WHEN WE make predictions, we usually take a hard look at current realities, consider what might improve them, and stir in a heaping tablespoonful of hope for what we'd like to see. When the future arrives, we can look at the predictions in the same way we might open a time capsule. But to really learn from our past, we need to take an honest look at past forecasts that can both validate our progress and draw attention to how far we might not have come. In 1968 William Van Til, Coffman Distinguished Professor of Education at Indiana State University, Terre Haute, wrote a short report titled The Year 2000: Teacher Education, in which he speculated about the possible shape of things to come in society, in education, and in teacher education. The first year of a new millennium seems a good time to revisit some of those projections, particularly the ones dealing with how teachers are prepared, and to compare those projections to changes in state policy. The Role of Technology In 1968 Professor Van Til wrote: More prosperous may be able to afford, in the year 2000, a home learning and information center. Such a center might include video communication for both telephone and television (possibly including retrieval of taped material from libraries or other sources) and rapid transmission and reception of facsimiles (possibly including news, library materials, commercial announcements, instantaneous mail delivery, other printouts). The home center might mainly be used by young people but also by adults, much as a collection of books, or a telephone, or an encyclopedia in the home is used today by youth and also by parents. Today, not only are prosperous homes able to afford a computer, but less prosperous ones can as well (though there is growing concern about the digital divide). However, according to a new report, The Power of the Internet for Learning, produced by the Web-based Education Commission to the President and the Congress of the United States, almost two-thirds of all teachers feel they are not at all prepared or only somewhat prepared to use technology in their teaching. The report contends that the money now spent on training teachers in the use of technology is just a fraction of what is needed. Moreover, the training is necessary both in the preservice education of teachers and in their continuing education. Although most states now require teachers to demonstrate proficiency in technology prior to certification, only a handful require them to do so for recertification. In response to this situation, Virginia has established institutes for training teachers, administrators, and librarians who are employed in schools and has also directed the state board to require persons seeking either initial licensure or license renewal after July 2003 to demonstrate minimum proficiency in the use of educational technology. Local school boards are required to provide programs of professional development in educational technology for all instructional personnel. Holding Teacher Education Accountable On the topic of reforming and holding accountable institutions that train teachers, Professor Van Til wrote: Possibilities sometimes proposed include takeover of [the institution] by state departments of education. It seems likely that state department takeovers would result in either other versions of schools of education, though under differing auspices and perhaps located in state capitals, or apprenticeship systems of training, conducted by teachers stressing practice and supervised by college professors moved into state departments. Today, the federal Title II program sets reporting requirements for teacher preparation with which states must comply, so more states are more concerned with accountability. For example, the commission for teacher preparation in Oklahoma has been charged with developing and implementing a competency-based teacher preparation system. …