Requires the State Board of Education to develop a model policy on the use of instructional technology in classrooms but isn't overly prescriptive.

Requires the State Board of Education to adopt standards for the use of screen-based instruction in K-5. Somewhat prescriptive but seems appropriate for K-5. Restricts screen-based instruction to a supplementary tool, prohibits its use as a replacement for direct teacher instruction, and limits total daily screen time, with exceptions for assistive technology, students on IEPs, mandatory federal and state assessments, and career and technical education or computer science instruction where technology is integral.

Seems reasonable to limit screen time for children in childcare or preschool/PK

Requires districts and charter schools to adopt AI-use policies but does not mandate that they develop overly restrictive policies that would limit access to high-impact tools.

Mandates research and/or recommendations/best practices and does not infringe upon effective digital device usage

Prohibits schools from requiring kindergarten students to take home school-issued electronic devices, while allowing LEAs to authorize take-home use when appropriate. Does not directly impact in-school digital device usage but encourages LEAs to regularly review and update screen time policies.

There are some good AI guardrails in this legislation. It prohibits the use of AI instructional tools before grade 6, but with important exceptions. Students in grades below 6th may use AI tools if they are directed and supervised by school personnel; used for translation or similar support for English language learners; or used as an accommodation or assistive technology for a student with a documented disability. If a school provides an AI instructional tool, it must also notify parents before giving students access, allow parents to opt their child out, and provide an alternative instructional activity for public school students whose parents opt out. My "medium" concern is about the administrative burden of requiring alternative instructional activities for students whose parents opt out, as well as the fact that students could miss out on effective, high-impact tools.

Creates an AI in Education Task Force to recommend statewide safeguards for procuring and using AI in public schools, but does not impose unreasonable restrictions on AI tools.

Limits daily digital instruction to 60 minutes for students in K-5, but makes important exceptions for technology required for students with disabilities, assistive technology, teacher-led instruction using display devices, state testing and progress monitoring, and dedicated computer science or technology courses. The 60-minute allowance still leaves room for effective digital interventions, but that time limit may be too restrictive.

The bill limits digital instruction and screen time for students in kindergarten through 5th grade to a maximum of 60 minutes per school day. It exempts students who need devices for IEP (Individualized Education Program) or 504 plan accommodations, assistive technology for students with disabilities, teacher-led demonstrations, time spent taking required state assessments, and computer science classes. Parents must be provided with an "opt-down" choice, allowing them to request even less screen time for their children than the 60-minute maximum. The 60-minute limit could overly restrict evidence-based digital interventions, and the parent opt-out could be burdensome for teachers.

Mandates research and/or recommendations/best practices and does not infringe upon effective digital device usage

Requires a statewide generative-AI framework and aligned local district and charter-school policies, but does not impose unreasonsble restrictions on AI tools.

Creates an AI Use in Education Commission to recommend best practices and policies for AI and related technology use in schools.

Requires State Board of Education to develop and publish statewide guidance for school districts on the use of technology-based learning resources but is not prescriptive about the guidance.

Includes some good AI guardrails but grants students and parents the right to opt out of certain educational technologies, including school-issued electronic devices and online assignments, which could create administrative burdens.

Requires every Illinois school district to adopt an AI policy by the 2026–2027 school year, and it isn't overly prescriptive about what needs to be in the policies. One slight concern is that any AI system used to interact with students or process student work must first be approved by the local school board, which may be reasonable, but I wonder if that will create bureaucracy that slows innovation.

Reasonable parental controls for digital devices outside of the school day

Requires schools to calculate, report, and publish average daily screen time for K–4 students, which will likely be burdensome for school systems but does not impose screentime restrictions.

Prohibits digital devices in K-5 classrooms with very few exceptions (students on IEPs who require them, students with a doctor's permission, and students in virtual schools). Restricts digital devices for middle school students to 60 minutes per day (with the same exceptions applied to K-5). This would significantly limit students access to evidence-based, high-impact digital interventions.

Limits digital instruction for elementary students to 45 minutes per instructional day with exceptions for students whose IEP requires the technology, other students who need assistive/adaptive technology, and for teacher demonstrations. This would restrict access to evidence-based digital interventions.

Requires LEAs to set and publish a limit on school screen time and cellphone use, and is somewhat prescriptive. It requires LEA policies to make the use of digital technology optional rather than mandatory in most coursework, and to allow families to opt out of specific educational technology products.

Requires state guidance, aligned local AI policies, district AI coordinators, evaluation and certification of AI tools, procurement alignment, and professional development but does not overly restrict students' access to high-quality AI tools.

Mandates research and/or recommendations/best practices and does not infringe upon effective digital device usage

Samantha Sencer-Mura (D) for HF 3776 / Erin K. Maye Quade (D) for SF 4202

Limits digital instruction for elementary students to 45 minutes per instructional day with exceptions for students whose IEP requires the technology, other students who need assistive/adaptive technology, and for teacher demonstrations. This would restrict access to evidence-based digital interventions.

Requires K-5 school districts and charter schools to adopt screentime and instructional technology policies but isn't prescriptive about screentime limits.

Requires school districts and charter schools (excluding virtual schools) to adopt written policies on screentime and instructional technology use for elementary students but doesn't prescribe screentime limits.

