An act relating to elementary and secondary education. An act to add Section 52073.7 to the Education Code, relating to school accountability.
AB 2675 would require the California Department of Education, working with the State Board of Education and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, to develop and publish a compilation of best practices for using education technology to improve pupil academic success and accelerate achievement. The compilation would be aimed at local educational agencies serving priority schools or schools receiving Title I federal funding, and it would include a model policy for incorporating those practices into local control and accountability plans (LCAPs). The department would also have to provide at least three informational webinars in 2028 to help districts, county offices of education, and charter schools understand how to use the model policy and best practices in their LCAPs.
The bill further directs the department, by the end of 2028, to identify ways to encourage local educational agencies to adopt the best practices and to highlight agencies that have successfully integrated technology in ways that improved pupil achievement. The bill is framed around the idea that the pandemic exposed a digital divide in K-12 education and that schools, especially high-need schools, need more structured guidance to use devices, internet access, and technology training as part of school improvement efforts. It also includes legislative findings encouraging device access, home internet access, professional learning for teachers, parent training, and stronger reporting on school technology conditions.
In practical terms, the bill would not directly mandate that schools buy devices or change classroom technology programs, but it would add a new Education Code section that creates state-level guidance and outreach around technology integration in LCAPs. Its impact would be to formalize state support for technology-focused school improvement planning, especially for districts and charter schools serving low-income, high-need, and Title I populations. It would also reinforce the role of LCAPs as a vehicle for addressing digital equity and academic performance.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text and vote history is favorable toward the bill’s goals. The measure passed committee unanimously in the recorded vote, and the findings section presents technology integration as a practical, evidence-based response to learning loss, digital inequity, and post-pandemic challenges. The bill is written as a policy and guidance measure rather than a controversial mandate, which likely contributed to the positive vote.
The main point of contention, to the extent one is visible from the text, is not opposition to technology use itself but the question of how far the state should go in steering local educational agencies’ planning and implementation. The bill emphasizes encouragement, model policies, and webinars rather than direct requirements, suggesting sensitivity to local control concerns and resource constraints. Another implicit issue is whether existing programs and budgets are sufficient to support the recommended technology practices without new appropriations or mandates.
AB 2675 would add Section 52073.7 to the Education Code and expand the state’s role in shaping how local educational agencies address education technology in their local control and accountability plans. It would require the Department of Education to produce statewide best-practice guidance, post it online, conduct webinars, and identify strategies to promote adoption, with a focus on priority schools and Title I-funded schools. The bill would affect school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools by giving them a state-developed framework for incorporating technology into LCAPs, but it would not itself impose a direct spending mandate or require immediate equipment purchases.
The overall sentiment appears supportive and policy-oriented. The bill’s findings present technology as a tool for closing the digital divide and improving achievement, especially in underserved communities, and the committee vote shown in the record was unanimous in favor of moving the bill forward. The absence of recorded opposition or committee transcript concerns suggests the measure was viewed as a constructive, low-conflict effort to provide guidance and share successful practices rather than a controversial regulatory change.
The bill’s main tension is between state guidance and local discretion. Supporters appear to favor a stronger statewide push to normalize technology integration, while the bill itself stops short of mandating specific purchases or practices, likely to avoid conflict over local control and funding. Another possible area of concern is implementation burden: districts and charter schools may welcome the guidance but still face staffing, training, connectivity, and device-access challenges, especially in high-need communities. The bill’s emphasis on existing resources and encouragement rather than mandates suggests an effort to minimize fiscal and political resistance.