Big Schools Can't Compete with Small Schools... in Computer Technology?

The big schools are supposed to be better than the small schools, right? Better academic results, more course options, better pay for staff, more efficient use of resources -- all that economy-of-scale stuff, or so the big-town advocates of school consolidation would tell us.

Yet Luke Evans at KELO-TV offers a report that turns the economy-of-scale argument on its head [Luke Evans, "Education Expense," KELOLand.com, 2007.08.17]. While high schools from mid-sized Madison down to tiny Oldham-Ramona are working toward the goal of laptops for every student (Madison is there, Oldham-Ramona is in the process), Ann Smith, Sioux Falls School District Library Coordinator, says a one-to-one laptop program wouldn't work in Sioux Falls. Smith cites the technical difficulties of two thousand students all hitting the Internet at the same time and swamping the school computer network. Smith says (in Evans's paraphrase) "the Sioux Falls Schools are too big to make the cost of the laptops effective for their budget." She feels the Sioux Falls schools get more bang for their buck out of portable computer labs and another, better-tested technology: paper and pencil.

Smith's statements fly in the face of conventional wisdom in economics and education policy. "It's like running water anymore, you just have to have a computer in this day and age and most colleges require a laptop or some sort of computer," says Oldham-Ramona Superintendent John Bjorkland. But could this acceptance of technology as an absolute necessity in the classroom be driving the budget crunch in South Dakota schools? As these pages have discussed elsewhere, all this computer technology creates educational opportunities, but it also creates permanent increased operating expenses for schools -- computer maintenance, all-too-frequent software and hardware upgrades, and high salaries for computer support personnel who may not even teach a class. Parents feel the financial squeeze, too, as they find themselves having to put down deposits, buy computer insurance and accessories, and even pay replacement costs for the expensive equipment that their children are now expected to carry with them every day.

Evans writes, "As technology continues to advance, educators will be watching to see whether more computers mean a better education for South Dakota students." But as this blog and Professor Schaaf at South Dakota Politics have pointed out, researchers have already found that the integration of laptops into the curriculum fails to produce any solid academic gains. Some high schools that bought into one-to-one laptop computing early are already abandoning the concept as all buck and no bang.

Smith seems to be reading this research and is willing to challenge the idea that more technology is automatically better:

Can we still do a fine job of educating students and have them well prepared top succeed in the a changing world with the mobile labs we're adding? Absolutely. Is it critical to have everyone have their own computer to do that good job of educating? No.

Smith is clearly no reactionary desperately trying to preserve the sanctity of a librarian's precious books (books! such an antiquated method of transferring information -- no hyperlinks, no embedded video, no flashing graphics, just... oh, knowledge). She recognizes that technology has its place; that place just isn't in every kid's hands and backpack every moment of the school day.

Can small schools really integrate laptops and other technology into their classrooms more quickly and efficiently than large schools? That remains an open policy question. But the more important question is, "Should any schools, large or small, make the effort to integrate laptops into the curriculum?" Governor Rounds and the 41 schools buying into his Classroom Connections program seem to think that question is already settled, but as Librarian Smith and available research demonstrate, that question remains open for debate as well.

State Drops Classroom Laptop Funding -- Expect Netbooks

Governor Rounds took his own hits in the newly passed budget. South Dakota's Classroom Connections program, the one-to-one laptop initiative, was zeroed out of the budget, and even the stimulus couldn't save it. Pierre will still provide tech support for the schools like Madison that have already bought into the program, but no new schools will be added to the laptop rolls, at least not on the state's dime.

This is a disappointment for Governor Rounds, who included one-to-one laptops in his 2010 Education Initiative goals. But the budget crunch forced him to answer the question, "Are one-to-one laptop initiatives worth the effort?"

As we've discussed previously, that's an open debate. Promoters of such programs can find some research suggesting improvements in quality and quantity of schoolwork assigned, writing quality, and overall test scores. Laptop detractors can find retorts on academic achievement from various school administrators, the New York Times ("After seven years, there was literally no evidence it had any impact on student achievement — none"), and our own Department of Education have spoken to the contrary.

Perhaps the question is not whether students gain from using laptops but whether they lose from losing them. There is an argument that you can't not know how to use the latest technology in the information economy, just as a farmer can't not know how to use a combine in the ag-industrial economy. Of course, there's also a passionate argument to be made against such technological determinism (cue Wendell Berry, Kirkpatrick Sale, Rebecca Terk, and my wife).

Alas, Americans' religious faith in technological progress is likely too strong for even the recession to break. But technological progress (it's not all bad!) and the economic downturn will combine to bring cheaper computers to the classroom. $1300 per computer per child? Come on. As the state money disappears, local districts are about to discover that instead of buying $1300 computers with 2:1 matching funds from Pierre, they can get $200–$400 netbooks with their own money with no strings from Pierre and still save money. Elkton's doing it; Madison, Arlington, and other schools (so I hear) are considering it.

The death of the state laptop program will not mean the death of laptops in the classroom. As our Gateway Tablet PCs die (and they will die quickly), schools will get creative and replace them with better, cheaper netbooks that will still bring students and teachers all the tools they need to make learning happen.

Regents Rolling out Statewide Laptop Requirement

The Board of Regents are beginning the push to make buying a laptop a requirement for admission to all of South Dakota's state universities. Regents executive director Tad Perry says we need laptops in our university classrooms because...

• by 2011, 50% of South Dakota students will graduate from all-laptop high schools, and they'll choose universities that have similar laptop environments (once you get used to playing Scrabulous in class, it's kind of hard to break the habit)
• our teacher education programs need to give prospective teachers training in a wireless laptop environment so they are ready to use that technology in our K-12 schools (anyone feeling the tail wagging the dog here?)
• 60% of the nation's campuses are wireless, and we need to keep up with national trends.

I don't mind toting a laptop to class—actually, I'm quite happy to have all of my homework and class materials on the computer instead of in twelve different binders (much easier to haul on the bicycle). But reading PDF's gets annoying, and I miss taking a good old textbook out to the porch or the park or some other quiet spot with no wireless and lots of sunshine.

Beyond my personal study preferences, the laptop requirement appears to lack any solid educational justification:

• My personal experience is that a laptops in the classroom are like TVs in a restaurant: an enormous electronic distraction that cuts down human interaction, an essential component of good education. The profs spend more time getting the machinery hooked up and then watching monitor while lecturing, while the students spend more time staring at their screens than paying attention to what the prof and other students are saying.
  
• Our own Department of Education admits that, at least at the K-12 level, there is "very little data that says laptops will increase test scores." Last I checked, the state considered test scores the end-all be-all of measuring academic achievement. Hmmm....

I will agree that wireless access can provide benefits for those who want to use them. If you're a prof, the Web becomes your audiovisual folder: you have a billion resources you can bring into the classroom at a moment's notice. If you're a student, you have access to many more research journals and other good academic resources. If you're a visitor to campus—a journalist covering a Regents' meeting, a scholar attending a conference, a prospective student checking things out—you appreciate being able to stay in touch with the office or home.

However, our desire to provide educational opportunities need not extend to requiring, as the Regents would, laptops that meet "certain specifications." A really good wireless environment should be just like Dairy Queen's: it doesn't care what brand of computer you use. It doesn't discriminate among tablet PCs, pocket PCs, and regular laptops. All you should need is a wireless card. If your budget allows you to indulge in a top-of-the-line Mac Airbook, great. If your budget is tight and you can barely save up for a basic laptop from Wal-Mart or a used machine from eBay, fine. Your university's tech mission should be to provide universal access, not universal expensive features or sweetheart lease deals for one particular company.

Besides, think about the educational benefit of providing campus-wide wireless access to any user on any computer. Sure, requiring standardized computers makes the IT department's job easier. But suppose you're a work study student in the IT department. What work experience would you rather have: troubleshooting one or two specific computers, or learning how to fix and connect all sorts of different computers and operating systems? (And aren't our universities all about diversity?)

