A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

Senate | March 13, 2013 | Committee Room | Education

Full MP3 Audio File

Let's go ahead and get started this morning. Sorry for scaring my clerk on that one. All right, let me first introduce. We have our Senate pages, we have Keegan Hines, we have Sarah Wilson, Andrew Smith, Malisia Mills and Keyanna Brower. Thank you very much for being here and our sergeants at arms are Robert Young, Steve Wilson and Billy Fritcher. Thank you. We have two bills on the calendar today. We're going to switch the order for expediency and we're going to allow Senate Bill 168 to come up first with Senator Tucker so Senator Tucker please explain this. I think we're going to need a motion for a PCS is that correct. We have a motion from Senator Pate. All in favor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed. The PCS is now before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? I attended the Hunt Education Seminar a couple of years ago and at that seminar Dr., the head of DPI was there and she talked about the fact that they had a lot of reports that the legislature required of them that were unnecessary and I asked her, I asked Dr. Atkins, I'm a young legislator here, I mean a new legislator, not young, and I'll be glad to run a bill for you and so this is a result of that discussion with her and her staff and so what this bill does is it adds some technical language in and takes away a lot of bills that are unnecessary that have been replaced by the federal guidelines which we are under now in certain cases such as nutrition, those kind of things, so it eliminates those kinds of reports to DPI. I also asked her that if we eliminate these reports would that also eliminate a job and she said no it would not, so I don't know what this individual that's been keeping up with these reports will do after this bill goes through and becomes law but we'll see about that. So that's basically what has been done. There are some initiatives here that have been technically changed by staff to update them and put some more teeth into them and then eliminate some of those there so without further ado, Mr. Chairman, I presented this bill, I'll be glad to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have any questions from the members. Senator Robinson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, thank you Mr. Chair and thank you Senator Tucker because I did hear the same thing from them in terms of the kind of paperwork we require. The only question I have and I think it's good is where it just under personal education plans it says the state board shall periodically review data on the progress of identified students and report to us, now does that mean that I don't want the report but they're still going to review that data themselves in house, aren't they. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's right and as you well know that's done on the local level as well, the plan report. My daughter in law's a 4th grade teacher and she has 18 students in her class and she has to do those plans that are performed and then that information is transitioned to DPI, and so I just want to make sure I'm correct. Yes, that's correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Pate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. On part 5 which begins on page 3 I didn't hear you mention anything about that licensure. Are there any changes to the licensure process as a result of this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll ask staff to answer that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Pate the majority of the reworking of this statute is just to make it more readable. It's currently written sort of like War and Peace, it's just a long narrative so it breaks it up into more subsections but the only new part of it is on page 5 under b1 1 and it adds j, which is line 31 on page 5, this was a request from state department of public instruction that in the report that they are required to produce the schools of ed, that they include information on the effectiveness of their teacher education program graduates and then on page 6 lines 12-16, which is a new subsection 5 it just, let me make sure

I said that right. I’m sorry, it’s again on page 5 beginning at line 50. Near Sub Section 3. This educator preparation program report card. That was a request from the state department of public instruction. They had to create this for race to the top. They wanted it added they would also report this to the general assembly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. At the appropriate time I would like to be recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Any questions from members? Any comments from the public? Yes, please state your name and remember to please keep your comments to two minutes and under please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My name is Chris Hill. I’m the Director of the Educational Law Project in the North Carolina Justice Center. I’d just like to say that it would be important for us to keep the records and have them sent to DPI for the personal education plan. The legislation had been strengthened in the last two years. In the excellent public schools act, it’s a major part. It would be wise to collect the information statewide to see what is successful, and what is working with the program. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr Chair? Mr Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris came to see me about this. Of course, he had some excellent points on it. I reviewed it with staff. Staff can answer that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The PEPs would still be in place and LAA’s would still have it certified if they complied with the section annually to the state board. The requirement in statute that the state board would record the data and report to at oversight is what is deleted. The state board could of course continue to review the data as they saw fit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The data is still available Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Great. Thank you. Senator Robinson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a follow up to that, and thank you Mr. Chair. That’s was kind of what I was getting at, that the data would be collected. That it would be somewhere. Mr. Chair, I’m assuming that periodically we can request a copy of that report as well to an oversight if we wanted to review that and keep up with what is going on? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, ma’am. You are a senator. You can request that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. No further questions. Senator Pate is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I move that we give a favorable report to the proposed committee substitute to Senate Bill 168 unfavorable to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without further discussion, we have a motion on the floor. All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it. We have favorable report to the PCS and an unfavorable report to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair, and committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. I’m going to hand the chair over to Senator Tillman as I’m presenting the next bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Souchek if you would come forward to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. This is Senate Bill 119. It’s one of the bills that came out of our digital learning environment study committee that we had during the interim. What this is doing is…There were several requests during the process for schools who had capital funding through the lottery. They’ve requested some flexibility to be able to spend that towards a digital learning environment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Souchek? You have a PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry. Yes, we have a PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have a motion to adopt? I have a motion Senator Robinson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, thank you. Sorry. This was going back to the idea of… The basic concept of that when you build a school. You put power, you put electrical, you put all these things and that’s part of the capital funding. We see the digital learning environment, the infrastructure, as as critical to the learning environment now as those basic utilities. Also, beyond that it doesn’t go just to that, but goes to some of the purchase of the devices and even training as well. The material that you put on the devices. This is the material we had and we’re moving forward with. Now, there is a slight change as we realized how this was working staff brought our attention to something that changes something beyond what the original scope was. I think you’ll agree, it is an important change. There are two different funding, ways of funding for capital funds. You have the corporate income tax, or mostly people consider the ADM funding, which comes down as for capital funding and currently can be used for digital learning. Now, we have the lottery money which comes down which is restricted to…

