H.B. 273 Classroom Technology Amendments: transcript

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I, um, I would like to, uh, offer amendment number three to second substitute 2 73 in my name. Alright, The motion is to, the motion is to adopt the third amendment to the second substitute of House Bill. Uh, lemme make sure I got my right one here.

I, I do. Yeah. Um, Mr. Chair, I, I chair task force, um, to work to eliminate, um, re reporting. Um, and our LEAs right now, I think the number is up to 350 or 360 reports, um, that, um, that have to be produced. So, um, there's some trimming of the fat here that where, where I think, um, we could still accomplish what, um, the good sponsors attempting to accomplish here. Um, by eliminating a couple reporting elements, um, what we still are gonna require is that, uh, a policy is, is reported, uh, um, to the state board and the language remains in the underlying bill that on line two 90 an LEA that changes a policy. After submitting the report described in subsection seven, A shall submit the updated policy to the state board. So there's gonna be a policy requirement and then a requirement if it's changed. The only other change is in line three 70. Um, change, uh, the language to say requires educators to only use student facing AI tools and LA LEA approves.

Yes, that's a friendly amendment and I appreciate my colleague for bringing it forward. That was the intention. We don't want to overburden, um, USBE or the LEAs. And so we simply want the LEAs to have a policy in place and this does that. So thank you. And the clarification is also good. We also don't want to, um, hinder what tools teachers are using to help them to help AI tools that you're using to organize themselves. So that's a good clarification.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I move that we favorably recommend second substitute HB 2 73 as amended.

Just briefly? I really appreciate this bill. I think this is a great balance. I actually hope that this, uh, goes in a direction where we can even have more learning opportunities that lead to holding a pen in a hand and stuff like that for our students, because I think that they need it. And so I, I really like the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for the time. Um, I just, as you know, this has been a labor of love for me. I do want to clarify that it does preserve local control. If you look at lines 180 2 and 2 63, um, and then also this, this isn't an outright ban, um, on technology. So what we're, just to clarify, in K through three, what we are doing is we're, we are teaching towards assessments, we're integrating core standards, and then we're also leaving it to the LEAs to adopt any tools that they would like to use in those grades. We're just not specifying them because there are so many different ones, we don't wanna carve those out. So I just wanted to make those clarifications and I would support, uh, I, I would ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We just have some slides. This is a pretty comprehensive bill and it does have a few, uh, provisions. So I just have some slides to help keep things clear. So if you know me, if you've spent time with me, I'm, uh, really passionate about student outcomes in schools. Watching my own children learn and speaking with care parents across the state has helped me reach a difficult but important conclusion that our current tech centered approach is not translating into better student outcomes. Um, and so this bill really just aims to balance the use of technology. This is not an anti-tech bill. We still want teachers to have all the tools that they need to help them, but it's really to balance the use of it in schools. Um, over a decade ago, the legislature mandated a one-to-one computer policy. We really leaned in, um, with the hope of, um, student outcomes and also, um, to help teachers. And I agree with the, the helping teachers, but we have also learned that it more tech in the classroom is not translating to better student outcomes. Um, I've spent years studying this issue and working to craft a policy that will create a conversation between teachers, administrators, parents, um, and the community about how to best balance technology in the classroom. Um, this encourages a device free instruction in the foundational skill. So, reading, writing, math, um, the best analogy I heard people often say, well, we, we were nervous about the invention of the calculator. It would ruin math, and it didn't ruin math. However, we did not give a calculator to first through third graders to do addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. So it's really important that we focus on those foundational skills at a young age. So this bill addresses some of that. So what does this do? First of all, it preserves local control. The school boards, um, will have to a, uh, adopt a technology policy, an AI policy, and have the conversation about a grade level framework. However, it's completely amendable to fit their local needs, balances, use of technology, um, requires an AI policy. It also adds ar i learning into the core computer standards. I know this committee heard, um, we did a AI bill, I believe it was yesterday, um, that came from the house. This adds onto that, um, making sure that AI is in the computer standards. What is ai? What are best practices? How do we use it as a tool? How do we have a human centered approach? It outlines that. Um, so the problem that we are facing with technology is there is an unclear framework for classroom technology and AI use. Um, it's the wild west right now. So this is just, um, having this, the conversation with districts about a framework and a policy. Um, and then tools may be introduced before students develop foundational academic schools, creating concern about overreliance. Uh, more and more, I, I've just heard from parents coming from everywhere, just saying, thank you for running this. We, we are concerned about the overreliance and overuse of tech in the classroom. So the solution that this build, um, brings forward is grade level guidelines and requires an LEA to adapt policies, adopt policies that ensure technology and support learning while providing safeguards. Um, so this graph is here just to show you, if you look anywhere, you can find, um, credible science and data that shows, um, that the use of technology is not improving our student outcomes. And you can find that across many reputable organizations, um, across the web. So this is just to illustrate that point. Um, so the grade level framework is the one that a lot of people are, have questions about. So we've created a model policy, which, um, does not have to be adopted exactly, but, um, does have the conversation required districts to have the conversation at at each grade. So conversation K through three, the model policy says no screen time except for assessments and no take home devices. Take home devices has been a problem. Um, if you talk to parents of students in school and they bring home the device, this has been the number one issue. And I've tried to figure out how do we solve this? Um, they're like, I'm trying to control screens. I'm trying to, um, have my child go out and play, but the school sends home a device and my kids are addicted to it, or they can't control what's on it. Um, but it has no parental controls. And so we're just trying to take a more graduated approach to that, uh, device. So four through six would still be no take home devices, but introducing those tools in the classroom. And again, there are many valuable tools teachers can use for, uh, English, English language learners and kids who are performing below benchmark that are computer tools that this will allow them to add into their policy. Um, in middle school, it take home devices are, uh, with parent opt-in, and high school would be parent opt out for those take home devices. Um, the AI policy, so this, the state board already has a framework. This would just require LEAs to, to, um, adopt a policy. Like I said, it's the wild West. It's going so rapidly. This is something that will have to be revisited regularly, but just have a policy around how we're using AI in classrooms, um, supports for students. So this requires LEAs to create accommodation plans for those who struggle with technology in the classroom. I have a kiddo that's one of these, um, that may not be a 5 0 4 or an IEP, but really, really struggled with technology. And every night was a fight. And it, it added a lot to family contention and, and learning on a computer just did not work for my child. Um, but there were no helps for him. Um, and there are many children I have found through this process that have that same experience. So what we've done is we've created a, it's very vague so that every LEA can a adopt a policy that works for them, but it just requires every LEA to have a plan for those learners who really struggle with technology in the classroom. It outlines in the bill some of those options, but an LEA can really do whatever works, and they may have methods that they're already using, like different tiered interventions, um, that they can just u plug those kids into to help them out. It could be a resource officer, it could be, um, printed materials. It could be more time in the classroom, whatever works for that local LEA, oops, sorry, I don't wanna, uh, the last one was, I don't know how to go back. Nope, that's not it. The last one was AI Sought Sandbox Course. We do not want to handcuff our students. Um, we want them ready and prepared for the workforce. That's why this is about balance. We're teaching 'em to think, but we're also teaching them to use technology. The Sandbox course is optional. Um, but we wanna make sure that if we have this AI policy, there may be tools that operate outside of that policy that we want kids to learn, um, in, in CTE courses. And so this would just allow them to do that. Let's say for instance, chat, GPT would probably fall outside of the use of normal classroom, uh, technology and AI use, um, and would probably be prohibited by most schools. Again, it's up to the LEA. But, um, if, if the LEA wants to provide courses that help with career readiness, this gives them that flexibility. Oh, now I'm going backwards. Anyway, that really is all of it. Um, I just want you to know that, um, we have, we've tried to be really thoughtful to engage with as many administrators, teachers, and students as, and parents as possible to create a policy that is fair and workable across all LEAs and will also set our students up for success in the future. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Yes, it does. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I do appreciate the intent of this bill, trying to make sure that we are doing what we can to keep our kids safe, but there's a lot of details in here that create problems for schools and, um, also for parents that really enjoy where their kids are going in schools. I mean, we've heard a lot about parents who are not happy with how this is working out, but we also have a lot of parents who enjoy their kids seeing the world through, um, virtual reality FET simulations, uh, using AI to process data at, um, a quick level. Um, when you say that AI is the wild west, and what, what, uh, platforms have you been using that have been problematic?

