BILL ANALYSIS
AB 678
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 678 (Hall) - As Amended: April 14, 2009
SUBJECT : Education technology
SUMMARY : Modifies the guidelines and criteria required for the
development of district education technology plans, as
specified, and encourages districts to partner with information
technology companies and nonprofit organizations to develop
tools to supplement the existing Internet safety curriculum.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the education component of the guidelines and
criteria developed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) for education technology plans to include the following:
a) The negative impacts to pupils from cyberbullying;
b) The active use of parental control software; and,
c) Responsible use by pupils of mobile communication
technology.
2)Encourages school districts to partner with information
technology companies and nonprofit organizations to develop
tools to supplement the existing Internet safety curriculum
that addresses the educational component of the guidelines and
criteria developed by the SPI.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a school district to have a three- to five-year
education technology plan as a precondition to receiving any
technology grant administered by the California Department of
Education (CDE).
2)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to
develop guidelines and criteria to be included in the
education technology plan, and requires the guidelines and
criteria to include a component to educate pupils and teachers
on the appropriate and ethical use of information technology
in the classroom, Internet safety, the manner in which to
avoid committing plagiarism, the concept, purpose, and
significance of a copyright so that pupils are equipped with
AB 678
Page 2
the skills necessary to distinguish lawful from unlawful
online downloading, and the implications of illegal
peer-to-peer network file sharing.
3)Prohibits, pursuant to the federal Children's Internet
Protection Act (CIPA), a local educational agency (LEA) from
using certain federal funds to purchase computers for an
elementary or secondary school to use for Internet access, or
to pay for direct costs associated with Internet access at
that school, unless the school or its governing local
educational agency has in place an Internet safety policy, as
specified, for both minors and adults, that includes the
operation of a technology protection measure with respect to
any of those computers with Internet access.
4)Authorizes school districts, county offices of education and
state special schools to apply to the SBE to participate in
grant programs related to education technology.
5)Authorizes the CDE to administer the California Technology
Assistance Program (CTAP), composed of regional consortia that
administer, with three-year grant funding awarded by the State
Board of Education (SBE), a regionalized network of technical
assistance providers to schools and school districts on the
implementation of educational technology. Repeals the
provisions of CTAP and SETS on January 1, 2014.
6)Requires CDE to award grants, based on certain criteria, to
fund a school district or county office of education in each
region of the CTAP to act as the regional lead agency to
administer the service of that region.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : In order to receive education technology funds, a
county office of education, school district, or direct-funded
charter school must have an approved education technology plan.
Once a district's technology plan is approved, this technology
plan is also used to apply for the E-rate federal program that
provides eligible K-12 public schools and libraries 20% to 90%
discounts on approved telecommunications, Internet access, and
internal connections costs.
Current law requires the SPI to develop guidelines and criteria
to be included in the education technology plan, and requires
AB 678
Page 3
the guidelines and criteria to include a component to educate
pupils and teachers on specified components. The SPI has
developed the following broad categories for criteria to be
included in education technology plans: plan duration,
stakeholders, curriculum, professional development, hardware,
software, infrastructure, funding and budget, monitoring and
evaluation, adult literacy providers, and research-based
methods.
As a result of AB 307 (Chavez), Chapter 313, Statutes of 2006
the curriculum criteria now include Internet safety and the
ethical use of technology. The internet safety criterion and
guidelines require, "A list of goals and an implementation plan
that describe how the district will address Internet safety,
including how to protect online privacy and avoid online
predators." This requirement applies to all technology plans
submitted in 2008-09 and after. This bill adds the following
components to the curriculum criteria of the plan:
a) The negative impacts to pupils from cyberbullying;
b) The active use of parental control software; and,
c) Responsible use by pupils of mobile communication
technology.
It is not clear that all of these components are relevant for
technology plans as technology plans describe and outline goals
for the use and access of technology to deliver instruction.
The plan is required to address internet safety and the ethical
use of technology in teaching and learning. Furthermore, it is
not clear that the active use of parental control software would
be a relevant component for the criteria. Under current law,
pursuant to the federal Children's Internet Protection Act
(CIPA), schools and libraries may not receive the discounts
offered by the E-rate program unless they certify that they have
an Internet safety policy and technology protection measures in
place. An Internet safety policy must include technology
protection measures to block or filter Internet access to
specified content and to monitor online activities of minors.
What is cyber bullying ? Cyber bullying is the use of electronic
devices and information, such as e-mail, instant messages, text
messages, mobile phones, and web sites, to send or post harmful
messages or images about an individual or a group.