capital funding. So as we're looking at opening up the capital funding from the lottery to give the use for digital learning we realized instead of having two sources with two slightly different rules we thought that would be inefficient and confusing. So we want to combine those two so that both sources of capital funding would have that flexibility under one set of rules so it would come into one pot with one rule rather than one pot with two different rules depending on the source. So it's a slight change to that but we thought that that was an important part of the PCS and that is how the bill stands. Do you have any questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Soucek I like what you're trying to do. I do have one a concern though. I don't know that there's a county in the state right now that isn't struggling with capital needs as far as schools go. And as far as lottery dollars go we've cut those back in the past few years which I think has put more and more pressure on the locals to find those dollars. I know a lot of counties have passed bond referendums and are using lottery proceeds to pay back some of those bonds. I just have a little bit of a concern of where this is going. Personally I think all the lottery money ought to go to capital needs. That's just my personal opinion because the needs are so great out there and it's putting a huge burden on the counties. We're seeing school boards suing counties because counties aren't willing to raise taxes to satisfy the school boards for capital needs. It's just a mess in my opinion on what's happening with capital needs. That's the concern I have with the bill. I think it just puts a little more pressure on county commissioners trying to figure out what they're gonna do with capital needs in the counties. My county's going through this problem right now. We've got a we passed a bond referendum a few years ago of $75 million. Now the school board's back asking for another, you know, referendum. So it's just a real concern I have. I don't think those needs are gonna get any less. I think they're gonna get worse. I think counties are truly struggling in this economy especially with values going down on ?? Buyouts that are happening because of our housing issues. It's just a serious concern and it's something I think we might want to consider. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may respond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. And I do that is I'm glad you brought that concern up because of what we are doing is by giving more flexibility it creates another burden on the county commissioner's burden. Before someone says we want to buy iPads, no we're restricted from doing that. Now they have to say no and then give a reasons so it does create a little bit more burden on them. But I will say on the one hand it is an optional thing. So when a school system is burdened with a capital need they can put all of it toward the capital. There's no requirement whatsoever to do any digital technology. I will say that there were school systems that came to us and they said we have we don't have a population growth with our school system and our capital needs are sufficient we would like to have this flexibility. Our hope is to create the flexibility for the school systems that need it, but the majority that don't it won't have any change for them. That was our thinking behind this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The idea has come up and probably you'll see legislation file Senator Brown that will have that all the lottery money devoted to school construction and if you don't need it there put it into the digital. That bill's not been filed yet but it's been mulling around in the back of several heads including my own. But this one is permissive Soucek, Senator Soucek. Am I right, you're not requiring or mandating this are you in your bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No absolutely it just creates the option. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A number of hands over here. I think I saw Senator Newton first. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair and Senator Soucek. I have a similar concern as Senator Brown has raised and know that for example in Johnston County is now part of my district they're quite extended on bonds because of their high growth. They've had to build many many schools a lot faster than most districts would have to. And so I have similar concerns and I want to make sure I understand it because I'm not sure I'm clear in reading it on the fly here. I haven't had a chance to read it before today. I admit that I haven't done my homework. Who would make this determination the school board or the county about whether or not these funds would be devoted to digital learning. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe it's the county but let me ask staff to make sure I have my facts correct.