I like having Internet access on campus. I like using my computer in class, in the library, wherever. But I also know the Regents can achieve basic wireless access for every state campus without imposing massive top-down equipment requirements on students.

--------------
Update 19:12: My friend Patrick provides a map that of where wireless Internet access is available on the SDSU campus. Less than half the campus has it, notes Patrick, and even in the buildings that are covered, wireless is only available in the public areas—i.e., in the dorms, you can get wireless in the lobby and dayrooms, but not in your bunk. So we do have a ways to go.

Tail Wags Dog

Proof the Regents Don't Read the New York Times:

Wednesday's Mitchell Daily Republic reports that "the South Dakota Board of Regents is considering converting all six of the state's public college campuses to 'laptop-tablet environments'" (Korrie Wenzel, "Regents Consider Laptop Plan for All Public College Campuses," Mitchell Daily Republic, online, May 9, 2007). Madison's Dakota State University, the state's flagship computer integration campus, went this route in 2004, requiring all students to lease a laptop and integrating their use into every class.

The main motivation for requiring students to purchase laptops system-wide seems to be the governor's push for integration of laptops into the K-12 system. As Regents executive director Tad Perry explains it, the Regents "stumbled across" (not the most inspiring language from our educational leaders) the problem of student teachers going through their pedagogical training without sufficient experience with laptops to work well with the technology they encounter in their field assignments.

That's all? One subset of our graduates with one specific technological need encountered at a minority of South Dakota schools, one educational tool that some schools nationwide are abandoning, and the Regents consider implementing a significant cost increase and technological requirement for every student in the state public college system? Evidently the Regents read neither the New York Times nor this blog.

I don't mind integrating computer technology into the classroom, if it's done for the right reasons. But with the Regents regularly increasing tuition and fees outpacing inflation (6.3% for AY 2007-2008, with the average SD public university student paying $346 more next year) and certainly outpacing the rate at which teacher salaries are increasing in the state (we're getting under 3% at Montrose), how are students supposed to keep up? Do we really want to price more kids out of university education by requiring them to spend another thousand dollars on technology? Granted, a lot of kids get nw computers as they head to college anyway, but I'd liek to leave that choice in the hands of the students. And even if they buy their own computers, why not let them decide how and when they want to use that machine on campus? Some people might not want to lug a computer around in their backpacks all day long. There are still many great classes where students will learn best just by listening to and interacting with their professors, not transcribing everything the teacher says on their keyboards and downloading multimedia presentations (not to mention sneaking peeks at their e-mails and their next Free Cell moves).

One side note on this issue: mandating laptops for students on every campus could rouse some political snarkiness between the Regents and DSU. The MDR article notes that systemwide laptop integration could cause DSU to lose its unique position as the laptop campus. Perry says, "That's an interesting point" -- again, as if he hadn't thought of this before? Ah, but check out these comments:

“I had that conversation (recently) at Dakota State during a campus visit. Their concern is that they will lose their distinctiveness,” Perry said.

But Perry said he thinks Dakota State will be fine because “it has to be on the front edge of technology. Its challenge will be to be the model of where we are. They will always be a step ahead, or they should be, if they’re doing their mission.”

Or they should be...? Far be it from me to read too deeply, but do I detect just a whiff of accusation there? Is the executive director of the university system's governing body even permitting the contemplation of the suggestion that one of his schools is not carrying out its mission? If I'm the Board of Regents, I don't let even a hint of that idea sneak into my public statements. In response to a reporter's question, I say, "DSU will always be a step ahead -- period" with no ifs or other qualifiers. DSU could use just a little more love from the higher-ups.

Laptops -- Absolutely! Teacher Pay -- Well, I Suppose...

Now that Christmas vacation gives me a break from running debate tournaments and early-morning one-act play rehearsals, I have time to comment on Governor Rounds's new education plan. Our fair governor seems to think that the way to improve South Dakota education is to provide laptops to every high school student in the state. Governor Rounds says, "The reality is that if you want to provide a good education, a laptop is going to be part of it."
Of course, while the governor views laptops as essential to education, he's willing to direct the state to fund just $13 million of the projected $39 million required for the statewide laptop outfit.

Of course, the governor's commitment to technology in the classroom (and now in backpacks, backseats, and wherever else the kids will forget those computers) still appears to outweigh his commitment to funding another arguably essential component of education -- teachers. The Argus points out that Governor Rounds has also proposed $3.5 million for a school efficiencies program to boost teacher pay. It works like this: the state would match funds that schools can save by cutting other programs if those funds are then directed toward teacher pay. So if schools find other ways to tighten their budgets -- cutting arts programs, for instance, or eliminating extracurricular opportunities or textbook purchases -- the state will send some money to increase teacher salaries. Total local outlays would remain the same; statewide, education funding would increase by at most the $3.5 dollars, less than a tenth of what the entire laptop program would cost the state and the local districts.

Our governor appears to have made his classroom priorities clear. He believes laptops are ten times more valuable than making it easier for teachers to afford to remain in their chosen profession.

To understand the governor's mistaken priorities, let's run some back-of-the-envelope projections for Montrose High School, my place of employment. We need 77 student laptops. To keep up, the teachers will likely need laptops as well. Let's suppose we strike a reasonably good deal and get decent laptops for $500 a pop (the Aberdeen American News reports that the governor expects costs of "less than $1,000 apiece for computers with three-year leases, software and warranties"). 77 student laptops plus 15 staff laptops = 92 computers @$500 = $46,000. Let's be optimistic and assume that rounding up to an even $50,000 covers the costs of setting up the software, networking, and security for the new machines. $50,000 -- that's equal to the salary of two new teachers... or a raise of $2500 for every teacher. Now, consider that the governor's money is one-time money, so once Montrose gets its laptops, Montrose is on its own for maintenance and replacement costs. A laptop network that size will require at least one dedicated computer support person, who likely will demand a salary greater than that of any teacher in the building. Let's suppose the computer tech person gives us a break and works for $40,000 a year. Suppose we need to replace just 1 out of 20 machines each year -- that's 5 new laptops, another $2500. The school's costs each year for mere maintenance and replacement will be greater than their initial buy-in with the assistance of the state's matching funds. We've already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in computers, and we wonder why school budgets are getting tighter every year.

On the merits of laptops in the classroom, see Steve Hemmingsen's December 12 comments. I am also pleased to direct you to comments from some South Dakota lawmakers who think laptops might not warrant such a prominent place in our list of education priorities. Senator Jerry Apa of Lead, a Republican like Governor Rounds, questions the governor's focus on technology:

"Since when did laptops become an entitlement?" Sen. Jerry Apa, R-Lead, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, asked. "If the schools are in trouble now financially, how are they going to come up with their match? How are the smaller school districts going to afford a support person? What about children whose parents can afford the Internet and those who can't? What are we going to do - subsidize the Internet? It's an interesting offer, but the practicality of it is just not there," Apa said.

I don't know if we can count on the Legislature to increase teacher pay, but let's hope comments like Apa's indicate that the Legislature will at least keep us from sinking our money into another technological boondoggle that will benefit Gateway more than the students of this state.

