BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 227
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 13, 2011

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                     AB 227 (Hall) - As Amended:  April 6, 2011 

          Policy Committee:                              Education 
          Vote:7-3

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          No     Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires the guidelines and criteria school districts 
          use to develop their educational technology plans to include 
          information related to cyberbullying, the use of control 
          software, and pupil use of mobile communication technology.  
          Specifically, this bill:  

          1)Specifies that a school district that has a current 
            three-to-five year education technology plan (as of July 1, 
            2012) is not required to comply with the additional criteria 
            proposed in this measure until after the plan expires or is 
            voluntarily replaced.  

          2)Encourages school districts to partner with the California 
            Technology Assistance Project (CTAP), information technology 
            companies, and nonprofit organizations to develop tools to 
            supplement existing Internet safety curriculum, as specified.  


           FISCAL EFFECT  

          GF administrative costs, likely less than $50,000, to the State 
          Department of Education to update the guidelines and criteria 
          school districts use to develop and revise their education 
          technology plans, as specified.  

           COMMENTS  

           1)Purpose  .  Cyberbullying is generally defined as the use of 
            information and communication technologies (i.e., cell phones, 
            email, instant messaging) to support deliberate, repeated, and 








                                                                  AB 227
                                                                  Page  2

            hostile behavior by an individual or group, which is intended 
            to harm others.

            A 2006 poll conducted by Fight Crime Invest in Kids revealed 
            one in three teenagers and one in six preteens have been 
            victims of cyberbullying.  According to the author, "Recent 
            incidents of harassment and cyberbullying across the country 
            have led to violence against youth and the tragic suicides of 
            middle, high school and college students. These tragedies have 
            raised a nationwide awareness of this crisis and a demand for 
            states to take a more active role to protect students from 
            bullying, intimidation and harassment."

           2)Existing law  .  AB 2706 (Berg), Chapter 681, Statutes of 2004, 
            required school districts, as a condition of receiving an 
            education technology grant, to have a three to five-year 
            education technology plan.  

           3)State and federal education technology funding  .  As part of 
            the February 2009 budget package, SB 4 X3 (Ducheny), Chapter 
            12, Statutes of 2009, provided local education agencies (LEAs) 
            with unprecedented fiscal and policy flexibility related to 
            over 40 categorical programs, including CTAP (state technology 
            funds), between the 2008-09 fiscal year (FY) to the 2012-13 
            FY. Specifically, any LEA that received funding for specified 
            categorical programs in the 2008-09 FY is authorized to use 
            this funding for any other educational purpose until the 
            2012-13 FY.    The LEA may choose to continue operating the 
            categorical program that it received funding for or redirect 
            it for any other educational purpose it deems appropriate.  SB 
            70 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 7, 
            Statutes of 2011, extended this flexibility until the 2014-15 
            FY.  

            Prior to the enactment of AB 4 X3, school districts, as a 
            condition of receiving CTAP funding, were required to develop 
            and update their district technology plans, as specified.  
            This requirement is no longer operative during categorical 
            flexibility, which lasts until the 2014-15 FY.  The proposed 
            2011 budget provides $17 million for CTAP, which school 
            districts may use for any other education purpose.  

            Under the federal Enhancing Education Through Technology 
            (EETT) program, school districts are required to update their 
            technology plans as a condition of receiving these funds.  








                                                                  AB 227
                                                                  Page  3

            Funding is distributed via a formula and competitive grant 
            process.  The formula grants provide funding for grades K-12 
            to assist eligible LEAs in using technology to enhance 
            teaching and learning.  The competitive grants are used to 
            assist eligible districts in utilizing technology and 
            promoting learning.  The 2010 Budget Act allocated $48.2 in 
            federal EETT program funding.  


              



           Analysis Prepared by  :    Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916) 
          319-2081