability of schools in Michigan.

The ten-member state school technology commission created within the Department of Education would be composed of the director of the Department of

Management and Budget and president of the State Board of Education (or their designees), four people appointed by the governor (two representing the private sector and two representing school districts) and four at-large members (two appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and two appointed by the Senate majority leader). Commission members would have to be appointed within 60 days of the bill's effective date, and would serve three-year terms with the first set of members serving staggered terms. Members would not be paid, but could be reimbursed for expenses incurred while doing commission business. The bill would also provide for the filling of vacancies and the removal of those members appointed by the governor for causes such as incompetency or dereliction of duty. The State Board of Education president would have to call the first meeting, at which time a chairperson and other officers (as deemed necessary) would be elected. After that, the commission would meet at least four times a year. Meetings would have to be conducted in compliance with the Open Meetings Act (MCL 15.261-15.275), and documents meeting certain criteria would be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (MCL 15.231-15.246).

Commission duties would include the development of a statewide school technology plan to improve the state's school technology capability, a model technology system, a model Internet usage policy for school staff and pupils, and professional development models for training teachers and other staff in technology, and would also include ascertaining and evaluating the current status of school technology in the state, gathering information and reporting on usage of universal service funds received by public schools, and identifying issues concerning distance learning programs. Further, the commission would have to develop and submit to the governor, the legislature, and the State Board of Education a report on its activities and its recommendations concerning the above subjects not later than November 1, 2000 and November 1 of each subsequent even-numbered year.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Fiscal information is not available. (6-22-98)

ARGUMENTS:

For:

Recent surveys have shown Michigan schools lagging woefully behind the other states in such areas as teacher training in technology, percentage of schools being connected to the Internet, and pupils-to-computer ratios. Since technology is increasing at such a rapid rate, it is imperative that any measures that could monitor and assess the technological capabilities of schools, and aid schools through the development of various models for staff training and technology uses, be adopted. The bill, by creating the State School Technology Commission, would provide a way to better monitor the technological level of the state's schools and would raise consciousness of the importance of increasing the technological abilities of students. In addition, some see the commission as a unifying force to bring order and accountability in the area of technology, and as a resource for schools to get information on educational models. School districts must make many decisions on technology issues, and a commission could provide meaningful information and help.

Against:

Some of the commission's required duties would be duplications of other initiatives already in place. For example, the bill would require the ten-member commission to create a state technology plan. A 40-plus member advisory council to the State Board of Education, the ETAG, has already done so, and it has already been approved by the U.S. Department of Education, a necessary step in qualifying for numerous federal grant projects. In addition, many of the committee's other proposed duties would be duplications of iniatives proposed and, in some cases, already initiated, under the state plan. For example, the State Technology Plan calls for creation of a clearinghouse to disseminate information on educational models for staff training, pupil usage, helpful software applications, and so on. In fact, the MDE is already pioneering a clearinghouse of this type (the Michigan Statewide Systemic Initiative's Dialogue Web project). Many institutions in the state also provide similar resources, such as the Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency, which offers instructional software, lab activities, lesson plans and student-created materials for elementary and secondary science and mathematics instruction through its Explorer Resource Library. In short, where the commission could provide additional advisory assistance to school districts and raise the public's awareness of the importance of increasing the technological capabilities of the state's pupils and teachers, it would be of benefit. However, the bill perhaps should be amended to eliminate requirements that would be unduly expensive and duplicative of initiatives already in place.

POSITIONS:

A representative of the Michigan Education Association (MEA) testified in support of the bill. (4-28-98)

The Department of Education has not taken a formal position on the bill. (6-19-98)

The Michigan Association of School Administrators has no formal position on the bill. (6-19-98)

Analyst: S. Stutzky

This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.