It would be at the request of the LEA, to the County Board. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sir, follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And if I may direct this to staff, just to be sure I understand their answer. The LEA would request that the determination be made by the County Commission? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I think that’s all. Senator Allran next and then we’ve got Bryant and then I’ve got Robinson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I see that this bill is, just allows flexibility and I feel like that’s got to be a pretty good thing. But I would just like to make the general comment, is that it seems like the state legislature and maybe people in general, have this assumption that everything that is digital makes students learn more. And I just doubt that whole basic premise. I had some students come visit me last week, the smartest and best and brightest in my district, and they sat in front of me as I stood there upstairs and they were, talked about how why did I vote for that bill to make everything, what was that bill? Whatever we did, make everything digital. It was unanimous. The vote was. So why did you do that? So I asked them whether or not they liked having everything digital and they said no. Then they gave all the reasons for why they would rather have books than computers. One after another after another. I asked them, and I thought we don’t ever ask these kids what they think. Yeah. [LAUGHTER] Well the point should be obvious, quite frankly Mr. Chairman, the point is you’re assuming that going digital makes children learn more and my point is I don’t think that should be assumed. Books have a lot of advantages over iPads. A lot. And a lot of kids think so. Now they did come up with one point and that was computers are lighter. And I agree with that. You don’t have to lug the books around. But other than that, they couldn’t figure out much that was better about a computer. And one other thing. I just think that we need to start having some accountability to show that we’re at least saving money or something, by going digital. I mean, or is it saving money or is it costing the state more money to do all of this and if it is, it’s not money well spent necessarily. We also need to find out whether or not the students actually learn more nowadays. I doubt it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re speaking for the bill or against it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill’s probably okay but I do have this issue and it’s the Education Committee and we’ve only got two bills on here today so I thought I would raise it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re just taking up time. I tell you what. They’ve never helped me either, computers. I didn’t have television until I was your age. [LAUGHTER] and they didn’t help you either because you and I ?? are behind on this. But you make a great point. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you sure? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. I don’t know what it is but it was a great point, seriously. I’m having fun. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could I comment on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe that’d be dangerous but go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Allran, ?? I saw two schools. One where I thought this dynamic was occurring. Really outstanding. And I saw one where I talked to the students and said how is that laptop working for you and he goes, “I rarely take it out of my locker.” And so I think what that says is something that you mentioned which is absolutely correct is that putting technology in someone’s hand costs a lot of money and doesn’t do anything. Putting it in the hand with a school system and teachers and principal and parents that have bought into and are engaged in the system and the advantages to it can have tremendous input. And so I think that it’s really critical that we remember the training piece and the environment piece, that it’s not just having a textbook on a computer, but changing the entire dynamic from a teacher in front of the classroom, being taught at, to an individual learning platform for each student. And one of the things we do have in the bill is a requirement as you’re spending this money for digital learning, that you have a requirement to teach and instruct the instructors on how to use that equipment. Not just give it to them and hope they figure it out in a beneficial way. So we’re real cognizant about using this in a real beneficial way rather than just throwing it out and having some negative effects that could possibly happen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, I have you next and I have Senator Robinson next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I was wanting to ask the sponsor and/or the staff about ??