So what, when I say AI is the wild West, I'm saying, what I'm saying is that schools haven't adopted an AI policy. So, and we are more concerned about generative ai, and that's what we're addressing in this bill is generative. So when you're talking about Gemini or chat, um, schools may want to think about a policy that's saying, we're not using generator generative AI on our Chromebooks in the classroom. Um, so that our kids are learning how to write and think critically before they're just turning to their computer. Uh, that's what we're contemplating in this bill.

So we, have you ever used a program called CAMI School? AI Open? Ai Magic

Ai? Yeah. I'm aware of those. And there, those are good players in this space. I've had many meetings with them. Um, we've had good conversations. They're supportive of the intent, um, because they are good actors in the space. We don't want to remove AI tools. We just want to make sure that we're employing AI tools that support learning.

But there are many AI tools embedded into other programs. As this bill is written, you would not be allowed to use programs that have embedded AI in them.

No, that's incorrect. So this, this is just, uh, instructing LEAs to have a framework around ai. So,

Well, I don't think it's incorrect because the way that it's written, you wouldn't be allowed to use certain programs that have AI embedded it. So would you be willing to change the language so that we could use tools that have AI embedded in it? Because almost all of our programs have AI embedded in it.

Yeah, I'm, I mean, I'm happy to. I don't, I don't think we need to. I think it's okay because I've met with those companies and they seem happy where the language is. Mm-hmm. Um, so, but I am happy to have that conversation.

Um, I pulled up your bill on our tracking sheet for our school districts. Our school districts are not supporting this bill.

That is correct. Yep. I've talked to them many times and tried to explain the local control pieces of it. Um, I have heard from many teachers, many administrators who agree with it and they are supportive. But, um, as a whole, they have decided that is their position.

