Summary#
A-11669, the “Fostering Optimal Classroom Use of Screens (FOCUS) Act,” would add a new article to New York’s Education Law and amend the existing Education Law rules on student data privacy. Its stated goal is to limit students’ use of screens and prioritize non-digital teaching. The bill is introduced and referred to the Assembly Education Committee; it is not law, and passage is uncertain.
- Schools would have to limit device access by grade: no school-issued devices for pre-K–5; supervised computer-lab or cart use for grades 6–8; and lab/cart use or one-to-one devices for grades 9–12, with caregiver opt-in for one-to-one use. Separate consent would be needed for off-campus use.
- Schools would have to offer non-digital options in specified cases: pre-K–8 homework could not require internet, devices, or educational technology; grades 9–12 assignments would have to minimize those requirements where feasible. Students could refuse a school-issued device when a reasonable non-digital alternative exists, without penalty or retaliation.
- School-issued devices and their applications could not include social media, gaming, messaging platforms, AI companions, generative AI, or cameras, subject to stated exceptions. They could show only instructional media and could not let pupils search for unrelated media. Conversational AI used as disability assistive technology is allowed.
- The Attorney General would run an online registry. Educational technology providers would have to register and attest to listed requirements, including an independent study showing improved academic performance for specific curriculum objectives. Schools could offer pupils only technology on the registry.
- The bill would also restrict how educational technology and device providers may process student personal information, require contract terms allowing termination, and let the Attorney General seek court orders, restitution, damages, and civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation for specified violations.
What it means for you#
- Students and caregivers: Schools would have to provide device and software information, alternatives, and a process to refuse device use when a reasonable non-digital option exists. Caregiver opt-in would be required for one-to-one devices in grades 9–12, and separately for their off-campus use.
- Students in pre-K–5: Schools could not issue them devices and would generally prohibit their access to internet-enabled and electronic devices otherwise available on school grounds. The bill also makes exceptions for technology inherent to a learning objective, accessibility, and translation.
- Teachers and schools: Teachers would have to prioritize non-digital teaching methods where feasible and minimize classroom reliance on school-issued devices. Schools would have to adopt written policies and provide specified information to caregivers.
- Technology providers: Providers seeking to offer educational technology to schools would have to register, meet the bill’s requirements, and re-register after significant modifications. The bill would limit providers’ use of student personal information, including barring its use for AI training under the listed permitted purposes.
- Limits: The bill does not ban all classroom technology. It preserves use that is inherent to a learning objective, including computer science standards, and allows accessibility and translation uses. Because the current Education Law text was not supplied, what these provisions would add to existing requirements could not be verified.
Money#
No cost estimate is in the available material.
- The Attorney General may charge providers a registration fee to cover the registry’s operating costs; the bill does not set an amount.
- The Attorney General and commissioner would have registry and review duties, and the commissioner would have rulemaking and learning-standard duties. No staffing or administrative cost is given.
- Schools would have to prepare policies and provide information and non-digital alternatives. The bill gives no estimate of school costs.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not set out detailed registry procedures, review timelines, or how a provider would challenge a rejection or removal.
- It does not define how strong or extensive the required independent study must be, or what counts as a feature that distracts from an instructional goal.
- Some terms rely on definitions in other laws; those laws were not supplied, so their exact scope could not be checked.
- The bill requires regulations to implement it, but those rules are not included. It also does not give a start date beyond the first August after the bill becomes law.
- The bill does not estimate costs or explain how schools would pay for non-digital alternatives or carry out the new duties.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to reduce required screen use and preserve non-digital ways to learn and complete assignments.
- Caregiver consent and advance information could give families a clearer role in decisions about one-to-one devices and off-campus use.
- The registry and limits on student-data processing could set conditions for technology providers before schools use their products.
- Updated learning standards could address digital citizenship, media literacy, synthetic content, and possible health effects of excessive screen use.
Case against#
- The limits could make some digital tools harder to use, even where schools consider them useful; exceptions apply when technology is inherent to a learning objective, but the bill does not explain how disagreements would be resolved.
- Schools and families could face added work to create, explain, and provide non-digital alternatives, while the bill gives no funding estimate.
- The registry’s evidence and product requirements may be difficult to apply consistently because the bill does not set detailed standards for studies or review decisions.
- The limits on devices and applications could restrict tools beyond social media and gaming, including messaging and cameras; the bill does not explain how all classroom needs would be addressed.