The repeated questions you guys get about computers/laptops are because the answer we keep getting doesn’t seem to make sense.
While I do think that legislators should have defined “instructional materials”, I'm having a hard time understanding how not including technology is only a legislative issue and not a step up issue.
If they can choose to interpret "subcategories" to include under instructional materials even though it doesn't directly list them (such as school supplies and furniture), then they can also choose to include devices. The statute does not say anywhere that they are excluded or prohibited.
We've been told repeatedly that it is because the statute did not include it like it is included in FES.
However, if that’s the case, then the FES-UA purchasing guide should not be allowing the purchase of "digital materials" or "internet resources", because those are not specifically included in that statute like it is for FTC.
FTC: "Instructional materials, including digital materials and Internet resources."
FES: "Instructional materials, including digital devices, digital periphery devices, and assistive technology devices that allow a student to access instruction or instructional content and training on the use of and maintenance agreements for these devices."
The FTC purchasing guide states at the beginning that "Whether a product or service is available in public schools helps SFOs determine whether an item may be purchased with scholarship funds."
My local school district gives all elementary students a tablet and all middle and high school students a laptop. SUFS needs to consider that not allowing these items for PEP is putting many students switching from public schools to home education this year at a serious disadvantage if their families can't afford to purchase them devices.
I'm concerned that people are not including technology in their feedback to SUFS because they've been told that SUFS doesn't have a choice, which just doesn’t seem to be the case.
The exclusion of "digital devices, digital periphery devices, and assistive technology devices" from the HB1/PEP wording is the issue. This ties Step Up's hands as to what they can qualify under the PEP funding. There is also a principal called "statutory construction," meaning it's assumed that Legislators considered all options and decided to include only what they included. Step Up had a team of lawyers who work with DOE to determine the boundaries of what they can approve based on statute, and Step Up must abide by what's written in the laws.
The purpose of UA is to ensure accessibility to learning for students with disabilities. In recent years, the ADA has cracked down on companies with websites that are not compliant in making their information accessible to people with disabilities. The spirit and the language of the FES statutes aligns with making learning accessible to children with impairments, and devices are often a part of that. Here's the link to the current statutes: https://flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/1002.394
Access to "instructional materials, including digital devices, digital periphery devices, and assistive technology devices" leaves leeway for them to access digital materials (and by necessity, the internet), whereas the exclusion of "digital devices" for PEP is a significant difference due to the "statutory construction" principle. For PEP, "digital devices" have not yet been included in the statutes. We agree that this should be addressed, because laptops/computers are an important resource for PEP students as well, and it doesn't make much sense to cover "internet resources" if the students have no device from which to access internet. But technically and legally, HB1 isn't currently written in a way to include the laptops/devices, which is why we're urging parents to reach out to legislators. You are also welcome to reach out to Step Up, of course! We've encouraged parents to do both. Also, this is the part where it's important to have a lobbyist to advocate for you. We collect the feedback from parents, and help make the case on their behalf. Brenda has been advocating for months for technology to be added to the statutes for PEP, but having the parent voices reach out to legislators in support of this need only gives it that much more emphasis. Thanks for your post!