Sneak Peek: Stricherz on the Issues

Patricia Stricherz, candidate for District 8 House, forwards the Madville Times her responses to a questionnaire from the Mitchell Daily Republic. Who am I to turn down a scoop on tasty policy questions? Here are the questions, candidate Stricherz's answers (verbatim, unedited), and my own commentary:

1. What qualifications do you possess to be a state lawmaker?

Stricherz: In 1992 I joined the Army, was deployed to Kuwait and was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for my work to generate new computer based files that would assist 24th FSB Company in easily locating and identifying each work order, their status and the parts ordered. After the Army I worked several years in Retail Management. In 2003 I felt I needed a change of employment and began attending the University of Sioux Falls working on my BA in Social Work. This decision came as a result of my time as a CASA Volunteer as well as a Foster Parent. My junior year I had to drop out to care for my husband, who was injured during his deployment to Iraq. The last two years I have been running a nonprofit organization that provides emergency services to the troops and the families they leave behind during deployments. This is where my heart is. Speaking on behalf of our military hero’s and their families. This position has allowed me to gain experience advocating on behalf of families, fundraising, speaking publicly, organizing, training new volunteers, working with the media, and so much more. Locating the best service providers for home repairs, appliance repairs and vehicle repairs has given me additional speaking experience. The overall day to day functions of running a business has given me additional experience in balancing budgets, applying for grants and approaching donors for financial assistance and in-kind goods.

2. Roads have become an issue this year because of extensive flooding causing a lot of damage, forcing some counties to seek opt-outs or wheel taxes. What action do you think the state Legislature should take to assist counties and municipalities with funding? What proposal would you introduce?

Stricherz: Roads are an important part of our infrastructure that allows for the organizational structures needed for the operation of society. Allowing for the funding needed for regular maintenance is a necessity, allocating funding for emergency repairs is a must needed priority. In balancing the state budget, funds must be set aside for times such as these that counties and municipalities are currently experiencing. Cutting back on unnecessary spending, cutting failed and unsuccessful programs will give some additional funding for infrastructure. In today’s society we can not afford wasteful spending in our personal lives, expecting this same standard for our government should not be any less required.

CAH: I am heartened to hear a Republican who remembers that we do need government spending to maintain the basic "operation of society." However, the standard line about cutting wasteful spending represents wishful thinking, not hard fiscal analysis and decision-making. We face a 100-million-dollar state budget shortfall. I do not believe the state of South Dakota is currently wasting 100 million dollars. There's a strong argument to be made (especially by the counties trying to pass opt-outs and wheel taxes) that we need to spend more to fix our flood-ravaged roads and failing bridges. Candidates need to tell us exactly which $100-million-plus worth of programs they plan to cut to cover the deficit and the increasing road repair bill... or they need to be honest as the counties are and say, "You know what? We need to pay our own way with tax increases."

3. Do you think education is under funded in the state? If so, please explain how you would increase funding and where the money would come from? If not, please explain why you think that way.

Stricherz: Education is the foundation of our economic development, and the future of South Dakota’s economy depends upon creating highly-educated young South Dakotans. Currently, education takes 31% of the states budget, we need to work on increasing that number to no less than 36%. South Dakota schools perform at a high level and produce high quality students, in order to maintain this standard we must view education as an investment and not an expense. Therefore, it is important to the future of our schools to provide for a yearly increase in the funding that is available, one possible solution would be to lower property taxes and equalized the funds available to schools for operations. Another option would be to find alternate solutions to the schools laptop program. The 2.9 million dollars it takes to fund this program could instead be used to boost general state aid to schools.

CAH: For a moment there, Stricherz sounds like my man for governor Scott Heidepriem, who recognizes the state is failing to shoulder its share of the burden for funding education. But then Stricherz drops back to cutting taxes, which returns right back to the problem of the state doing less and expecting locals to do more. Even the reallocation of laptops may cause the same problem: the state may withdraw its tech support (the state dropped expansion of the classroom laptop program last year), but local schools will have to pick up the tab... and making each local school do its own tech support may only increase costs. Still open for debate: whether those school-supplied laptops are essential for education in the first place....

4. Gov. Mike Rounds has asked that state agencies and departments prepare a 2012 budget that should include a 10 percent decrease. Do you support or oppose a budget decrease? If not, please explain why you think that way.

Stricherz: I agree with Governor Rounds proposal that state agencies and departments decrease their budget by no less than 10%. As I stated above, we should expect no less from our government than to live by the same standards as that of our states citizens.

CAH: Ah, there's a step toward closing the $100 million shortfall. But does that include Board of Regents? Department of Transportation? Highway Patrol and Corrections? Again, I don't believe there's $100 million in waste, so I want to hear the good programs the governor and our legislators want us to do without.

5. Other than education and road issues, what legislation do you plan to introduce next year if elected or re-elected?

6. What issues are occurring within your district that will prompt you to propose legislation to address them?

Stricherz: 5./6. Answered together: I oppose increases in sales and use taxes without significant cuts in current government spending, as well as oppose increases in property tax. During this time of recession it is irresponsible for our government to increase taxes adding burden to our struggling South Dakota families. We, instead should be focused to finding sensible solutions to the creation of jobs that would allow our South Dakota families to take care of themselves.

During the 2010 session, the state Legislature considered the “South Dakota Health Care Freedom Act” ( SB 137 ), as we learn more and more what this extensive bill contains, I believe it is as important, more than ever, to reintroduce this bill to protect our citizens from the mandated and regulated laws coming out of Washington, DC.

The security of South Dakota families is important, instead of cutting funding to our Police, Sheriff and Highway Patrol Dept.’s it is more responsible to increase funding. Without a strong security system, we are placing our citizen’s in undue harms way.

CAH: Dang—Stricherz is preaching Gordon Howie's nullification again. Can we just accept the health care law and work to improve it? Can Republicans just accept defeat and look for real solutions? I guess not.

And evidently Stricherz wants to exempt law enforcement from the governor's proposed 10% cuts. It's hard to argue with funding public safety... but again, there lies the challenge we face in squaring Republican tough talk on budgets with Republican tough talk on law and order. Government is not all waste: in South Dakota, government is mostly things we like and need. If our candidates spent less time railing about how bad and wasteful government is and instead focused on how necessary police, roads, and education are for our well-being, we might have an easier time convincing taxpayers to support the funding necessary to keep society running.

I still plan to vote for Mitch and Gerry here in District 8. Stricherz won't get my vote, not because she's Patty Stricherz, but because she sounds too much like Russ Olson and every other Republican. The South Dakota GOP says things we like to hear about cracking down on waste, supporting education and police, and not raising taxes. But they never offer a consistent and straightforward explanation of the fiscal realities of turning our fiscal wishes into workable policy.

State Senate Halts Expansion of Classroom Laptop Program

Also online at KELOLand.com!

I'm not sure if this is just political brinksmanship by State Senate Minority Leader Scott Heidepriem, but if it is, it got the South Dakota Senate's overwhelming approval 33-2: yesterday the Senate cut $2.95 million from HB 1087, the General Appropriations Act. That $2.95 million was intended for general fund operating expenses on the "Technology in Schools" line of the Department of Education budget, which KELO gives us to understand is the money Governor Rounds wanted to expand the classroom laptops program.

Echoing the Madville Times, Senator Heidepriem says that money "should be used instead to boost state aid to schools" [AP's words, "Senate Cuts Money for Student Laptops," KELOLand.com, 2008.02.27]. Indeed, if money is tight (if?!), we have to make the best use of it. And we can find at least a dozen better uses for that state money than pouring it into subsidies for Gateway (which, now owned by Acer, laid off 130 South Dakota workers after promising in October that there would be no layoffs).

But consider: this budget cut doesn't have to mean the end of laptops in the classroom. Right now the state's "Classroom Connections" program pays only one third of the cost of Gateway's $1200 tablet PCs (the kind with the fancy swivel screens you can write on electronically with a stylus). The participating districts (including Madison Central), pay the remaining two thirds of the cost, or $800 per computer.

A year and a half ago, I bought my current laptop, an HP dv5000 for $600. Sure, there's no fancy swivel screen or stylus, but it handles DSU's doctoral program just fine. The schools who are looking to buy laptops for their students could get a fair amount of computer, software, and support for $800 a pop and not need a penny from the state. Why wait for the Senate or Governor Rounds to chip in money to help you buy more computer than you need? Head down to Radio Shack, place a bulk order that will put a big smile on your local dealer's face, and off you go.