So you've talked to which school districts? 'cause I I work in a lot of school districts, and I know a lot of school districts have a policy on how we're using ai. And a lot of districts have it shut down for students unless it's embedded in a program that they're using. Yeah. So When you say that we don't have district policies for that, how many school districts do not have a district policy and how many school districts do have a district's policy?

I can't say how many don't have a district policy. I, and how many do, I mean, I didn't go one by one and count the districts. Um, but I've spoken to both urban, rural, suburban, um, across the state and, and it just varies. It's across the board. Um, some, it's very new to them. And the office, uh, we have an AI specialist at USBE. He's doing fabulous work. He's going around training teachers. Um, and I worked closely with him to craft this legislation so that it was so we weren't infringing on those, um, on those tools that are being used that are beneficial.

Is that person here today?

Um, I do not know. Okay. Oh, I don't think so.

Um, so I also, when you say that K through three shouldn't be using this on this assessment, we have lots of kids who are ELL learners and they use programs that help them learn the language when they're like, we have one school district that has like 48 languages being spoken. Mm-hmm. So this is a tool that we use a lot in K through three to help us mitigate, you know, 43 different languages that would be prohibited under this bill.

No, it would not be. So, actually, so what happened, we started down the road of carve outs. Um, but every district had so many different unique needs of the tools that they would need carved out. Um, 'cause we, like you said, we have ELL programs, we have wonderful numeracy, um, and reading programs that help kids who are below benchmark bring 'em up to benchmark really rapidly. So there is some great technology that's doing things. We also have programs in rural districts for rural, uh, schools that are going four days a week or some where there's multiple grades in a classroom, and they all have different tools that they need. So rather than trying to exempt tools, what we did is we just said that LEAs may adopt and amend tools according to their local needs. So all those are, and I've tried to communicate that, um, as much as I can to the superintendents and to all our school districts that we want you to use these programs. It's encouraged. Um, but we, the carve outs just got too specific and difficult, and so we just left the carve outs out so they can just adopt those as they need them. And just said, you can amend this for your local needs.

Thank you. Um, so I, I'm a digital teaching and learning teacher. I've been teaching for 25 years. I've been in schools for 25 years. I now have a job that brings me up to rural schools and into charter schools. And so, um, when I look at this bill, I understand the intent of where you'd like to go, but I've actually called people that have asked me to support some of these bills. And I've asked them, what, what is, what is the sticking point? What's the problem? What's the, what's the non-starter? And a lot of them, um, really struggle with some of the basic platforms that we deal with in schools. And so for someone who's in the schools, I wanna listen to the people in the schools as well as the parents that are looking in. And one of the things they say mostly is that our teachers are overburdened and they can't regulate what's going on in their classroom with technology. So I, I think when we start looking at these bills, maybe we should start looking at limiting our class sizes and making that smaller so that we can actually have those supportive conversations and watching what's going on in our schools. I know that my schools and every school I've worked with has really strong filters on their school's programs. They are very thoughtful. They have, um, software approved lists that they can use, and they try to monitor new technology that comes out every year. So, uh, the intent of this bill is great, but the language in it would really create some hardships for our school districts. And so, I, I cannot support this bill right now until we start reigning in what's required and what's allowed and what's not allowed. And some of the language in here would really capture every program we're using in our schools. So that would be problematic for our school districts now to be breaking the law to use any programs in their school. So I, I would like to see the language change before I can support this so that we have a responsible list that we can work on, because our school districts are overwhelmed. And this is a very overwhelming policy you're putting in place where everybody has to stop using certain technologies with certain languages in it. So, um, the intent is great, but the language is very far reaching and it makes me concerned. So thank you.

Senator Riebe, uh, I'll, I'd like to make a comment and I appreciate this bill. Uh, I am also a former educator. As a matter of fact, in the early 1990s when distance learning was just a thing, I taught satellite on satellite television three times a week where we broadcast to schools all over the nation. And so I know the value of technology to, um, improve education outcomes and the wonderful resource and tool that it can be. But I appreciate this because I think we've, we we're here today, and you have brought us forth this bill because we've reached a tipping point where more tech no longer automatically means more learning. Uh, right. There's, we've heard of too much of a good thing. So too much tech interferes with learning. And this isn't just, you know, I mean, it's, it is an opinion, but it's backed by evidence and by data. Um, we know that excessive digital media activates a brain's reward system in a way that creates impoverished, impoverished stimulation, making it harder for children to focus on traditional deep learn classroom tactics. There's a, what's what we call the sixfold risk. And this is where children's age, 12 to 24 months, and again, this is pre-K, uh, who spend just two hours a day in front of a screen, are six times more likely to suffer from language delays. So I know that a good senator mentioned, uh, you know, the multi-language learners that which are, um, many in our school districts. And it's one thing to, you know, have to learn your own language and have delays, let alone learning a second language. Um, this cognitive toll, the data recent data, um, reveals a startling correlation between students who spend more than four hours a day on digital devices for, um, non-instructional purposes are more than nearly twice as likely to report sis um, symptoms of depression and difficulty concentrating compared to those with lower screen time. And the brain gap longitudinal studies show, like the adolescent brain cognitive development study, have shown that children with excessive screen usage seven or more hours a day, actually show a thinner cortex, the area of the brain responsible for critical information processing. And, and I, I love this bill because I love that you, it, it is all about local control. And, um, I, you know, I think, again, this, this bill is about intentionality and, uh, and having people be thoughtful about what they're doing. So I appreciate that. Bill.