sections E, section E I was trying to understand from July 13th through the 16th you can use the money for digital learning needs but you must use a portion for professional development and then after that only if the state board determines that you have demonstrated improvement or something, could somebody help me understand how that’s going to work and your thinking behind that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ll give a quick explanation and then I’ll allow staff to elaborate. This goes to the point I made just earlier, is that we don’t want to just hand this out. We want to make sure that the LEAs understand how important it is to have a professional development along with it. So, we utilize all these devices for maximum benefit and it’s also saying we want to put a little condition on it. Let’s move forward with this, this it isn’t some definite thing but a little bit of a trial, some constraints on it so that we’re ensuring this is being used in a wise way. Staff, do you have? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think that’s right just based on what the committee wanted to do, the study committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. I just wanted to make a comment, if that’s ok? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. I have the same concern as Senator Brown and I think Senator Newton have expressed in that our local counties were very insistent on encouraging us to do everything we could to protect and, if we could, increase the amount of the lottery proceeds that were available to them for capital expenditures and not to continue to chip away at it for other purposes. And, I do think we need to find some dedicated funding for the technology needs in our schools and I worry too about this professional development, even though it’s needed, where many of our schools are already involved in these ?? projects and other kind of technology projects and may have already launched themselves into professional development expenditures. So, I worry if it wouldn’t be, if the lottery bill isn’t too much of a big umbrella for this and that it maybe should be in some other funding component where there can be a plan with somebody who can administer a plan and then tailor it to what the individual districts would need given where they are. Because I understand your point that there may be some districts who don’t have the capital needs but they do have these needs and they could spend their money and I just worry that this mechanism may not be the best mechanism, so that would just be my comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Soucek? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. These are very valid concerns and these are the things that we discussed during the committee because if you take one source of money, although we’re not splitting it up and being used differently we’re just giving more flexibility, there is the idea of are we funding digital through the lottery money at exclusion of maybe having it from somewhere else, so you kind of are spending it differently. I’ll tell you the intention here was a short term fix, that’s one reason why we have the dates here, allowing counties to have the flexibility to start moving that direction. Our intention is to be funding digital learning outside of the lottery, that this is just a small step towards that but this isn’t the conclusion where we’re going to start to using lottery funds for this and then not having additional funding sources. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Soucek, well Senator Robinson let’s hear from you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ll make it real quick Mr. Chair, I know you want to move on, but I wanted to echo some of what I heard, but also to say that the digital learning certainly is important but I think having people to make choices out of the same pot of money when we have the same kind of capital issues in Guilford county as well too, and we’re a large county, but if we have those I can imagine what’s going on in terms of baying the bonds, et cetera, in the other counties as well too so if we’re going to mandate digital learning and teacher preparation then we ought to be looking at some other sources of funding for that as opposed to making counties pull out of what they have and they already need it, unless those who aren’t using it you know can make that choice. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Very good. Senator Wade, I believe this is going to be the last one we need to take then we’ll see what we want to do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Soucek, thank you Mr. Chairman, I had the same concern that Senator Bryant had also but my question is more, first off I wanted to commend you on your hard work here and I think it’s definitely the way of the future and I think we definitely need training for teachers in this field knowing how to train students because usually the students know more than the teachers by the time we get there with computers. But, my question is, is there a percentage of…

Amount of money that can be used on teacher training versus what actually is used, what I consider capital computers, wiring, being able to put smart boards in. I mean, do we have a cap on it because what might happen is we might get this money sent over and we use it all for teacher training instead of any for capital needs cause I could see that happening in my area but I didn't know how you were going to address that although I think teachers need the training. I just didn't know that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff, is there a maximum on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not sure I'm following your question but the bill just states that if the county uses the money for digital learning needs then they have to require some of those funds to also be for professional development so the professional development is not required unless they use those bills and Brian Nissen from fiscal is here, he may have something to add to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But if they get the funds can they then instead of using them to buy computers or whatever just use them for professional development if they've been granted the funds and they say they choose to use those funds. I didn't see anything in there that said you couldn't use all the funds for teacher development instead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Soucek, I believe the intent was that that would be computer training for the teachers that would be in the new digital devices that they would be getting and it would not be set aside for other staff development. It may have nothing to do with it. But now that intent is one thing and what's written in the bill is another. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's definitely our intent but I want to make sure that we haven't left room to be able to misuse beyond our intent. Staff is looking at that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On page 3 line 16-17 digital learning needs is defined including school connectivity, digital textbooks, and instructional resources and digital devices in local school administrative units and because that's a defined term, if counties are using money for those purposes, they would also be required to use a portion of the funds for professional development. For teachers, for digital learning. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. That halfway clears it up. Senator Wade follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But may they use all the money for professional development - if digital learning needs - I see the definition but instructional resources could mean anything but besides that it also says you could also use a portion of the funds to ensure high-quality, on-going, digital learning professional development for teachers. Well, what's a portion of the funds? All the funds? 10%? 50%? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, the portion is not defined. It's discretionary. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's discretionary related to the money that's been used for the digital learning environment. You couldn't use it for something outside of the digital learning which is defined in bill and it would be discretion as to how much you use towards that portion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But the question was, could you use totally what you get? Suppose your computer - you got all the hardware and all the computer - you still need the training. If they wanted to according to what I'm thinking they could take all of what they requested and get it to do the training for the teachers. I think that was the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll tell you what I see stops us. If this will address this and a bunch of things. Senator Robinson mentioned a mandate and I think that that was a word that we need to be careful about using with this bill because it really isn't an option. We have to remember that these are adults, these are elected officials and these are leaders. What leaders do is leaders make difficult decisions. They've given options - they're not forced into something. That's not leadership, that's administration. We're giving them the option so they can say "Here is what's best used in our community." We're elected leaders in this community to do the best we can. We're giving them the tools to be able to do that. We're coming up with scenarios on how someone could misuse it. There's accountability in elective system and these are elected leaders and I expect them to act appropriately in the best interest of their children so when we come up with a system of how it could be misused I think that we're not giving enough credit to our elected leaders in the counties. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright I'm gonna take 2 more. I'm going to take Senator Newton and Senator Barringer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to address - [SPEAKER CHANGES] I've got Senator Newton first and if you hold it, we'll go back to that. Senator Newton. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman and I'll try to be quick and this kind of goes back to the heart of the first question that I asked because I appreciate Senator Wade's questions and I'm not trying to nitpick this bill. I think the heart of what we're trying to do is the right direction. We just need to make sure we have the right safe guards in place this is going to be administered correctly. And this question about a portion and line 11 on page 3