Now there's still a debate about whether spending all this money on laptops actually improves education. With all the rules and restrictions the schools place on the computers they issue, kids might be better off with computers they or their parents buy themselves (remember the free market?). If kids had their own computers, they'd be able to tinker with them at will and really learn how the machines work.

But if we want the schools to buy the laptops, Senator Heidepriem's frugality need not stop us. Let's look past the glossy pages of Gateway's catalog and focus on getting a better deal on basic machines that still have all the functionality our kids and teachers really need for the classroom.

Gateway/MPC Also Fails to Deliver for South Dakota High Schools

Gateway/MPC dropped the ball on DSU and lost their business; now KELO reports the company's production line woes are also leaving South Dakota high schools in the lurch:

Tardy slips are going out to many laptop computers that were supposed to be delivered to South Dakota high schools by the first day of the new school year. Instead, some school districts are still waiting for those Gateway computers. And each day without the computers is setting teachers and students further back in their class work.

Baltic was one of fifteen South Dakota school districts chosen to receive the Gateway laptops to begin the school year. Baltic was supposed to receive 175 of the computers. But today, only fifty arrived [Perry Groten, "Baltic Receives First Batch of Laptops," KELOLand.com, 2008.09.03].

At the bottom, we find the state Department of Education still running some interference for a company that has abandoned South Dakota and good service:

The state education department says some of the computers that are to be delivered to South Dakota are still on the Gateway assembly line.

The department says another reason for the delay was the uncertainty over the laptop program fueled by funding debates during this year's legislative session [Groten, 2008.09.03].

Right. Blame the South Dakota Legislature for Gateway/MPC's inability to deliver its product on time to long-standing customers. Governor Rounds announced he had the funding for the laptops in May. Schools might still have been bound by their budget rules to place orders in July, after the new fiscal year started, just like DSU.

Of course, that hasn't stopped Fujitsu from delivering to DSU in three weeks. Superintendent Sittig in Baltic: call Fujitsu!

Technology in Education: Bang for the Buck?

The lead article in tonight's (August 15) Madison Daily Leader quotes some area school superintendents on the need for more funding for public education. ("Hear hear!" cries this public educator.)

In the course of the article, Dr. Carl Fahrenwald, superintendent of the Rutland School District, talks about finding the funding to provide laptops for all seniors and eventually to expand that program to similarly equip the juniors and sophomores.

A few notes on Rutland:

• Rutland is a very small school struggling to survive in a rural area whose population is trickling away to larger urban centers and job markets. They are waging a valiant fight against the sentiment expressed by our governor that our smallest schools ought to consolidate to save money (as if saving money is the primary goal of our schools).
• Full disclosure: I worked for the Rutland School District four years ago as a substitute teacher. Dr. Fahrenwald is a good superintendent, very actively engaged with his students on a daily basis.
• Rutland doesn't have a lot of money. If they had more, I might be working in Rutland today. After my subbing experience at Rutland, I interviewed for a full-time math teaching job. Dr. Fahrenwald offered me the job, but I had to decline: an English position in Montrose, a larger school district, paid $7000 more annually.
  

Given Rutland's size and resources, the district's commitment to providing their kids with good technology is commendable. And they are not alone in increasing their investment in technology. My own school district purchased a traveling laptop lab for use in various classrooms. Some districts like Watertown and Mitchell put laptops in the hands of every student.

Now I love computers, to an extent. I require all my students, grades 9-12, to type their English papers. The Internet offers an invaluable research tool for my English students and especially for my debaters and extempers. And at the end of the semester, I enjoy boggling my students with the infamous online Mega Vocab Quiz.

However, in this age when everything we do in education is driven by financial pressures in our districts and standardized test score pressures from Washington, we have to ask: are we getting a sufficient return on our technology dollar in terms of academic achievement?

Consider the money side first: Figures will vary from district to district, and I encourage readers to go to their local school district business manager and ask for a copy of the budget with technology expenditures highlighted. All those machines cost money up front and then lock the school into software, update, repair, and replacement costs for years to come. Most schools, like most highly wired businesses, have to hire an IT staffer. The Watertown School District shows the photos of four friendly techies dedicated to handling their "Learning with Laptops" program. In some districts, the IT person may also teach a computer class, but even in my relatively small school district, we have found it more effective to contract with another district to bring in a person who works strictly on the computers.

Thus, throughout South Dakota, we have a growing corps of computer specialists in the employ of our public schools, earning salaries at least equivalent to what teachers earn (I'd be surprised if It people would work for less than that, considering they can easily make $40-$50 or more per hour in the private sector), but never teaching anything. The IT people don't directly teach our kids anything; they just keep the machines running that we use to teach the kids. How much more could our kids be taught if, instead of hiring IT people, our schools hired more teachers, or even diverted that funding to increase teacher pay and keep talented teachers from leaving (or becoming IT people)?

The above question is moot, of course, if one can demonstrate that all this well-funded and well-maintained computer technology improves academic achievement. But can anyone show that the last fifteen years of increasing investment in computers, Internet connections, and other techno-gadgets have produced a corresponding increase on standardized test scores, graduation rates, college admissions, post-high-school earning power, or any other conceivable measure of academic success? Nationally, while nearly every school has gained Internet access in the last decade -- an enormous increase in accessible information -- standardized test scores have shown no remarkable upward swing. One limited study in the Fall 2004 Eastern Economic Journal shows course web pages and online multiple-choice quizzes producing no significant increase in final exam performance (at least in an introductory college economics course). Do we have the evidence to justify the investment?

Even if we cannot prove that increasing investments in educational technology directly improves academic achievement, perhaps we could fall back on the workforce argument: exposing kids to the best computer technology available gives them the job skills they will need to compete in the hi-tech global economy. But how relevant will today's best technology be to our graduates in their jobs five, ten, or twenty years from now? The hardware and software I used in high school and college have been almost completely replaced. Churn in the technology industry means that for the most part, workers will learn most of their essential technological skills on the job, with little reference to the particular hardware or software they may have used in high school.

We come then to an issue of priorities: given a finite amount of time and an infinite amount of knowledge, what information and skills do we choose to pass on to our children in our high school curricula? Do we invest heavily in specific technological skills that innovation and market forces will render obsolete in a decade? Or do we concentrate on more universal ideas and skills that students can then apply to whatever unpredictable equipment and situations they may encounter in their unforeseeable futures? Do we teach kids how to use the 802.11 wireless protocol to transfer files to a Gateway 400E laptop? Or do we teach them critical thinking skills so they can troubleshoot the new equipment they have to buy to handle revamped wireless protocols? Or do we teach them political history and the Constitution so they can understand the laws that will be proposed to govern the sharing and surveillance of data on whatever new waves of information technology emerge throughout the 21st century? Sure, if we have the time, we should teach kids all those things (and oodles more!), but there are only so many days in the school year and so many dollars in the budget.

I do not wish to suggest that Rutland should get rid of it laptops and hand the money to their teachers. Nor do I wish to suggest that our IT people should all be replaced with classroom teachers. (I like my IT people -- heck, I need my IT people!) I wish only to point out the price of all this vaunted technology. Computers can do wonderful things... but we should always remember that teachers were doing wonderful things long before classrooms had so much as a light bulb to guide their students toward the future.

Tech Trailblazer Elkton HS Implementing Netbooks Now

Shortly after I posted yesterday on the possibility of using netbooks—super-cheap laptops—and other innovations to save big money in school tech budgets, I received an e-mail from Gabriel Pooler, 2008 DSU graduate and now tech director at Elkton School District. Netbooks? Pooler says Elkton HS is already implementing that plan... on Friday!

Here's the press release:

The Elkton School District has begun a self-funded one-to-one netbook pilot for its senior class. They plan to use the pilot program to determine if a laptop program is a feasible option for the high school.