Good morning, uh, committee. My name is Sarah Jones. I'm with the Utah Education Association. We really appreciate the work that Representative Defay has done trying to address technology concerns. I just wanna raise one specific concern that we have in the bill and it's sections. Um, it's lines 3 0 7 to 3 35, and it's related to the creation of the term technology related learning. Difficulty by definition in that section lines three 15 to three 19. This is not a learning need that's diagnosed or identifiable, such as would require an IEP or a 5 0 4 accommodation. So it's vague about what the process is by which a technology related learning difficulty is actually determined. And by placing this term and requirement in statute, does this in fact create a new category of service for students that's legally required? Does it obligate an educator or school to provide a minimal amount of services? And how is that to be funded? Does it create any liability for educators or schools if the resource plan is considered insufficient by the parent? So placing this in statute is our concern. Um, we believe this creates confusion and problems for educators and how LEAs will comply. And so we ask that it's removed from the bill, um, because we believe that removal of this, of this one provision would not undermine the other important elements being addressed in the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Corinne Johnson. I'm the President of Utah Parents United. We are in strong support of this legislation. For the past five years, our organization has been on the front lines of listening to parents across Utah. We track the issues, families raise, we hear the concerns directly, and we see where the engagement happens on this issue. There is no ambiguity. Classroom technology use has generated more engagement, more concerns than anything else we've worked on. In fact, the very first post we made about technology issues in the classroom received over 1 million views. That tells us something important. Parents are paying attention and they're worried about what they're seeing with technology use. As a mother of five children through the public that have all gone through the public education, I still have three in the public education system. I see firsthand why there are concerns. I've watched the shift in education from my oldest daughter who had very limited technology use and never had a one-to-one device until high school to my youngest, who's in currently in fifth grade, um, and has a one-to-one device. At this time, I've seen a difference in foundational skills, distraction, building focus, confidence, mastery of skill building, um, learning the constant dopamine drip of being attached to gamified apps that distract and bring children back to incentives that are not for mastery, but incentives to time spent. They earn digital rewards and move quickly from task to task rather than learning to develop deep understanding. Parents want balance restored. And we want classrooms where our teachers get to make decisions every day to improve their confidence, their attention, just as the previous generations did, just as my oldest daughter had in her education system. And we, I want to address the definition that was just discussed. There is already in Utah Accommodation law for parents, this says that reasonable accommodations need to be made to address learning issues in schools. And this ties directly to that. There doesn't need to be a diagnosis. There doesn't have to be any specific classification. All we're asking LEAs is to follow the current law for accommodating the needs of students and have an opportunity to create a plan for that so that they're prepared to address these types of accommodations. Utah already has an expansive opt-out law as well, and this, um, allows parents to opt out of technology. So we do not believe that that is in conflict with current law or creates any ambiguity. And it gives, it gives the LEAs full local control. And this is the thing parents are asking for most, is to help us help our children learn again in schools and do it the way the LEA bills they need to do that because they have control in this. Bill, thank you for your support today.

You, Madam Chair. I'm not speaking for or against the bill. Actually. I think there's some really incredible pieces of this bill and I respect the immense amount of work that the representative done on this bill. In particular, I love lines 1 62 through one 70 that indicated an ne EA shall minimize non-essential screen time prioritized me purposeful, meaningful engagement with instructional technology that directly supports instructional goals. I appreciate what, uh, UPU has just stated, and I agree with all of that. That is already in our policy. We are already working towards those goals in Granite School District, of which my name is Ben Horsley, I'm the superintendent of, I forgot to mention that my challenge and concern are threefold. I think there's some direct conflicts with language in Senator Johnson's AI bill that we need to work through. Um, I feel like, uh, we keep talking about local control, but particularly in lines 2 23 through 2 62, it indicates some measures of a model policy that must be included. And I think that that should be brought back to allow the LEA to decide with input from their parents. There's various prescriptive pieces in there with what can and cannot be done. I feel like that might be over cumbersome in particular to our rural l uh, LEAs. I would just point out two last lines, line 1 69, which indicates that we must provide to a student's parent access to a list of all digital tools and applications as particularly challenging since teachers may select supplemental materials. And those are often digital. Those are already governed by policy. And last, I will wrap up, uh, lines 1 76, provide the parent the option to receive an alert when a student attempts to access material flagged as sensitive materials. We don't have a technology solution for that. And so, uh, as much as I would love to have that piece in place for the protection of our students, I don't know how to pay for that. And there's not resources allocated to be able to do that, especially for our rural districts. Thank you. So those are my concerns. I would love to work with the sponsor to resolve those concerns. Would urge the committee to hold the bill until we can get that resolved.

