H.R.2065 / 105th Congress

Technology for Teachers Act

Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 25, 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS: Title I: Educational Technology Training for New Teachers Title II: Educational Technology Training for In-Service Teachers Technology for Teachers Act - Title I: Educational Technology Training for New Teachers - Directs the Secretary of Education to reserve certain funds for technical assistance and evaluation, and for grants or cooperative agreements to a limited number of national model projects that involve collaborations among organizations in several States. (Sec. 102) Authorizes the Secretary to make planning or implementation grants, on a competitive basis, to State educational agencies (SEAs) for new teacher training in educational technology. Provides for direct grants to schools of education in a State if that State's SEA does not receive a grant. (Sec. 103) Requires SEAs to award grants to schools of education for new teacher training in educational technology. (Sec. 104) Sets forth requirements for: (1) applications and review criteria for Federal grants to SEAs; (2) SEA grants to schools of education for new teacher training in educational technology; and (3) schools of education grant applications to SEAs, including review criteria. (Sec. 107) Requires maintenance of effort by SEAs and schools of education and supplementation rather than supplanting of other public funds. (Sec. 108) Directs the Secretary to carry out the program authorized by this title through the Office of Educational Technology in the Office of the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Education. (Sec. 109) Authorizes appropriations. Title II: Educational Technology Training for In-Service Teachers - Authorizes the Secretary to make planning or implementation grants, on a competitive basis, to State educational agencies (SEAs) for in-service teacher training in educational technology. Provides for direct grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) in a State if that State's SEA does not receive a grant. (Sec. 202) Requires SEAs to award grants to LEAs for in-service teacher training in educational technology. (Sec. 203) Sets forth requirements for: (1) applications and review criteria for Federal grants to SEAs; (2) SEA grants to LEAs for in-service teacher training in educational technology; and (3) schools of education LEA grant applications to SEAs, including review criteria. (Sec. 206) Requires maintenance of effort by SEAs and LEAs and supplementation rather than supplanting of other public funds. (Sec. 207) Directs the Secretary to carry out the program authorized by this title through the Office of Educational Technology in the Office of the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Education. Provides for program participation of private school teachers. (Sec. 208) Authorizes appropriations.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Rep. Morella, Constance A. [R-MD-8] · R–MD

Committees

Education and Workforce Committee

1 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Rep. Vento, Bruce F. [D-MN-4]

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Jul 22, 1997
Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families.
Jul 22, 1997
Referred to the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning.
Jun 25, 1997
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Jun 25, 1997
Introduced in House
Jun 25, 1997
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in House · Jun 25, 1997 Formatted Text PDF

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.2065 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.2065, 105th Congress: Technology for Teachers Act

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2065

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1997-06-25.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hr2065/BILLS-105hr2065ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-08-21T16:12:53Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.R.2065 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.2065 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.2065, 105th Congress: Technology for Teachers Act

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2065

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1997-06-25.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hr2065/BILLS-105hr2065ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-08-21T16:12:53Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.2065 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.2065 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.2065, 105th Congress: Technology for Teachers Act

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2065

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1997-06-25.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hr2065/BILLS-105hr2065ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-08-21T16:12:53Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.2065 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.2065 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.2065, 105th Congress: Technology for Teachers Act

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2065

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1997-06-25.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hr2065/BILLS-105hr2065ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-08-21T16:12:53Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.2065 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.