Netbooks are super compact, low cost, energy efficient laptops with Windows XP or Linux. They have enough power to run Windows Office, Internet, Email, and other common applications that don't require huge amounts of processing power. Elkton is using the Acer Aspire One Nebook with Windows XP.

Elkton School District plans to use the Netbooks to supplement the schools current curriculum. The high school will use the free existing email and web hosting resources that are provided by the State’s K-12. Each high school student will have access to the Internet in the classroom to allow them to research topics on demand, participate in online activities with teachers, and email assignments to teachers in a paperless classroom environment.

While state funding of the one-to-one laptop program this year seems unlikely, Elkton hopes that by taking the initiative to test this new technology with their own money, they may rise to the top of the list if any state funding does come through. If funded the state would pay $130 for each netbook, instead of $400 for each tablet. Even without state funding it is likely that Elkton will go forward on its own because of the low cost of deploying this system.

Elkton will save additional money by moving the students into a lighter Web 2.0 environment and equipping them 1GB flash drives that allow students to back up and transport their own data more easily. If a one to one netbook project for the high school happens next year, it is estimated that it will actually reduce the current strain on the school’s existing network and servers. By moving the majority of the students away from a resource intense network model to light Internet orientated model the school won’t need to buy any additional new servers. It would also allow the netbooks to replace its aging high school lab, thus further saving money.

$400 per laptop—that's twice the perhaps overly optimistic $200 per machine that the New York Times and I mentioned yesterday. Pooler says he chose the $400 models to get bigger hard drives and better batteries. Oh darn: so Elkton will only save 70% on what they would have blown on Tablet PCs.

The computers will rely heavily on open source software for more savings. Elkton hopes to fund expanding the program to kids all the way down to grade 7 through tax revenues from the nearby wind farms. Pooler says it best:

If that happens we will be able to say we are using "Green" energy money to pay for "Green" technology (Netbooks are considered green tech) and create paperless "Green" classrooms and save a lot of "Green" aka cash.

Pooler tells me Elkton is the first school in South Dakota and possibly the entire nation to implement a netbook program for an entire grade. Hm: ground-breaking technological innovation at Elkton High School, enrollment 114. Another good idea, brought to you by small schools. Nice work, Elks!

South Dakota Schools: Save 80% on Computers!

The New York Times runs an interesting article on the changing computer economy. If South Dakota's high schools are going to continue moving toward assigning every student a laptop computer, they should read this article. In an era where a proposed 0.7% increase in the state budget feels like fiscal Armageddon, our schools could achieve an 80% decrease in their tech spending. Here's how:

1. Throw out those Tablet PCs. Yes, spinning the screen and touching it to move the cursor is really cool. It also costs over $1300 per machine.
2. Replace them with $200 netbooks.
   
3. Instead of loading each machine with Office and other expensive software, take advantage of cloud computing, free services like Google Docs, where students can access all the word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation power they need for high school. Businesses are using cloud computing and online software services: Arista Networks chief Jayshree Ullal says innovation like this is saving 80% on her tech budget. (Ullal is all about cloud computing: read more on her blog!)

So let me break out the back of the envelope: assume Madison High School needs 400 laptops. Buy $200 netbooks instead of $1300 tablets, and you've got $440,000 in savings at Madison alone. If every school in the state's classroom laptop program made this switch, we would save millions, enough to restore funding for Birth to 3, the South Dakota Arts Council, the Cooperative Extension Service, and a few other projects Governor Rounds has put on the chopping block.

So we can keep doodling on our screens with $55 pens, or we can save millions of dollars. Hmm....

Information technology and economics are changing. Our public school tech budgets should change to take advantage of the newest, cheapest technology.

Gateway, Taxes, and Corporate Citizenship

Taiwanese Acer's $710-million acquisition of Gateway reminds me of how one of our erstwhile corporate star-citizens disproved the idea that South Dakota's "Always Low Taxes" approach to economic development doesn't guarantee long-term economic prosperity.

First, a personal note: My second laptop was a Gateway Solo 2100, purchased for a cool $2800. It replaced a laptop whose brand I can't even remember but which ran Windows 3.1 on a black-and-white screen. In my first year of using the Gateway, it suffered irrecoverable crashes and required factory replacement three times. The third time I was in Russia and spent two months communicating with Gateway via e-mail trying to arrange service. I managed to get it shipped to Gateway from Moscow. The Gateway people then tried to ship the computer back to my old address in Edmonton, Alberta. Then the computer service rep told me not to worry, they had caught the error and shipped the machine to Connecticut. Alas, the only connection I have ever had with Connecticut was a twenty-minute incursion on a bicycle from a friend's house in New York. When Gateway finally retrieved the computer and sent it to my Moscow address, they declared it to be brand new and entered the full value of a new computer on the custom's information. Russian customs thus demanded that I pay the standard 50% import tariff to get my computer, in this case, $1400. I had the computer returned to sender, told Gateway to send it to my home address, and flew home for $800 to pick up the computer myself, only to discover that all data on my hard drive had been wiped (I know, my fault for not making more back-ups).
I did get another year and a half of use out of the Solo, after which I replaced it with a smaller, faster NEC Ready 120LT, the loudest but toughest little computer I've ever owned. It cost $800. It still runs. It has never required a trip to the factory. It has never lost data. The Solo now sits under the couch, where Madville Times Jr. can pull it out and play with it. She like to stand on the keyboard.

Given a history of interaction with Gateway revolving around shoddy workmanship and service, I thus have few good things to say about Gateway. But enough about me!

Ted Waitt started Gateway in Sioux City, Iowa in 1985. Waitt hopped the border to South Dakota in 1990, promising lots of jobs. Indeed, facilities in North Sioux City and Sioux Falls employed 6000 and 1800 people, respectively. In return, the state bought all sorts of computers from Gateway, loading up state offices and schools with Holstein-decorated boxes and mousepads. DSU still locks students into leasing Gateway Tablet PCs, and the state pushes those same computers in the Classroom Connections program for high schools.

But in 1998, Waitt moved company headquarters to San Diego, taking all of the high-paying executive and engineering jobs with him. Gateway shut down its Sioux Falls facility. As of May 2006, according to KELO, "Gateway employed a total of about 1,800 people in South Dakota and at its headquarters in California, with about 850 of those positions based in North Sioux City" [AP report, "Acer Plans to Acquire Gateway for $710 Million," KELOLand.com, 2007.08.27].

So let's recap: South Dakota offers a low-tax environment (no corporate or personal income tax), buys thousands of computers, and even finances a loan to the company for 3% [Charles Platt, "Beats Skinning Hogs," Wired News, Issue 3.05, May 1995], a rate Gateway was unlikely to get at any bank. In return, Waitt takes his company and several thousand jobs to California. What gives?

The fact is that a low-tax/no-tax environment does not guarantee economic prosperity for the state, let alone loyalty from corporate citizens. Michael P. Ettlinger of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy cites Gateway's abandonment of South Dakota as an prime example of this economic truth:

An honest assessment of the data over long periods of time leads to the conclusion that personal income taxes do not adversely impact on states' economies in any significant way. This really shouldn't be surprising. After all, there are other things that are far more likely to have an impact. Compared to other costs of doing business--labor costs, proximity to markets, quality of work force and a variety of other factors--the burden of the personal income tax is quite a small factor.

The argument is sometimes made that state personal income taxes influence the locational preferences of entrepreneurs and CEOs. The suggestion is that these individuals, who have a disproportionate impact on a state's economy are far more likely to locate in a state where they will pay less tax. There are, however, a number of flaws in this argument.

First, as mentioned above, there are other factors which are far more likely to affect the success or failure of a business venture than personal income tax liability.