I'm on the state Utah State Board of Education. I'm not, I'm not speaking on behalf of the board though. I'm speaking on behalf of myself. And I just wanna draw attention to a couple things. One of those is we've seen, especially this, uh, this legislative session, significant bills that are looking at the technology use in, um, schools. I feel like there's a good balance going on in this bill. Maybe there's a few areas we could still work on a little bit, but I feel like, um, I mean, it's kind of spring cleaning time, right? Especially when it comes to technology. We've gotta be looking, is this actually leading to, um, better instructional practices? Is it benefiting, um, the schools? Is it benefiting children? And then also those other things that we, um, I mean we've known this with, we've seen this with phones as we've re uh, pulled back on that technology. We see that our kids are engaging more with one another. They're having experience, they're willing to step out and have experiences they haven't had in a while. And so I just think that, um, this is a good direction to go. I think it's a balanced approach, just like it's been advertised as the balance act. Um, and I would just encourage you to vote with, vote for this and continue to, um, be looking at these technology pieces that we have moving forward. So thank you.

Yes. Chair committee. Thank you for your time. I'm Ryan Hansen. I direct digital learning in the Davis, uh, school district, and I'm here in that capacity. Um, first and foremost, as the director of digital learning, I, I, uh, there's the statement that, uh, there's a belief that, uh, digital tools are, um, are more valuable than a teacher in a classroom. Let me just be clear. The most important thing we put in a, in a classroom is a teacher. Uh, the biggest impact on student learning is that teacher in the classroom, I can tell you and I can show you that. We have data that shows that when, when effective teachers use digital tools effectively, student outcomes increase rather than decrease. Um, we, we share the, uh, concerns and the intent of, of the bill. We have significant, uh, concerns with it. Um, our largest concern is that codifying this level of prescription in Utah, code risks bypassing several lay layers of licensed professionals, particularly classroom teachers, as well as local school boards. Um, we appreciate the language. I, I just heard, uh, representative Deface say that completely, that she's completely amenable to the needs of local school boards and they would like, but I, we would like to see more language that clarifies this in the bill. Uh, the language of similar, uh, represent, or that, uh, was referred to by the superintendent is vague. It puts us in a position where we don't, um, we, we wanna, we wanna abide by the law. Uh, we would like to engage more with, uh, with the representative in, um, in the language of this bill and in meeting the needs of students in, in our area. Thank you.

There. Um, I'm Dina Alexander. I'm with the Child First Policy Center. I'm a mom, child safety advocate for more than a decade, and also a licensed recreation therapist. I've worked with families and children for a decade, and their concerns are about attention, social engagement, and emotional wellbeing. We all have heard the studies pouring in that excessive screen exposure, especially in unmanaged settings, is associated with decreased attention span, increased stress, and impaired social development. We're seeing this everywhere. And as other speakers have already said, we've had technology for a decade. It's not improving test scores. None of us are anti-tech. All of us use it every day. We love it, we use it, but our kids are our geniuses. They get around all the filtering and monitoring. I understand that this would create a little more policy that LEAs need to make, but I love that it has that flexibility piece. Um, change is uncomfortable. I get that it's difficult for all of us, but our kids are worth creating those policies that will create effective learning. Um, we need to balance that. Digital tools with effective instruction. There is teacher discretion in this. I particularly love the piece that there is alternative resources. If a student struggles with technology based instruction, I know that's a difficult piece, but the language is already in the law. Thank you.

Thank you. Do, sorry, it looks like my camera's having a moment. Just a second. Your camera is on You. May the time is yours. Go. You have 90 seconds. Um, my name's David Bowman. I am speaking on my own behalf. Um, my perspective though is as a K 12 technology administrator here in Utah, uh, there's a technical issue from an IT perspective in the bill I just wanted to bring forward. Um, as written, the bill contains a requirement that does not currently have mature or widely available tools for school districts to implement in a reliable and consistent way. Um, in particular, the languages in line 1 66 and 1 67 reference, um, adopting internal monitoring and accountability policies. Um, that creates an expectation of monitoring and reporting that today districts cannot technically produce with accuracy using existing systems. Um, Senator Riebe made an important point about the fact there are some adjustments that are needed so the technical tools can actually be developed and deployed. If this bill's going to move forward without additional partnership with LEAs on implementation, I would urge the committee to modify the language and the 1 66, 1 67 area to allow a more temporary or phased approach. Um, the best way to make that work would be an annual certification or a Testation period. Um, the bottom line is simple. The systems to produce what the bill's asking for don't really exist today. And a one to two year attest attestation window would let the technology catch up so we can meet the intent in a way that is accurate, practical, and sustainable. Thank you for your comments.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Maryanne Christensen, excuse me, executive director of Utah Legislative Watch. We are very much in favor of this legislation. It's so needed in our schools. We are on our second generation of kids who've had kind of had an iPad stuck in front of their faces since they were infants. In fact, most of our infants have their own iPad anymore, and mom takes it everywhere to entertain the baby whenever she's needs to be occupied elsewhere. That pattern has gone into our schools and so much of our learning is now happening on screens. And yet there are studies coming out to show that even two hours a day of screen time, um, produces measurable reductions in white brain cells. So particularly when we're using screens more to help remedial students, we're actually helping to cause a problem for them that will make it even harder for them to overcome their, the gap that they have with other students. So we need to get it under control. I think this bill is a good balance for that.

