\n<\/p>\n
Among the increasing concern about screen time in school comes a new culprit: the vetting process for school software. <\/p>\n
A growing group of parents and teachers has spent the last few years fighting against cellphones<\/a> in the classroom, with some extending that to all digital devices<\/a>. But the school-issued laptops, and the software accompanying them, have been left largely unscathed. <\/p>\n \u201cA lot of the issues with personal devices can move to the district-issued devices,\u201d said Kim Whitman, co-lead for Smartphone Free Childhood US, in a previous interview<\/a> with EdSurge. Whitman explained that when students do not have cellphones, they can still message with friends on their Chromebooks, or through tools like Google Docs. \u201cThere are definitely issues with school-issued devices as well.\u201d<\/p>\n Proposals in three states \u2013 Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont \u2013 are now tackling these concerns. <\/p>\n At the start of this year\u2019s legislative session, all three states concurrently proposed reviewing the vetting process of education software. <\/p>\n In most districts, school boards, IT personnel and administrators choose vendors, often relying on the vendors\u2019 own data to prove the products’ safety and efficacy. <\/p>\n \u201cThere is nobody right now that is confirming these products are safe, effective and legal,\u201d Whitman said in a previous interview<\/a>. \u201cIt should not fall on the district\u2019s IT director; it would be impossible for them to do it. And the companies should not be tasked with doing it \u2014 that would be like nicotine companies vetting their own cigarettes.\u201d<\/p>\n The proposed legislation is looking to change that. <\/p>\n Bill: An act relating to educational technology products<\/p>\n Status: Passed by the House March 27; currently before the Senate Committee on Education <\/p>\n This bill<\/a> proposes to require that providers of educational technology products register annually with the state. It also requires the secretary of state to create a certification standard and review process for these products before schools can use them. <\/p>\n Any provider of an educational technology product \u2014 specifically student-facing tools that are used for teaching and learning in schools \u2014 must register with the secretary of state, pay a registration fee of $100 and provide its most up-to-date terms and conditions and privacy policy. <\/p>\n The secretary of state would work with the Vermont Agency of Education to review registrations. <\/p>\n Criteria for certification include: <\/p>\n While the initial bill proposed that any edtech provider not certified by the state, but continues to operate, could be liable for fines of $50 a day up to $10,000, that language was struck by the final bill passed from the House. <\/p>\n If passed by the Senate, the bill would go into effect July 1, 2026. By November 2027, the Agency of Education would submit a written report on which state entities should be involved in the edtech certification and any other recommendations for certification. <\/p>\n Bill: Software in Education <\/p>\n Status: Signed into law on March 18 <\/p>\n The bill<\/a> requires the Utah Board of Education to study the use of software and digital practices in public schools, review best practices and provide guidance for responsible use.<\/p>\n The state also passed a Classroom Technology Amendments bill tackling screen time at every grade level, banning it entirely from kindergarten through third grade, except for computer science and assessments. Middle school students must have their parents “opt-in” to taking devices home and high school students will be allowed to bring home devices unless parents “opt-out.”<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re not anti-technology,\u201d Rep. Ariel Defay (R-UT) said in a statement<\/a>. She is a sponsor of the Classroom Technology Amendments bill. \u201cWe just want to ensure that education technology is used intentionally and actually helps students to learn.\u201d<\/p>\n Bill: The Safe School Technology Act of 2026<\/p>\n Status: Passed by the House April 14; currently in the Senate Education Committee<\/p>\n This bill<\/a>, proposed by three Rhode Island representatives who are also mothers, is part of a six-bill package focused on protecting children from social media, artificial intelligence and digital platforms. <\/p>\n The Safe School Technology Act bill would be enacted this August if approved, banning software providers from activating or accessing any audio or video functions on a device outside of school-related activities. It also bans the use of location data. <\/p>\n The initial bill lists a litany of concerns that the \u201clack of regulation\u201d caused, including increased screen time, and \u201cmarketing commercial products as educational with no accountability; children being given devices without proof of developmental appropriateness and parents being excluded from decisions about their child\u2019s digital exposure.\u201d<\/p>\n But the main concern, argued by state Representative June Speakman (D-RI), who sponsored the bill, is that a majority of school districts\u2019 technology policies do not have limits on tracking student devices. She added roughly two-thirds of districts also do not limit school-issued device’s ability to activate audio and video. <\/p>\n \u201cPassing this bill will provide clear, consistent protection across all schools in the state that assures students and their families that their devices cannot be used to invade their privacy or track their activities,\u201d Speakman said in a statement<\/a>. <\/p>\n \u201cThey deserve to feel confident that their privacy is protected when they use technology that is required for school,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n Several technology proponents have pushed back. <\/p>\n The Software and Information Industry Association spoke out against the Rhode Island bill in March<\/a>, saying if the bill passed it would make the state be one of the most restrictive in the nation.<\/p>\n In an open letter to Joseph McNamara, chair of the Rhode Island House Education Committee, Abigail Wilson, director of state policy at the Software and Information Industry Association, said the bill \u201cproposes an overly restrictive regulatory framework that will severely disrupt classroom instruction, impose massive unfunded administrative burdens on local schools, and deprive Rhode Island students of critical, evidence-based learning tools.\u201d<\/p>\n Keith Krueger, CEO of the nonprofit Consortium for School Networking, told NBC News<\/a> that the proposed legislation \u201cdoes keep me up at night.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI think some well-intentioned policymakers … are rushing so quickly that they haven\u2019t thought through the implications,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n<\/div>\nBetter Vetting Processes<\/h2>\n
Vermont<\/h3>\n
\n
Utah<\/h3>\n
Rhode Island<\/h3>\n
Tech Pushback<\/h2>\n