PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Aug 3, 2007
Amends title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to rename part D (Achievement through Technology and Innovation) and reauthorize it through FY2013.
Alters the current program to require states to use a portion of their allotted funds to develop challenging academic content and achievement standards to ensure that students are technologically literate before the end of grade eight. Specifies that such standards are only for tracking technological literacy and not for assessing adequate yearly progress (AYP) under title I. Permits technological literacy testing to be embedded in other state tests or performance-based assessments portfolios, or made through other valid and reliable means.
Requires states to use the bulk of their part D allotment for two new subgrant programs for local educational agencies (LEAs), devoting: (1) 60% for formula subgrants to improve teaching and learning through technology; and (2) 40% for competitive subgrants for systemic school redesign through technology integration.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires LEAs to: (1) include a new or updated local long-range strategic educational technology plan in their applications; (2) use a specified percentage of each subgrant for teacher training; and (3) use each subgrant to acquire and apply technology to identify individual student learning needs and support individualized learning. Allows LEAs that receive funds for both programs to use all the funds for systemic school redesign through technology integration program activities.
Directs the Secretary of Education to: (1) conduct an annual national study and report on the extent to which student technology literacy is attained by grade eight; (2) annually publish the results of state technology literacy assessments; and (3) implement, and update every five years, a National Education Technology Plan.
Requires the Secretary to award a competitive grant to an education technology research entity, or a partnership comprising such an entity and one or more educational, nonprofit, or research entities, to establish a National Center for Achievement Through Technology that will identify and disseminate promising practices and exemplary programs that effectively use educational technologies.
People & committees
Sen. Bingaman, Jeff [D-NM] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze S.1996 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.
Examine S.1996 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.
Examine S.1996 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.
Examine S.1996 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.