shall also use a portion of the funds to ensure high quality ongoing digital learning professional development for teachers. So it mandates that some part of it shall be used for that and how much is that because it's up in the air and this goes back to my original question, who makes that decision? I'm concerned, and that is my question, I'm concerned about the interplay between the county commission and the schoolboard. I'm certainly familiar with schoolboards who like to devote money to spend things in certain directions where the county commission is not ready to spend money in those directions and if it's considerably left to a schoolboard who may not have the right motivation, they may direct lots of moneys towards teacher development that they ought to be spending other funds on and then going back again to the county commission and saying "Well we need more of these lottery moneys to do digital learning" when the county commission wants to be spending it on capital or bond servicing servicing their debt. So I think we're going - the intent here is right, I just think we need to make sure we've got the right controls on this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good point. Senator Barringer you wanted a question for the staff here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The hat I'm wearing now is I've spent 25 to maybe 30 years being a lawyer looking at tax statutes mostly but lots of statutes trying to figure out how to do the best for my clients so if I were representing the folks who wanted to spend as much money as I could on teacher development and as little money on hardware, the way I'm reading this statute is that I have to spend something on the hardware, on the digital learning needs. Something. Maybe 1%, 2%, 3%, I can't do 0. But I could then do the lion's share. So it wouldn't be 100%, Senator Wade, but I could as if I were that kind - if that's who I was representing, that's where it would be. So you'd be technically correct within the statute to buy just a few things and then spend a lot on the learning part. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point's well taken. I want to make a comment here. I'm seeing two things. One, we may not be ready to vote today on this bill cause I see a split vote at best and I do see that need for a little work on this bill. Now Senator, it's your bill but, if you don't mind, I would suggest we pull this bill back and do a little small committee work and see if we can't get some understanding. What bothers me is that you could take all of the money that you wanted to request and none for building and say "I want to do the whole school with computers and training for my teachers." You could do that. LEA wants to do that. You wouldn't have to take any for capital and you're not mandated to do anything but it's opened the door for this is not just construction anymore. It is other things. And then other things can lead down the road. Senator, I know your intent is good and I'm going to ask that we pull this back and have a small committee to take a look at it. Senator Newton and Senator Barringer and Senator Robinson, would you three work on this bill a little bit with Senator Soucek? And see if we can't get some of these questions resolved before we have a vote and if you feel good, we'll bring it back up. We've got time. Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to make it clear. I actually support this because I like maximum flexibility. I was just translating the result of what's written here so if we were voting today I would vote positive because I like flexibility but I'll be glad to service you if we could help tighten this up some. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I definitely support that. I think that the good concern that has been brought up is that you have an authorizing authority and an executing authority which may not be in sync and you can allow something to be authorized and then not accountability on how it's executed and I think that putting some restraints on that so it fills our intent would be a good amendment we could work on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's good and we've not heard from the county commissioners on this and they won't totally be in love with it, I can tell you that. But they'll do whatever we do but let's make sure we've got a little clearer path and some more clarifying information here. The best classroom you'll ever have, and I'll say this again Austin, is a good teacher whether you're using books or whatever. A creative teacher who loves teaching and loves children. And if we ever try to do it without the teacher? My grandkids would rather get in my lap with a book than a computer. They love a computer but not when it's storytime. They always bring me a book. Well, they know better than to bring me a computer to start with. But my wife is very good with both. When they crawl in her lap? Austin and I were raised up hard, we didn't have anything. Oatmeal, cornmeal and ?? meal. Anyway, let's do that and you call get together Senator Soucek

coordinate you all getting together and sitting down and hashing out a good bill. Thank you.