Okay. Am I coming through? Okay? Yes, you are. All right, chairman and members of the committee. It's really good to be with you today. Um, I'm with an organization called Tam Tech, and I just wanted to share an experience that I had as a teacher's aide in a second grade classroom a while ago. In this classroom, the teacher has something called Thrilling Thursday that she has for her kids where they get to pull out little boxes from her shelves that are manipulatives and different activities. They can do cards and figures and puzzles and whiteboards. And the kids come to life when this happens. They love to be doing hands-on activities and it's the part of the week they most look forward to. In talking to the teacher, I was expressing to her how awesome it was to see these kids that are so often kind of dead looking when they're on their computers during the day, and to watch what happens when they're transformed as they do these activities on Thursday. And she said, yeah, I wish I was able to do things like this more often. I feel like developmentally this is what they most need. And she was a little frustrated by all the restrictions that she was under to have to, um, put the kids on the screens as much as she was. So this balance act would do so much good to help teachers like her who want to do what they know is best for the kids. And they, they see it every day. So this, this bill reduces non-essential screen time in the classroom. It prioritizes teacher-led age appropriate instruction. It ensures technology is used intentionally to support learning outcomes and preserves educator discretion with within clear instructional guardrails. Thank you. Thank

Okay. I, I am Alexis Entz and I am, um, also on the board at Utah Parents United. But also, oh, sorry. You can hear my little one. I'm also just a parent. I just wanted to say that I support Utah's Balance Act because it reflects a principle that we already recognize in Utah law parents are the primary caregivers and the decision makers for their children. Um, particularly with regards to education. And as you heard from Corrine, we know parents want this. Uh, during COVID schools understandably rushed to expand computer access and screen-based instruction. That was an emergency response. But these emergency measures, they shouldn't automatically become permanent practice without asking whether they're actually working. I'm a mom of four, I have three in school, and I've watched this shift up close and I hear the same thing from parents across our state. We want balance, we want transparency, and we wanna know that classroom tools are improving outcomes, not just increasing screen time. When we look at our reading numbers, we have to ask honestly, are our kids benefiting If literary literacy rates are struggling? Shouldn't we evaluate whether heavy reliance on screens is helping or hurting? The balance Act isn't anti-technology, but I think it's pro child and pro parent. It restores thoughtful balance and respects the role that Utah law already affirms that parents have that primary responsibility and authority over their children's upbringing and education. Utah families, they deserve policies that put kids first and that listen to parents. I think this is a common sense step in that direction. Thank you for the, the time.

I move that we pass out HP 2 73 with a favorable recommendation.

Thank you Ms. Madam Chair. Um, everyone in this, in this room would agree that we definitely want our kids learning from our computers. We want them learning from their devices. We want them to have a positive experience. We want our students to enjoy school. No one is disputing that. The problem with this bill is that it's written in a way that causes us to have unintended negative outcomes with the platforms we are using, with the devices we are using, with the software we've purchased. And so we are, I am asking that this bill be written in a responsible way that captures the essence of what you're describing right now. This bill has language in it that would be disruptive to all technology usage. As a technology teacher, as a teacher that's been 25 years in the classroom, what they discovered was that if I am going to give you a piece of work and I'm gonna give you an assignment and it takes me a week to grade it and bring it home and look at it and then give it back to you, you're not getting anything from that because you've already spent a week waiting. If I give you an assignment in a classroom that's graded technology wise and gives me back the results immediately, immediately I have an answer to how I can change my instruction and meet the need of what you mis made a mistake on. This is monumental. Um, as a teacher, when I gave a kid a writing assignments, I'd walk home with a stack of papers like this, it would take me a month to read all those assignments. Right on every little piece of paper, you spelt this word wrong. You spelt that word wrong. Now we have technology that does it in a second. This is immediate feedback that kids really need so that we can work with our kids where they're at, move them instantaneously in the right direction. So the bill intention of the bill is great. That's what all of us want. As it is written, it'll harm our ability to use technology in our schools. It'll hinder our ability to move forward quickly. And like all the lines suggested, I would love to work on this bill, but as it is written right now, it is problematic for school districts to implement. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for the good conversation. I appreciate it. I won't belabor the point, but I do want to know that I have tried to be as open as possible working with everyone, um, and getting really good feedback. I am willing to, um, make some amendments. And also, I just want to reiterate that this does not harm the use of tech in classrooms. We want the use of tech for those who can. Um, but I would ask for your support for this bill. Thank you.

Yeah, these are just a few changes, um, little tweaks that we, uh, made with some stakeholders to make everyone more comfortable.

I'll waive. A motion is waived.