Second, presumably we are talking about wealthy businesspeople, since middle- and low-income businesspeople are actually better off in a state that relies more heavily on progressive income taxes than regressive taxes. One of the primary benefits of being wealthy is the opportunity to live where one wants to. A few percentage points of personal income tax is unlikely to have a major impact on the decision of where to enjoy one's prosperity. An example of this that has recently been in the press is the founder and President of Gateway computers. He recently moved himself, most of the company's executives and engineers from South Dakota, where there is no personal income tax, to California which has a one of the highest top personal income tax rates. He decided he wanted to live in Southern California, he was having trouble attracting other talented individuals to South Dakota and he was in a position to do what he wanted--so he did.

Third, the differences between states in the personal income tax liability for a wealthy person is typically quite small. This is, in part, because of the impact of the deduction on the federal tax return for state taxes. A wealthy person in a state with a tax rate of 6 percent pays that percent of his or her taxable income to the state. But if they are in the top federal tax rate bracket (approximately 40%), their federal personal income tax is reduced by an amount equal to 2.4 percent of their taxable income. Thus the net cost of the state income tax is only 3.6 percent.

[Michael P. Ettlinger, tax policy director, ITEP, testimony regarding House Bill 109, New Hampshire Legislature, 1999.01.19]

As Ettlinger shows us, South Dakota's no-income-tax stance doesn't matter to wealthy businesspeople. It penalizes lower- and middle-income workers and businesspeople with a regressive tax system. And as the Gateway experience shows, it doesn't guarantee that the corporations we might lure to the state will stay and be loyal corporate citizens. Even if a no-income-tax policy is the marginal factor that induces a handful of companies to move here, those companies demonstrate by their moving here for such meager increases in profits that they will pull up stakes and leave buildings empty and South Dakotans jobless the moment some other state (or country) offers them a tax break or other incentive package that will shave another 0.1% off their operating expenses.

In his 1999 testimony, Ettlinger, also pointed out that Minnesota, with the highest income tax rates in our region, also had the best economic performance in the region. South Dakota, said Ettlinger, lagged behind Minnesota and other income-tax states on several economic measures.

An income tax doesn't guarantee economic success, but it doesn't kill it, either. Gateway left our supposedly business-friendly environment for big-government, big-tax California, and took several thousand jobs with it. South Dakota should focus less on low taxes and incentives for itinerant corporations who may not stay long, if they come here at all. Instead, we should direct our attention to creating a less regressive (less sales tax and gambling), less arbitrary (less property tax based on guesswork assessments and speculation), more equitable tax system. We can then use those revenues to make more investment in the foundation of all economic development, education. We also need to concentrate on developing our own homegrown entrepreneurs, citizens who already have some loyalty to South Dakota and will live and work here not just for profit, but because they feel a genuine connection and obligation to our statewide community.

Madison Chamber Forum: What the Candidates Said

Not a bad crowd, considering there was a ball game on TV.
(And no, Bob was not checking scores on his Blackberry while emcee-ing!)

Hey, late night readers! I just got back from recording tonight's candidates forum, sponsored by the Madison Chamber of Commerce and broadcast live by KJAM. Tonight was the last big public event for all of the local candidates Lake County voters will see on their ballot on Election Day, November 2, just five short days away.

Below are my notes of what the candidates said on the issues. With fifteen candidates for five different offices, there was a lot to take in. Read, digest, and stay tuned for my commentary tomorrow.

The notes are rough paraphrasings [with just a few moments of editorializing in brackets]. Occasionally I'll slip into first person, writing things as the candidates said them. If you want exact wording, see the videos. Yes, there will be video! I got everyone on video this time (including you, Bobbi! :-) ), and I'll be uploading those Chamber Forum videos overnight to the Madville Times channel on YouTube. Enjoy!

* * *

Round 1: Bob Sahr masters the ceremonies, and we start with the District 8 Senate candidates. Pictured above: Sahr at the mic, Senator Olson to his left, then Schmidtke at end of table. Introductions first, then questions.

Senator Russell Olson gets to introduce himself first.

• Lists committees, including Tribal Relations
• Says politics is risk vs reward for candidates; you risk time away from family, hard to travel to Pierre with new baby only 2 months old, missed half of the little one's life during last session
• risk not keeping everyone happy, differing with supporters.
• reward is being able to represent voters and keep promises: I've fulfilled every promise I made as State Senator
• we've balanced the budget without raising taxes or using reserves

Clark Schmidtke introduction:

• Married for 23 years, director of Trent Assisted Living Center, Army vet
• Pierre is broken and needs to be fixed.
  
• I've always been a fighter for what I believe in and will fight for District 8.
  
• We need to cut the budget, and I have specific cuts in mind. I'm against raising taxes but also against cuts in education and Medicaid.
• We are in a recession, but a lot of our problems did not come from the recession.
  

Question #1 (from Chamber Governmental Affairs Committee): South Dakota faces budget shortfall, no stimulus: what do we do?

Schmidtke: First thing is to push for capping spending at 3% or rate of inflation, cut full-time state employees; we had 12,800 pre-Rounds, now 14,500. Consolidate departments, use computers to save staff. Restore competition, eliminate no-bid contracts.

Olson: We also have to keep dangerous people incarcerated; ed, med, and jails leaves only 5% of budget; we could cut everything else and still be $30M in the hole! We made difficult cuts last year, we will continue to find even more efficiencies next session.

Question 2 (Chamber): What would you do to spur economic development in District 8?

Olson: I sit on board of directors of economic development; we are totally reviewing policies to get more capital in hands of small business owners. Just have to get the right funds in the right hands of the right people.

Schmidtke: Try to raise money without raising taxes; focus on low/no-interest loans for businesses we already have in South Dakota instead of wining and dining big biz from elsewhere.

Question 3: (from me!) Farmers have expressed dissatisfaction with the ag productivity tax. Would the candidates support replacing the ag productivity tax with income tax; if not, how do we fix this troublesome tax system?

Schmidtke: Not really up on the property tax situation; I'll look at it, see what the options are. People are telling me they don't like income tax structure, but in time I think we'll need something like that. We need to help the farmers, but I don't know what to do with it right now. I'll listen, study, find out.

Olson: If you want to get rid of me in Pierre, get a majority to do income tax. [Well, now I finally know how to get rid of Russ!] I will never be part of a body that supports income tax. I never supported ag productivity model; I support fair and true market system; we could exclude top third and bottom third of sales, get good value from middle third.

* * *

Round 2: District 8 State House Candidates!

District 8 State House candidates (seated at front, L to R):
Jason Bjorklund, Rep. Gerald Lange, Rep. Mitch Fargen, and Patricia Stricherz.

Patricia Stricherz:

• Says she built Operation Homefront non-profit chapter in South Dakota from scratch, did it while recession hit and national office began focing national organization to cut and merge chapters.
  
• Has fought to keep the program open, even though national office took away her equipment and funding. Stricherz has continued helping families using own resources to convince national office to return support; plans to charter independent chapter next year.
• Folks are worried about keeping jobs, keeping food in table; I've had tough times, can identify with your struggles and concerns. [Appeal to emotion... pretty well-composed.]
  

Rep. Mitch Fargen:

• Chose Education and Commerce committees, important to District 8.
  
• Worked on bills protecting landowner rights on wind easements and promoting blender pumps. [stumbled just a little in this part, had trouble remembering second half: I think Mitch has been having some long days at work and on the campaign trail]
  

Rep. Gerald Lange:

• Again, celebrating democracy! [same theme as in his opening remarks at AAUW forum last week]
  
• Democracy is not easy, but politics, now a nasty word.
• Came to Madison in 1964, saw history major at DSU eliminated by computer revolution.
  
• Won election to Senate in 1990 after two unsuccessful campaigns.
  
• I sought office because "there was a bigger classroom." We need to understand South Dakota has a rotten tax system. [Gerry! You just defined leadership! Leading a the conversation, treating the community as a classroom where we must all help each other learn through conversation! Big hearts on the flow!]
  
