|
David
Blount, Editor
Several new requirements enacted the past several years (while
not all specifically addressing technology training) have
driven the need for increased teacher training in educational
technology. In 1998, the General Assembly elevated the emphasis
on educational technology by incorporating the existing requirement
for a Board of Education five-year technology plan into the
Standards of Quality (SOQ) as a six-year plan, and requiring
local plans (rather than technology components) consistent
with the state plan. The notion of technological proficiency
also was placed in the SOQ, requiring local school boards
to incorporate technological proficiency in the K–12 instructional
program. The following year, the legislature amended 22.1-298
to require that on and after July 1, 2003, persons seeking
initial licensure or license renewal as teachers demonstrate
proficiency in the use of educational technology for instruction.
Also in 1999, HB 2671 clarified that the institutes required
to be established by the State Council of Higher Education
at colleges and universities shall provide in-service training
in the effective use of educational technology for teachers,
administrators and librarians.
Finally, HB 203 (2000) made a number of revisions to the
SOQ concerning technology, primarily focused on incorporating
proficiency in the use of computers and related technology
into the Standards of Learning and the K–12 instructional
program. It also required the Standards of Accreditation to
include standards for the integration of educational technology
into instructional programs and for staff positions for supporting
educational technology. It also further revised a requirement
for professional development in educational technology to
stipulate that such training be “designed to facilitate
integration of computer skills and related technology into
the curricula,” and clarified that the state’s six-year
technology plan and local technology plans integrate technology
into curricula.
In 1995, $2.7 million in state funding was budgeted for
teacher training, technical and field support. State funding
through various technology grants programs in the 1990s
has contained provisions that require at least 25% of the
20% local match be used for teacher training in the use of
technology.
The Commission on Educational Infrastructure has begun focusing
on educational technology, and specifically, has looked at
how technology will impact building design and curricula,
school operations, teaching, student achievement, and student
discipline in the future. It has recognized of the importance
and integral role of educational technology in schools of
the future. In 2000, the Commission was renamed as the Commission
on Educational Infrastructure and Technology and was charged
with developing a formula for funding educational technology
and technology support personnel. The Joint Commission on
Technology and Science, a permanent legislative commission
created in 1997, also is examining educational technology
through the work of one of its six advisory groups. The Commission
has heard about early successes of the in-service training
institutes, which may provide grounds for further expansion
in this area.
1998 – HB 1200, HB 1340
1999 – HB 2263, HB 2321, HB 2671
2000 – HB 203, HB 342, HB 520, HB 936, SB 83,
HJR 223
The 106th Congress considered (as part of a failed attempt
to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act)
various proposals for the integration of technology in teacher
preparation programs. For more information, visit http://www.ed.gov/Technology/budget.html.
Educational Technology Funding, 1988-2000, Senate Finance
Committee Teachers Tools for the 21st Century: A report on
Teachers Use of Technology, National Center for Education
Statistics, September 2000 (http://www.nces.ed.gov)
Click here for a policy issue briefing on “Technology
Training.”
Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide
comments or additional information. Please indicate in an
e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new
inclusions. Back to Top
Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if
CEPI is credited.
|