A poll commissioned in 2006 by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids,
AB 678
Page 4
showed that one in three teens and one in six preteens have been
victims of cyberbullying and that more than 2 million of those
victims told no one about the attacks. In September of 2007,
the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) Task Force
on School and Campus Safety released a report that includes
specific recommendations to address school safety issues.
Recommendations from the Task Force included a recommendation
for states to "continue to implement and expand bullying
prevention measures, including cyber bullying." The report
stated, "Bullying was recognized as an important issue in
examining school violence. The growth in the use of technology
and social networking sites by younger Americans has fueled a
fear among professionals that cyber bullying will become the
means most often utilized to harass, threaten or otherwise cause
distress. And while certainly more prevalent in the elementary
and secondary school setting, issues related to bullying or
intimidation are increasingly relevant in other nontraditional
settings." According to a Baltimore Sun article published in
November 2007, Oregon, Washington, New Jersey and other states
have introduced bills or instituted programs designed to reduce
cyberbullying. The article mentions that "officials in a
Missouri town made Internet harassment a misdemeanor, after
public outrage over the suicide of a 13-year-old resident last
year." Prior legislation, AB 86 (Lieu) Chapter 646, Statutes of
2008, added bullying and cyberbullying to the list of reasons
for which a student may be suspended or recommended for
expulsion.
According to the author, "AB 678 would update the state's
education code to reflect new technology available to children,
the responsible use of mobile communication devices, discourage
cyberbullying and encourage local educational agencies to
partner with information technology companies and non-profit
organizations to provide additional tools on how to help
children stay safe while using the Internet at school, home or
on a mobile communication device."
The bill as currently drafted would require school districts
that have a current three or five-year approved plan to have to
revise and resubmit their plan to comply with the new
requirements. A prior bill that added Internet safety to the
technology plans gave districts the opportunity to wait until
their approved plan expired or was voluntarily replaced to
comply with the new provisions. Staff recommends the bill be
amended to allow for the same flexibility to school districts
AB 678
Page 5
that have an approved plan by deleting from page 3, line 21 "on
July 1, 2008" and inserting "July 1, 2011."
Technical amendment : On page 3, line 12, delete "parental" and
insert "content."
Arguments in support : Jack & Jill of America writes, "Jack and
Jill of America, Inc believes the Internet is a great
educational tool that can be used to increase student success,
close the achievement gap and prepare our children for their
futures in the workforce. Used improperly however, the Internet
can have long lasting impacts that are difficult to reverse."
Prior legislation : AB 86 (Lieu) Chapter 646, Statutes of 2008,
adds bullying and bullying committed by means of an electronic
act to the list of reasons for which a student may be suspended
or recommended for expulsion.
AB 88 (Lieu) of 2007 required the California Department of
Education (CDE) to work with the Department of Consumer Affairs
to ensure that the list of resources regarding Internet safety
from the California Cyber Safety Resource Center addresses
specified criteria. Required CDE to distribute, and make
available on its Internet Web site the list of Internet safety
resources and allowed local educational agencies to incorporate
the resources into existing curricula. AB 88 was placed on the
Senate floor inactive file.
AB 307 (Chavez), Chapter 313, Statutes of 2006 requires the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, by July 1, 2007, to
develop guidelines for information regarding the safe use of the
Internet that should be included in a school district's
education technology plan.
SB 1740 (Murray) of 2006 required the SDE to develop and
maintain an Internet safety curriculum to be distributed to
school districts. The bill was vetoed. The message read, in
pertinent part:
This bill circumvents the role of the State Board of
Education (SBE) by giving the authority for the development
and dissemination of curriculum to the California
Department of Education without the approval of the SBE.
The Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) has already
AB 678
Page 6
convened the California Coalition for Children's Internet
Safety (CCCIS) and will host the first statewide Cyber
Safety Summit in October. The Summit is intended to
target, among others, parents/PTA organizations, educators,
community leaders, and child safety advocates. Prior to
developing any state wide guidelines, we should first take
the information presented at the Summit and review
recommendations from the CCCIS to ensure that any approach
to Internet safety is comprehensive and addresses the
individual needs of local education agencies. I believe
this is a proactive, direct approach to address Internet
safety.
SB 338 (Maldonado) of 2005 authorizes the CDE to identify
Internet safety programs and to facilitate communication with
interested parties regarding Internet safety. SB 338 was vetoed
by Governor Schwarzenegger with the following message:
"While I believe that Internet safety is important, this bill
does virtually nothing to ensure districts do more to protect
students from accessing inappropriate websites. The
Superintendent of Public Instruction has the authority and
should already be taking all of the necessary steps to protect
children in schools even without this bill."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Sacramento Chapter of Jack & Jill of America, Incorporated
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Avi?a / ED. / (916) 319-2087