• The bishops came to us a few years ago and asked us to get rid of the sales tax on food.
• Losing election in 2006 got my dander up, showed me we still had to make an effort for tax reform.
  
• We have an income tax on banks and insurance companies, why not Wal-Mart? There's the answer to the $100M deficit right there.
  

Jason Bjorklund:

• Born and raised in Madison
• Currently truck driver for MN company [hey, Jason, why haven't they moved here?].
  
• Recession caused by too much "legislation, regulation, and taxation."
• Worked in law enforcement in Air Force, also as sniper-spotter.
  

Question #1 (Chamber): What are your thoughts on education funding?

Fargen: last year, I proposed a 1.2% increase, that got killed last session. We had the money for it, but gave away cash to TransCanada. We only needed $4M for education increase! We could also have put money toward roads and bridges, toward raises for state employees.

Lange: In 1993 or so I introduced a bill to tax the 1099 stocks bonds CDs and other intangibles. Two Republicans (Keith Paisley and Larry Gabriel) had introduced that idea in 1989; state chose video lottery instead. We'd rather get the money from losers than from winners; that's a sad commentary on our ethics.

Bjorklund: We're in a recession, we need to hold the line on education spending. We do not need to spend more on education; look at Washington DC and Detroit with highest spending per student and highest dropout rates and highest failure rates.

Stricherz: I ran in 2008: it's sad that we're still arguing about this issue. Gov. Rounds initiated a pilot laptop program that cost the state $2.9M a year to sustain; we should cut failed programs like that, put it back in general education.

Question 2 (Chamber): Top priorities if elected?

Lange: Get rid of sales tax on food. Then eliminate sales tax on other items. Folks in lower income bracket pay 10% of income in taxes; that's basically an income tax! Those folks would spend that money on other things and stimulate the economy. The folks controlling the state pay about 2% of income in taxes. That's not democracy.

Bjorklund: Defend rights to life, liberty, and property. Second, work on repeal of national health care bill: people should have right to choose own doctors, access best medical care they can afford. Finally: expand gun rights. I want to see us be able to conceal-carry in more states.

Stricherz: Most important: dive into budget, get closer into balancing it. Can't do anything else effectively if we don't do budget right. Then cut excess spending, take care of education, roads, bridges.

Fargen: Balance the budget! We haven't done it seven of last eight years!

Question 3: (No one else in audience raises hand, so I take another swing): Given the state budget crunch, can we save money by consolidating schools? What is the minimum size of school district the state can afford to support?

Bjorklund: I'd like to see all of our schools stay open. Have tax dollars stay with student, let parents decide where kids go to school. Market would make that decision for us. Chester has had good bump just with open enrollment; need to expand choice.

Stricherz: School funding formula is per child, $4654 per child. Funding is there; we need to fund our schools, not worry about size.

Fargen: Should not force any consolidation! I want to get rid of the 100-school minimum. Conde was mostly funding its own school with local money, state still forced schools to close. Closing schools doesn't save state money when state money follows child to next school. Both gub. candidates support getting rid of forced consolidation as well.

Lange: School funding lawsuit challenging state to live up to Constitutional mandate for adequate and equal education to all students. They are 17% of the population but 100% of the future. We must help our kids!

* * *

Round 3: Lake County Auditor!

Shelli Gust:

• Lifelong SD resident, raised just outside Alcester, has lived in Madison last four years.
  
• SDSU grad 2003! [Go Jacks!].
  
• Look to perform duties efficiently and effectively, provide fresh perspective.
  
• I will ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability, openness and accessibility to county records; will post more public records online.
  
• Emphasize "serve" in "public service"

Roberta Janke:

• Lifelong Lake County resident.
  
• Experience and qualifications: 23 years of hands-on work experience in Lake County auditor's office. Hired in 1987 by current auditor Kay Schmidt.
  
• I handle payroll, benefits, deposit reports, voter registration, operation of election scanner, health/vision/life insurance.
  
• Served on recount board in 2008.

Question 1 (Chamber): How do you foster lines of communication with other departments and a smooth working relationship?

Janke: I've been working with these departments for the past 23 years. Register of Deeds, Treasurer, Equalization... every office's business comes through auditor's office.

Gust: Me too! State's Attorney's [where Gust works] office involves similar cooperation. Need to make sure every office knows what's coming down from the commission.

Question 2 (I think this was an audience question): What's the biggest problem you anticipate if elected?

Gust: I wouldn't characterize them as problems, but greatest challenge I see is making more information avaialble to the public. Great open meetings laws took effect July 1; we can work for more transparency, but it will take time to scan documents, make people aware those documents are available.

Janke: Having worked in the auditor's office for 23 years, I say things are working well! Get more information online.

Question 3 (me again): Are electronic voting machines secure, reliable, and feasible for Lake County?

Janke: You need a paper trail on an election. [Really, that's all she said! She pretty clearly does not want electronic voting machines.]

Gust: We work with Sec. State's office. The current automark system has lots of checks, the machines they have now are tested to make sure they are accurate. If we're talking about completely electronic voting, that would take lots of cooperation with Pierre, would require a great deal of testing before implementing at local level.

* * *

Round 4: Lake County Sheriff!

Sheriff Roger Hartman:

• Worked as deputy for 12 years for Sheriff Herb Lurz, sheriff 12 years after that.
  
• Over 1000 hours of in-service training.
  
• I've kept sending down, won over $100K in grants for security equipment.
  
• We've added a fourth deputy to increase patrols.[sounds like Roger was listening last time!]
  

Jason Lurz:

• From Madison, married 16 years [good grief, Jason! you've got a lead on me!], moved back here 2004.
  
• USAF veteran, served in SDHP before Lake County sheriff's office and current Madison city policeman: only candidate with law enforcement experience at city, county, and state level.

Dan Wyatt:

• Served in USAF, worked drug patrols in Panama for Army;
  
• worked for Lake and Moody County drug task force (thanks to federal money), then went to Madison Police Department.
  
• I can be a leader thanks to military and local leadership classes; 1000 hours of civilian training, 2000 horus of military training.
  
• Primary goal: keep us all safe. This is my home, I worry about what's going on here.

Question 1 (Chamber): How will you react in a crisis?

Lurz: We respond to a variety of situations. City police respond to medical calls on regular basis, very hard when there are family members present. I've been recognized by Red Cross with a life-saving award. First priority must be to take care of the patient; sometimes when you're the only person there, you have to find things the family members can do to help, keep busy.

Wyatt: Few years back, we had an individual in Wentworth douse himself and yard and house wall with gasoline; he held a lighter, threatened to light up; I had to talk this guy down. I'm also able to talk people down in domestic dispute situations. We've all three notified loved ones of deaths.

Hartman: You see many things in law enforcement. One vehicle accident, 15 or so years ago south of town, Sunday morning, family coming back from church, three kids in car dead, parent strapped in car still alive. You do what you have to do, go home, give your kids a hug, then go shed some tears in private [dang: that's a pretty sensitive and compelling narrative, the best-told story of the three].

Question 2 (audience, I think): need for changes at sheriff's office?

Wyatt: First changes behind the doors. First contact other counties, see if we can arrange to hold their prisoners, make some money to make improvements. We'll go slow and easy, make sure things get done in orderly fashion. Second, I will be a working sheriff out in the community. I'll be out and about, asking for your input.

Hartman: Lots of changes in last 12 years; I want to continue this work. 12 years ago there was only one computer in the whole office, on secretary's desk; now every staffer has one, plus computers in cars. DNA testing is a new development. You do have to keep room in jail for our local inmates.

Lurz: In my study of the budget, I see a lot of ways to save money. First priority should be to save, not spend. Over $500K for sheriff and jail now. We have lots of overtime, some reimbursed by federal government, need to reduce! We can hire part-timers to alleviate that problem. We also need service from sheriff, must be involved with community.

