Education technology.
Summary
Existing law requires a school district to have a current 3- to 5-year education technology plan as a precondition to receiving a technology grant administered by the State Department of Education. The Superintendent of Public Instruction is required to develop guidelines and criteria to be included in the education technology plan. The guidelines and criteria are required 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. The Superintendent is required to ensure that each school district has access to technical assistance and an approved online technology plan builder that the department determines is in compliance with state and federal requirements. The Superintendent is required to maintain a record of school districts that have a 3- to 5-year education technology plan and to make that information available to interested public agencies. This bill would require the component of the guidelines and criteria that educates pupils and teachers on the topics listed above to include the negative impacts to pupils from cyberbullying, the active use of content control software, and the responsible use by pupils of mobile communication technology. The bill would encourage 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 and would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
Bill status
failed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Aug 2009
Assembly Passage
May 2009
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 26, 2009
Last action Nov 30, 2010
Floor votes · Assembly May 28, 2009
How they voted
47–26
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 74
May 28, 2009
D
Democratic47
100% Yea
I
Independent1
100% Nay
R
Republican26
96% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
20
Key actions
9
Committee
11
Amendments
3
Aug 27, 2009
Upper · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
upper
Aug 17, 2009
Upper · Passed
In committee: Placed on Appropriations suspense file.
upper
Jul 16, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (July 15).
upper
Jul 7, 2009
Upper · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
upper
Jun 29, 2009
Upper · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
upper
Jun 11, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on ED.
upper
May 28, 2009
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (47-26-1)
assembly
May 21, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (May 20).
lower
May 7, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 6, 2009
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended.
lower
May 5, 2009
Introduced
From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 2.) (April 29).
lower
Apr 15, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on ED.
lower
Apr 14, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on ED. Read second time and amended.
lower
Apr 13, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on ED.
lower
Feb 27, 2009
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 29.
lower
1 primary · 1 co-sponsor
Sponsors
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 678
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 678. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline