An Act Relating to: a virtual reality technology pilot program for school districts. (FE)
AB364 would require the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to create and administer a three-district pilot program using a virtual reality technology platform in one rural, one suburban, and one urban school district selected by DPI. The program would be awarded through a competitive request-for-proposals process and would have to serve at least 16,000 pupils statewide, with at least 3,200 virtual reality headsets provided for use in the participating districts. The bill defines the technology program as an experiential learning platform aligned with state model academic standards for math and science in grades 6 through 12, with a particular emphasis on Algebra 1 improvement, spatial learning, and formative assessment tools.
The bill also requires the selected vendor to provide a program that has already shown significant improvement in Algebra 1 benchmark assessments through a third-party randomized controlled trial. In addition to student access, DPI would be required to provide middle and high school math teachers in the participating districts with training and in-class coaching on how to use the program effectively. The bill further requires monthly written status reports to the legislative education committees on both contracting and implementation.
If enacted, AB364 would create a new nonstatutory DPI pilot program rather than amend existing permanent school code provisions. Its practical effect would be to direct state education resources toward a technology-based instructional experiment in math and science education, while also imposing reporting and implementation obligations on DPI. The bill would likely affect school districts selected for the pilot, the contracted vendor, participating teachers, and pupils in grades 6 through 12, especially in math instruction.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill materials is supportive and innovation-oriented, with the proposal framed as a targeted effort to improve math outcomes through immersive technology and teacher support. However, the bill did not advance to enactment and ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. No committee transcript or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate in the supplied materials to indicate specific support or opposition.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the cost and practicality of requiring 3,200 headsets and a large-scale pilot, the evidentiary standard for selecting a vendor based on a randomized controlled trial, and whether virtual reality is an appropriate or scalable intervention for public schools. Another possible issue is the bill’s narrow structure: it would benefit only three selected districts and would rely on DPI’s discretion in choosing the participating districts and vendor.
AB364 would add a new nonstatutory directive to DPI requiring it to run a virtual reality-based instructional pilot in three school districts and to report monthly to legislative education committees. It would not directly amend existing school finance or curriculum statutes, but it would impose new administrative duties, procurement requirements, teacher training obligations, and technology deployment requirements affecting DPI, participating districts, and the contracted provider.
The bill appears to have been introduced as a pro-innovation education pilot aimed at improving math and science instruction through virtual reality and data-driven assessment. Because no committee discussion or vote record was provided, the only clear outcome is that the bill failed to pass under Senate Joint Resolution 1, suggesting it did not secure sufficient legislative support despite its reform-oriented framing.
Likely areas of contention include the cost of the pilot, the requirement to purchase and deploy thousands of virtual reality headsets, and whether the program’s claimed academic benefits are sufficiently proven to justify state involvement. Legislators or stakeholders skeptical of technology-driven instruction may have questioned scalability, vendor selection criteria, or whether the pilot would meaningfully improve outcomes beyond a limited set of districts. The bill’s focus on a single contracted vendor and a tightly defined evidence standard may also have raised procurement and fairness concerns.