Question 3 (from Neal McIntyre): better response to remote areas of county? Maybe cooperate with other counties? [remember, Neal lives closer to Salem than Madison]

Hartman: We're in the middle of the county, and we do the best we can. There's a deputy out every night, sometimes two. Other counties: we have an unwritten agreement to provide mutual assistance. 20 years ago we were all dispatched to help with the Hobo Day riot.

Lurz: Be a leader, schedule appropriately. Some nights those deputies go home by 9 p.m. Some days we have two deputies working a day shift; no need for that when we have a sheriff who can do more during the day. Cross-deputization is overdue: we should extend liability coverage and allow city police to respond in country. Part-timers can also fill some gaps. Wait for response should be no more than drive time.

Wyatt: Where Neal lives is a problem way out on edge of county. We take care of business in our own counties, but we help each other when necessary. More deputies? We can hire part-timers and cross-deputize. Also, call the sheriff; the sheriff should respond.

* * *

Fifth and Final Round: Lake County Commission!

The Lake County Commission candidates (seated at front, L to R):
Craig Johannsen, Doug Erickson, Kelli Wollmann, and Commissioner Scott Pedersen

Kelli Wollmann:

• Lifetime resident of county, husband Darwin with Madison Police Department for last 23 years.
  
• Mostly stay-at-home mom, but worked in management
• active in providing music at various events and fundraisers
• involved in Lake County Historical Society and Prairie Village boards.

Commissioner Scott Pedersen:

• End of this year makes 16 years of public service [career politician? any Tea Party protests? ;-) ].
  
• Unlike the state legislators, we've balanced our budget every year.
  
• We have wheel tax (all spent on 220 miles of banked highway, 74 miles of gravel roads) and property tax (about 23 cents of every dollar stays here); we must continue to work hard to grow the county and the taxbase.
  
• Two big projects; public access area at Lake Madison (working out well, willing to expand) and Water Quality Committee (wonderful thing, in infancy, has lots of potential).
• Do me a favor: when you're in the courthouse, thank Kay Schmidt for many years of good service [amazingly, the audience does not burst into spontaneous applause... but hey, we're Lutherans. ;-) ]
  

Craig Johannsen:

• Commissioner for 10 years until 2008: worked on drainage ordinances, laid groundwork for public access on Lake Madison.
  
• Serve on all sorts of area governing boards.
  
• I pledge to be accessible to anyone who has concerns or problems.
  
• I have the "time, experience, and commitment" to be a good commissioner.

Doug Erickson:

• Born and raised around Junius, farmed until 1993.
  
• Lifelong resident.
  
• [pause...] "As you can tell, I'm a little bit nervous."
  
• Currently have a small construction business, work all around the county, well aware of many of the problems here.
• Willing to work with everybody to solve problems.

Question #1 (Chamber): Renovations to courthouse, infrastructure needs, new employee: how do we meet those new budget demands?

Pedersen: Renovation: we're in process of working with Sioux Falls firm and Pierre bonding company: we'd issue 17-year bond with about 1.5-2% interest rate, but different from traditional loan; we'd put principal payment in separate account, could pay off in 13-14 years. New employee: Lake Madison Assoc. and East Dakota Water District kicking in to help.

Johannsen: Bonding better way to go with renovation; there are reserves, but we don't want to take them too low. New employee: grant money from EDWDD and Lake Madison for new employee.

Erickson: At peril of repeating those fellas... there are some avenues where we can save money. I'm not for any more taxes; as a small businessperson, I'm taxed out!

Wollmann: With Internet, it's very important to work together with other counties and agencies to come up with solutions. We can't be the only ones with new building needs; there are many grants available that, working with other communities, we may be able to get a lot done for less burden on the taxpayers.

Question 2: Charlie Scholl takes aim at Commissioner Pedersen: Pedersen has pushed for new zoning rules including unelected, unqualified folks to sit in at meetings and vote [what? really?] Why?

Johannsen: What exact position are you asking about? If you mean chairman of the zoning board, that person is as informed as any commissioner, if they vote, they are expressing their sense of feelings from the board. Scholl says appeal of planning board is to commission; how can we appeal if the same board official is hearing the appeal? Johannsen is unsure.

Erickson: That 150-page ordinance is a pretty big deal to be laying on the county right now. There's a lot of things that most taxpayers don't even know about in that new ordinance. having someone fill in for you voting, I'm not for that. I would strongly suggest being at the Nov. 9 commission meeting to get a better understanding of the whole zoning revision.

Wollmann: I'm not all that familiar with the problem, but it doesn't sound right. If you're elected by the people, you work for the people.

Pedersen: I'm the liaison between the commission and the zoning committee. We talked about the need for the zoning board president or vice-president to come to a commission meeting and present board's view if I'm not available, but we did not talk about letting that person vote. Come to Nov. 9 meeting, find out about it.

Question 3 [See second half of video] (Audience is fired up on county commission issues!): Wheel tax: first presented as temporary: started at $2 a tire, now $4 a tire; how much longer will that tax go? Some counties have gotten rid of it.

Erickson: The wheel tax has been on for as long as I remember. I don't like it, but we've got to get the money somewhere. I'm willing to work to find a solution. We're already taxed to death; small business guy can't go much more. I welcome taxpayers' input on finding solution.

Wollmann: Commissioners can't please everyone. There are reasons we have taxes to benefit the county. Get involved with your community, voice your opinion to get things changed.

Pedersen: Probably started in early 1990s, originally $2 a wheel, went to $4 a wheel around 1996 or 1997, stayed that level since. In 2009 we took in $268K. Max we can charge per vehicle is for four wheels, $16 per vehicle. Last year we had bids to overlay highway at $100K a mile. Forgive the wheel tax, and we can all drive on gravel. I don't want more taxes, but we have to pay for what we want somehow.

Johannsen: Wheel tax in place before I was on commission; we did increase it to tax four wheels. I have to agree with Scott: we have two sources of income, and that's it. Not my favorite thing, but we have to keep the roads up.

Question 4: (Neal McIntyre) Opportunity for public to vote on new zoning ordinance? Impact on average citizen?

Wollmann: Public vote would be good on this. Sometimes over-regulation is not always good, makes it more difficult for everybody.

Pedersen: No public vote opportunity on schedule. There is an opportunity for public input on November 9. Water Quality Committee has been reviewing this ordinance line by line [yup; I've been at those meetings!]. It is a big ordinance; putting 150 pages in front of public for vote would be confusing, but certainly we are open to changing things to make it work.

Johannsen: We work with First District Todd Kays; basically the changes coming are mostly updates for legal matters. A lot of it is just bookkeeping and updating so lawyers can't pick it apart as easily. Everyone is welcome to review it.

Erickson: I'm not for sure it's just an update. If it's going to affect everyone in the county, if it affects livestock, having old cars, etc. then it should be brought to vote of the people. If it's just a rewording, then I'm for it. It should not be just in five people's hands to decide.

Question 5: (Paul Nordaune) What was spent on the foolishness in Winfred cleaning up the Evans and J&J Farms? $40-45K or $100K? Why all the unnecessary cleanup, and why the sale of the land for just $2500?

Pedersen: I wasn't on the commission when the money was spent for the cleanup. We sold the property according to legal process. We advertised, put it up for sale. I think we spent $75K-80K, but I didn't authorize that expenditure. [Note: Charlie Scholl afterward questioned the timeframe, said Commissioner Pedersen was more involved in this process.]

Johannsen: I don't know how much was spent. We can dig and find the number. We sell the proerty for whatever we can get to get it back on the tax rolls.

Erickson: I don't know what was spent to clean it up, but if a person is running a business and following the rules on pollution and nuisances, I don't see why we had to spend tax dollars to clean up somebody else's land.

Wollmann: I also don't know expense. Quality of life to one person might be different for next person. Laws and ordinances are put in place to prevent nuisance problems within a community. We're all in it together, that's just the way it is.