Panel hears bill letting districts grant or sell surplus technology to students at depreciated cost
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
House Bill 2,432 would let school districts and ESDs sell or grant surplus technology (laptops, tablets, assistive devices) to students and recent graduates at depreciated cost without public‑notice surplus requirements; district tech leaders and superintendents supported the change as a practical way to expand student access to devices.
Representative Lisa Callen introduced House Bill 2,432 to allow school districts and educational service districts to sell or grant surplus technology hardware that was issued to students during the school year at a depreciated cost to public school students, including recent graduates. "We want to make sure that those students that are in need… have access to this equipment at their depreciated value," Callen said.
Nonpartisan staffer Ethan Moreno explained that current law requires public notice before districts may sell surplus equipment to private parties, but HB 2,432 would exempt public notice requirements when devices are sold or granted to students and would require documentation of the depreciated value in a written agreement. The bill’s definition of "surplus technology hardware" explicitly lists laptops, tablets and "other electronic devices or equipment issued by the public school to students for their use during the school year."
District technology leaders and operations officers urged passage. David Moon, who leads technology for his district, said the bill allows districts to convert retired classroom devices into student opportunity with accountability and documentation. "With the passage of this bill, devices can be sold at a depreciated value," Moon said, adding that known device ownership can encourage students to care for equipment.
Committee members raised questions about how rotating procurement cycles could affect which graduating classes receive devices and whether assistive technologies for students with disabilities are covered; staff noted existing statute addressing transfer of assistive devices for children with disabilities (committee citation read during the hearing). Supporters argued local policy flexibility would allow districts to prioritize students with the greatest need.
The hearing closed after public testimony and the vice chair read sign‑in totals (57 pro, 5 con). The committee did not record a vote during the session; amendment filing deadlines were announced for upcoming executive session consideration.