Requires AI literacy standards and AI professional development for teachers. Requires LEAs to adopt a policy governing the use of AI by students and staff, based on a model policy developed by the SEA.
Directs SEA to establish an evaluation framework for AI educational tools and maintain a public list of reviewed tools. These provisions seem reasonable and not overly prescriptive.

Prohibits digital devices in K-5 classrooms with very few exceptions (students on IEPs who require them, students who use assistive/adaptive tech, and teacher demonstrations). Restricts digital devices for middle school students to 60 minutes per day (with the same exceptions applied to K-5). This would significantly limit students access to evidence-based, high-impact digital interventions.

Requires the Commissioner of Education to develop guidelines for the use of instructional technology in public schools for grades K-12 but it isn't overly prescriptive. It does not prohibit instructional technology or mandate specific software platforms or curricula; require school boards to adopt screen-time limits; or restrict any instructional technology required by a student's IEP, 504 plan, or legal disability accommodation.

Only requests a study and directs the SEA to collaborate with stakeholders to establish developmentally appropriate daily screen-time guidelines for elementary schools

Prohibits the use of AI in classrooms for students prior to the 9th grade, with exceptions for the use of AI for diagnostic purposes or for explicit instruction interventions for students with disabilities. Limits access for most elementary and middle school students to evidence-based AI-powered interventions.

Limits screentime in PK-5 to 1 hour per day with exceptions for IEPs and teacher demonstrations. Only applies to young learners but the one-hour limit may be overly restrictive.

Requires district AI policies, age-appropriate tools, educator supervision and review, limits on automated high-stakes decisions, and parent disclosure. It allows families to opt-out from student-facing AI tools, which could create significant administrative burdens and disrupt access to high-quality AI tools.

Two main concerns: 1) Grants caregivers the right to opt their child out of using school-issued devices and online standardized testing, requiring schools to provide non-digital alternatives. This would be burdensome for schools. 2) Prohibits ed tech that features GenAI. This would prevent student access to evidence-based, high-impact GenAI-powered tools.

Mandates research and/or recommendations/best practices and does not infringe upon effective digital device usage

Requires a parental opt-in for student AI use, annual disclosure of approved tools and data practices, teacher review of AI content, human oversight of grading and other decisions, and strict student-data protections. The parental opt-in could create significant administrative burdens and disrupt access to high-quality AI tools.

Prohibits digital devices in K-5 classrooms with very few exceptions (students on IEPs who require them, students who use assistive/adaptive tech, and teacher demonstrations). Restricts digital devices for middle school students to 60 minutes per day (with the same exceptions applied to K-5). This would significantly limit students access to evidence-based, high-impact digital interventions.

Joey Hensley (R) for SB 2310 / Michele Reneau (R) for HB2393

Prohibits digital devices in K-5 classrooms but with several key exceptions, especially after being amended, including for "targeted instructional support, intervention, or remediation" and the administration of state-required assessments—including the Tennessee universal screener, dyslexia screenings, and state-adopted benchmark assessments

Prohibits all screentime in the classroom for K-3 students except for introduction of state K-5 computer science standards and preparation for, and administration of, a standards assessment. This may be overly restrictive if it prevents young children from accessing evidence-based, high-impact interventions.

Mandates research and/or recommendations/best practices and does not infringe upon effective digital device usage

Creates an educational-technology regulatory sandbox for AI pilots with privacy, safety, cybersecurity, human-oversight, parent opt-out, evaluation, and legislative-approval requirements. The parent opt-out could create significant administrative burdens and disrupt access to high-quality AI tools.

Facilitates parent monitoring and filtering of content on school-managed devices. Does not seem overly restrictive.

Requires state guidance and local policies for safe, ethical, and equitable AI use in instructional settings and establishes an AI Innovation in Education Pilot Program. Does not impose restrictions on access to high-quality AI tools and advances evidence-building through its pilot program, which has an evaluation component.

Mandates instruction on the addictive potential of electronic devices but does not directly infringe upon effective digital device usage

VT HB 211 (2025) (incorporates portions of VT HB 650)

Requires providers of educational technology products to register annually with the Secretary of State and to be certified by the state to be allowed in schools. Seems reasonable in its intent to regulate and promote the safety of digital devices used in schools but could potentially be burdensome and slow innovation. This bill passed so it's worth tracking how this plays out in Vermont.

Allows parents of students in K-12 to opt them out of using digital devices in school. Schools must provide alternative, non-digital education methods for students who opt out of electronic device usage. This would create administrative burdens and limit access to evidence-based digital interventions for all age levels.

Prohibits all digital devices in K-3 for learning and testing, only making an exception for calculators. Does not make exceptions for teacher demonstrations or for students on IEPs who require digital devices or more broadly, for students who use assistive/adaptive technology. Overly restrictive.

Classroom screen time is prohibited for grades K-3 except for the introduction of state computer science standards and the preparation or administration of state assessments. Does not make exceptions for teacher demonstrations or for students on IEPs who require digital devices or more broadly, for students who use assistive/adaptive technology. Overly restrictive.

Reasonable intent to vet ed tech used in the state. Requires software vendors to procure an independent verification demonstrating their product is academically effective before it can be used by students. This may lead to some administrative challenges but it seems worthwhile since the focus is on academic efficacy. Directs the State Board of Education to maintain a public master list of approved software and to conduct periodic compliance audits of vendors and school districts, which I think would be very helpful to LEAs trying to navigate procurement decisions.