Thank you Mr. Speaker, colleagues. I am thrilled today to present to you my favorite bill in a bill that's been a, a passion project of mine. Um, this is called the Balance Act. And the reason we call the Balance Act is it's aiming to balance the use of technology in the classroom. For years, we have seen, uh, a lean into technology, and this is a requirement for LEAs to have a discussion and a thoughtful, uh, dialogue about how much technology is appropriate in the classroom and putting some guardrails around that. So it has a few requirements. And first I want you to know this preserves local control. So while we are asking to have the conversation and adopt a policy is not removing any of the local control, LEAs can amend the policy to fit their specific local needs. Um, so the first thing it does is it requires an AI policy. Uh, right now there are no requirements for AI in schools. So this is going to require there to be a policy. Um, secondly, it requires a technology policy, um, to put some guardrails around the use of tech, making sure that it's safe, that it's legal, that it's intentional, and that it's effective if we're going to use it. We've seen the increase of technology and we aren't seeing technology translate into better student outcomes. So we wanna just balance that with, with, um, analog versions, teacher instruction, conversation, all the traditional methods of, uh, education that we know can be effective. Um, third requires, um, uh, it adds AI standards into the core standards. So just embedding AI into the computer science standards so that we are teaching our kids about what AI is and how to have a positive interaction to be, have warnings and, and understand how to use it as a tool and take a human-centered approach. And finally, it requires LEAs to adopt a resource program for those who struggle to learn on technology. Um, and I know it's, it's a big bill, it's something that I've worked with LEAs, I've worked with administrators, teachers, parents, and I think we've come to a really good place of balance. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker ProAm. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions

Thank you. I'm curious for students in grades kindergarten through third, what are the approved uses of technology under this bill?

So it's to teach to the core computer science standards, which we will also, which will also include ai, um, and then also to teach towards assessment. Currently our assessments, our statewide assessments are online. So te teaching students how to use those tools properly for assessment. And then it also leaves that local control to use the tools that they need to help, whether it's ELL or if it's, um, there are lots of valuable programs that help kids who are performing below benchmark to bring them up to benchmark. Um, we didn't, we didn't name each one because there's so many different tools and different exceptions that LEAs want to use. So we are leaving it to their discretion to add those.

So as I read the bill, it sounds to me like if I'm reading this correctly, there is not room for using technologies grades K through three, four just classroom instruction, for example, in literacy or math, the use of a, a math program, for example, that's not necessarily tied to a, an assessment, but just to, to master Utah course standards. Is that correct?

The goal of the bill is to provide balance, so that'll be up to the LEAs to have that conversation. They are required to have a framework grade level, so they do have to have the conversation what they want that technology is to look like in K through three and four through the rest of elementary and junior high and in high school. But it does not dictate exactly what that looks like. It's just, um, requiring that conversation in a policy to be adopted.

Okay. So I apologize, just to clarify one more time. On line 2 27 where it says in the, for grades kindergarten through three, this may be just for the model policy, but prohibits all screen time in the classroom except for introduction of state kindergarten through grade five. I'm sorry, grade, I apologize, I I lost the K to three, but essentially prohibit all screen time except for the introduction of, uh, K through grade five, computer science standards and preparation for an administration of a standards assessment. You're saying that they won't be prohibited or they, when they develop their policy, they will prohibit the use of these tools, but it's, but it's just for the conversation?

Yes, that's correct. So this is the model policy. That's what the model policy lay lays out. We would like a reduction of the use. We want balance of the use of technology, but we aren't prohibiting them from amending to add technology. So they can use the tools that they would like. Um, but the, in the model policy, we don't name them.

Um, Mr. Speaker pro tem, this i, I I struggle with this, this bill and honestly, I'm not a hundred percent sure how I'm gonna vote on it yet because when a model policy comes down from the State Board of Education, local school districts often look at that as the guidance. And if they look to the statute and it says prohibits all uses other than preparation for assessments and computer science standards, that, that sounds like a, a direct prohibition on using it for instructional purposes. And without the, the clarity that this is purely to start a conversation, not an actual prohibition on classroom practices, um, I fear that this is going to prevent, um, students from accessing programs that have proven, um, research base and also very effective in our classrooms. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro tem, would the sponsor yield to a question

Does this bill in any way overstep the local school board's decisions and ability to make decisions for their schools?

No, it does not. Thank you. I support the bill.

Thank you. Thank you for the questions. Um, this is an important bill if you are tuned in at all to the education community. If you're tuned in at all to parents, if you have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, anyone in school, you know that the use of tech in schools is being discussed. It is impactful and we have to have this conversation at every level. We have to have it in elementary, junior high, and high school. We need to have it in our local communities, and we need to have a plan at every level that makes sense for our communities and for our students, for them to thrive in the future. And with that, I encourage your support. Thank you.

Yeah. It removes the parental transparency provision that raised workability concerns during the committee discussion. Second, it clarifies that an educational technology tool does not need to be specifically designed for education as long as it demonstrates significant educational value when used in a classroom. Mr. President, uh, during the committee hearing, there was a number of stakeholders and a few good Senator Vickers for this body whose feedback was concerning. So this, uh, amendment should take care of the concerns. Thank you for the explanation.

