David Blount, Editor

Technology Planning

With the constant changing of computer and other technologies, keeping up with this rapid pace through planning and policies has been and will continue to be challenging. However, Virginia has taken some significant steps in this regard in recent years and has mechanisms in place to address ongoing needs.

As stated in the Technology Planning issue briefing, Virginia long has been immersed in planning for educational technology. The Governor’s Task Force on Science and Technology and the Governor’s Commission on Excellence in Education in the 1980s propelled comprehensive technology planning to the forefront, with the latter group recommending development of a five-year plan to make educational technology an integral part of public education in Virginia (a six-year plan actually was developed).

The General Assembly established a Science and Technology Task Force in 1993, the forerunner of the existing Joint Commission on Technology and Science. In 1994, the legislature set up a special committee through SJ 157 to study educational technology in Virginia. Its work continued in 1995, the same year that revised Standards of Learning, including objectives for computer technology, were approved. Also in 1995, HB 2542, known as the Omnibus Educational Act, provided statutory framework for future funding of educational technology by the state, and declared that educational technology “is one of the most important components, along with highly skilled teachers, in ensuring the delivery of quality public school education throughout the Commonwealth.” In 1996, HB 512 established the state’s educational technology funding goals, consistent with those components of the Board of Education’s revised six-year technology plan, and two new commissions, the Commission on the Future of Public Education and the Commission on Educational Infrastructure, began examining curriculum and instructional materials and educational technology needs.

In 1997, HB 2138 established the permanent legislative agency known today as the Joint Commission on Technology and Science. HJ 566 urged the Governor to appoint a cabinet level technology and science advisor (this was accomplished in 1999 with the creation of a Secretary of Technology).

The General Assembly took steps in 1998 to address both the present and future of educational technology. It approved HB 1340, which further enhanced technology planning by transferring reference to the Board of Education’s technology plan to the Standards of Quality. Approved budget language called for an analysis of educational technology availability and usage in each public schools HJ 176 contained a similar goal). The legislature also began to face issues brought on by the ever-increasing expansiveness of the Internet, specifically considering bills to require filtering or blocking software on school computers and to integrate technology into instructional programs. In 1999, HB 1043 required school boards to approve acceptable Internet use policies, to include provisions for preventing access by students to material which the school division deems to be harmful to juveniles. HB 2241 established, but did not fund, the Virginia Public School Educational Technology Grants Program to provide grants to eligible school divisions for educational technology, to include innovative programs to advance the effectiveness of educational technology.

In 2000, HB 203 revised the Standards of Quality to incorporate 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, and clarified that the state’s six-year technology plan and local technology plans integrate technology into curricula. The approved budget for 2000-2002 contains a $113 million Standards of Learning Technology initiative for establishing a computer-based instructional and testing system for the SOL. To receive funds, school divisions must develop a plan for using the money and commit to being capable of administering high school tests by 2003. However, a pair of bills, HB 342 and HB 520 were defeated that would have provided state basic aid funding for local school six-year technology plans. Finally, although it had examined technology issues over the years, the Commission on Educational Infrastructure formally changed its name in 2000 to the Commission on Educational Infrastructure and Technology.

In compliance with federal provisions contained in the FY2001 budget act, the legislature approved HB 1691 which requires school divisions to select a software technology to filter or block Internet access to child pornography and obscenity (as defined in the Code) through the division’s computers.

In Virginia, federal dollars for purchasing computers and implementing local technology plans have been utilized the past several years through the Goals 2000 (Educate America Act of 1994) and Literacy Challenge grants programs.

Given the fact that several state commissions (noted above) continue to study technology, including educational technology, various recommendations will continue to come before the legislature for consideration. Additional legislation could be targeted at addressing difficulties in meeting technology plan goals, including technology integration into the instructional program. However, it is unclear as to if educational technology advances that require state funding, such as those proposed in HB 342 and HB 520, will be made, given projected state revenue declines.

1993 – HJ 390 (Science and Technology Task Force)

1994 – SJ 157

1995 – HB 2542

1996 – HB 512; HJ 195 (Science and Technology joint subcommittee), HJ 225 and SJ 89 (educational technology studies), HJ 196 (Commission on the Future of Public Education), HJ 135 (Commission on Educational Infrastructure)

1997 – HB 1835 (Literary loans for technology), HB 2138; HB 2770 (technology replacement program), HJ 566

1998 – HB 1200 (technology proficiency), HB 1340, HB 1317 (requires filtering software on school computers), HJ 176 (technology connectivity study)

1999 – HB 1043; HB 1703 (requires filtering software); HB 1727, HB 2188 and SB 808 (Secretary of Technology), HB 2241; HB 2480 (educational software for the SOL), HB 2756 (Internet use guidelines)

2000 – HB 203, HB 291 (requires filtering software), HB 342 and HB 520, HB 805 (computer donations to students), SB 83 (SOQ technology amendments), HJ 63 (study of educational technology funding), HJ 223 (Commission on Educational Infrastructure and Technology)

2001 – HB 1691, HB 2326 and SB 1261 (tax credit for technology internship), SJ 360 (study of advertising on government websites)

The Delaware Center for Educational Technology, established in 1995, uses educational technology to help students meet academic standards. Funding was nearly doubled this year. Alabama has a new Office of Information Technology to address the state’s information technology needs, including those of public schools. Florida and West Virginia are both into “virtual schools,” having provided for online and distance learning instruction. Maryland has continued to increase funding for a multiyear plan to link schools to online computer resources.

Concerning filtering software, the FY2001 budget packet approved by Congress includes a provision that requires schools to implement Internet filtering technology as a condition of receiving federal technology money, including e-rate funding.

Various bills were introduced in the 106th Congress, but not approved, to enhance the use of educational technology. Among them was the Education Technology Enhances Classrooms (EdTEC) Act, which would have established a program to help integrate technology into the curriculum and to improve student achievement, while the Computers in our Community Act was aimed at increasing student computer skills. Also in Washington, the Department of Education has released its new educational technology plan. More information is available at http://www.ed.gov/Technology/elearning.

http://www.sreb.org/main/LegAction/legrept/legreptindex.asp

http://thomas.loc.gov/

http://www.ed.gov/Technology

Click here for a policy issue briefing on the “Technology Planning.”

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.