Schools limit student devices; opt-in required

Summary#

S-10685 is a proposed New York law, not yet in force. It would add a new article to the Education Law and amend Education Law § 2-d, which covers student and school data privacy. Its stated goal is to limit screen use in schools and prioritize non-digital teaching.

  • Schools would have to limit device access by grade: no school-issued devices for pre-K to grade 5; supervised computer-lab or cart use for grades 6–8; and limited options for grades 9–12.
  • Caregivers would have to opt in before a high-school student receives a one-to-one school device, and separately opt in for the student to use it off school grounds.
  • Schools would have to offer non-digital ways to do schoolwork when feasible, allow refusal of device use when a reasonable alternative exists, and not penalize students for refusing.
  • School-issued devices would be barred from containing or connecting to listed services and features, including social media, gaming, messaging, and most AI, as well as hardware cameras. They could display only instructional media.
  • Educational technology providers would have to register with the Attorney General and meet stated requirements; schools could use only registered products. The bill also sets limits on providers’ use of student data and gives the Attorney General enforcement powers.

What it means for you#

  • Students and caregivers: For pre-K to grade 5, schools would generally have to prohibit access to internet-enabled and electronic devices on school grounds, as well as provide no school-issued devices. For grades 6–8, school-issued devices could be used only in supervised labs or carts. Exceptions include technology inherent to a learning objective, accessibility needs, and translation services.
  • Students and caregivers: For grades 9–12, schools may offer supervised lab or cart devices, or one-to-one devices with caregiver opt-in. Off-premises use would need separate opt-in. Schools would have to explain the device, its software, blocked features, and non-digital alternatives when seeking consent.
  • Students and teachers: Pre-K to grade 8 homework could not require internet, devices, or educational technology. For grades 9–12, teachers would have to minimize such requirements and provide non-digital options wherever feasible. In class, teachers would have to prioritize non-digital methods wherever feasible.
  • Students and caregivers: A student, or caregiver for the student, could refuse a school-issued device for a task if a reasonable non-digital alternative exists. This includes preparation for and taking standardized and other mandatory assessments, subject to exceptions where the technology is inherent to the learning objective. Schools could not penalize or retaliate for exercising this right.
  • Schools: They would have to publish written policies and provide caregivers information about devices, software, and research findings before the school year. The bill also requires updates to computer science and digital fluency learning standards.
  • Technology providers: Providers would have to register products and meet the bill’s requirements. The Attorney General could sue providers or device providers that knowingly subvert specified rules.
  • Current-law comparison: The bill would add new school device and technology rules and change Education Law § 2-d. The supplied material does not include the full current law, so the existing privacy requirements and how these changes would interact with them could not be fully verified.

Money#

No cost estimate is provided in the available material.

  • The Attorney General may require registration fees from providers to cover registry and certification costs.
  • Schools, the Attorney General, and the Commissioner would have new policy, registry, review, or implementation duties, but the bill gives no staffing or cost estimates.
  • A court could order providers to pay restitution, damages, and civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not set out the detailed process for registration decisions, reviewing evidence, removing products from the registry, or appealing a decision.
  • It does not define some important standards, including “instructional media,” “unrelated” media, and features that “distract” from an instructional goal.
  • The Commissioner must make implementation rules, but those rules are not included. The bill would take effect on August 1 after it becomes law.
  • The bill does not explain how schools should handle conflicts between the right to refuse device use and tasks where technology is said to be inherent to the learning objective.
  • The bill is at the introduced stage and has been referred to Rules. Whether it will pass is uncertain.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to reduce routine screen use, especially for younger pupils, while preserving some technology use for older grades and learning objectives that require it.
  • Written caregiver information and opt-in rules could give families more say about one-to-one devices and off-campus use.
  • Non-digital alternatives and a right to refuse could help students complete work without a device when a reasonable alternative exists.
  • Registration requirements and limits on student-data processing could give schools and families more information about educational technology and restrict providers’ use of student data.

Case against#

  • The bill sharply limits device access for younger pupils and limits how older pupils can use school-issued devices. Some schools may find it difficult to provide the required non-digital alternatives and supervision.
  • Key terms and registration procedures are not fully specified in the bill. That could leave schools and providers uncertain about which products qualify and how decisions are made.
  • Requiring independent evidence of improved academic performance could keep some products off the registry, but the bill does not explain how studies would be judged or how often products would be reviewed.
  • Schools and government agencies would have new duties, but no cost estimate or funding plan is provided.