BILL ANALYSIS
AB 678
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 678 (Hall)
As Amended May 6, 2009
Majority vote
EDUCATION 8-2 APPROPRIATIONS 11-4
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Arambula, Buchanan, | |Calderon, Davis, Fuentes, |
| |Carter, Eng, Solorio, | |Hall, John A. Perez, Price, |
| |Torlakson | |Skinner, Solorio, Torlakson |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+----------------------------|
|Nays:|Garrick, Miller |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| | | |Audra Strickland |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 content 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.
3)Provides that districts are to include this information in
their technology plan during the normal course of updating the
AB 678
Page 2
plan.
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 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 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, minor, absorbable General Fund (GF) administrative
costs to the CDE to update their guidelines and criteria, as
specified. Minor, absorbable GF/Proposition 98 costs to school
districts to update their education technology plans for
information specified in this measure.
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%
AB 678
Page 3
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
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."
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, 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.
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."
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 CDE to work with the
AB 678
Page 4
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
SPI, 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 CDE 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
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
AB 678
Page 5
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."
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Avi?a / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0000923