Thank you Mr. President. This bill focuses on three core goals, balancing screen time with teacher-led instruction, creating consistent statewide expectations for school technology policies, and introducing responsible and thoughtful AI integration in education. It preserves local control. The state board provides a model policy, but each LEA adopts and may amend the policy to fit local needs. And it must be adopted through a public meeting with opportunity for come. This is not a one size fits all approach. The bill establishes clear expectations for instructional technology before it is used in classrooms. LEAs must ensure the technology has significant educational value supports instruction is free from distracting features is safe for students, cognitive and emotional development and supports teachers rather than replacing direct instruction, it addresses the growing concern about non-essential screen time. LEAs must minimize screen time that is not instructional prior. Prioritize purposeful use and ensure that technology enhances learning outcomes. The principle is simple. Technology should be a tool for learning, not a replacement for teaching. Excuse me. The bill also introduces a developmentally appropriate framework for technology use across grade levels. In grades K through 12, there are no take home devices, no required one-on-one device ratios and screen use is limited to basic computer science introduction and required testing in grades four through six. Technology use is limited and supervised in middle school devices are primarily used on campus with opt-in policies for take home use in high school, take home devices are allowed unless parents choose to opt out. The bill recognizes that some students struggle with tech-based learning. So it also requires LEAs to create resource plans to support students who experience technology related learning difficulties. It also responsibly prepares students for the future by adding AI literacy to the core computer science standards. While establishing guardrails, teachers retain professional judgment. AI cannot be used as the sole grading authority. AI cannot make high stake student decisions and parents must be notified when AI tools are used in instruction. Importantly, this bill is not anti-technology. It does not ban computers. It does not remove local flexibility and does not restrict online schools or IEP accommodations. It simply ensures technology is used thoughtfully and responsibly. In summary, Mr. President HB 2 73 second sub as amended brings balance to technology use in classrooms by setting statewide guardrails while preserving local control. It prioritizes student development. Supports teacher-centered instruction, increases transparency for parents, and ensures that emerging technologies like artificial intelligence are adopted responsibly. Technology should serve learning, not replace it, and Utah has the opportunity to lead the nation creating that balanced approach. That will conclude my presentation. Mr. President, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you Mr. President Pro Tem has the sponsor yield to questions?

Thank you. Uh, I know our school districts took a position of opposition to this bill. Um, has that position changed with your amendments and your, and your changes? They Did kick one.

I'm sorry, Mr. President, I need to have a repla. Uh, repeat that question please. Thank you. The, um, oh, it, Okay. Thank Senator Wilson. Go ahead. Uh, Yeah, I'd, I'd like to have the, uh, good senator, repeat the question please. Mr. Senator

Yes. Thank you. Uh, the school districts took a position of opposition to this bill. Has the change, have the changes changed their position of opposition?

Uh, I'm not aware of that. I'll, I, the, the good sponsor told me is that this addresses stakeholder feedback.

Thank you, Mr. President. When I look on the line three 50 when it says, AI tool means software or system that generates outputs, predictions, or recommendations through machine learning or, uh, natural language processes and continues on. You know, we, um, we have AI in almost every tool we use, even though we don't really recognize it as ai. If I'm typing on a, um, a very clunky tool we have called Utah Compose, we type a word and it generates some words. They think it's going to be, that's ai. Would that be now prohibited from being used in a classroom?

Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Uh, from what my, uh, take on the amendment is, it does not need to be specifically designed for education as long as it demonstrates significant educational value. So that tells me a, a technology tool could be used even though it's based not only for education. So I assume that that would be able to be used.

Senator Riebe. Thank you. Online, 1 66. It says that we are going to prohibit a, um, we are going to, oh, I'm sorry. Um, it talks about in kindergarten, we are going to prohibit the mandate of having a one-to-one device. So if a school does have a one-to-one device in kindergarten, first, second, third grade, because we have mandated tests that our students are supposed to take, how, how would this deal with prohibiting a ma a one-to-one device, but requiring every kid to use a device to take a state mandated test from kindergarten to third grade?

Uh, Mr. President, uh, I assume that, uh, it would still be able to do that here. It it's up to the LEAs. It's up to the local. Uh, if they decide to use it, fine. If not, I think it's up to the local LA's

Well, thank you. You know, um, that's what The intention you say is, but when I read this bill, it actually has a lot of restrictions that would create some stressors in our classrooms. Our classrooms are doing a lot of these things already. Without this law. This law actually creates some confusion about what we can use and what we cannot use. A lot of the tools we have in our classroom are efficiency tools. I mean, I, I've said this before, if we were not allowed to use AI or we were not allowed to use Efficiency Tools right now, we'd all be putting away our computers and have stacks of papers here. Our schools are using computers wisely. They're using them responsibly. And you know, we have teachers across the state and we have students across the state learning to deal with the world that's in front of them. Our students worked hard to use these tools because there is what's happening in the future. For 10 years, I've worked to try to bring the internet across the state equitably so that every student would have access to the whole world in front of them. And our school districts are saying that they don't like this because it's not clear what they're allowed to do and what they're not allowed to do. So, um, I have a lot of questions about how AI would be used because AI isn't everything. Everything we use has AI in it now, and it's not always what we think AI is, but it's in those tools. So, um, I think there's a lot of, um, ambiguity in this bill that would be hard to implement. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. After the committee hearing, uh, you know, we heard some objections that were raised to this bill by, uh, a few school districts, uh, probably representing, you know, the group of school districts that had taken a position of oppose on the bill. So the house sponsor and I met with, uh, the superintendent of the Granite School District who, um, you know, was addressing, uh, those concerns that were raised. And I heard from my own school district, we addressed all of those concerns. Talked through others. Of course, uh, you know, interest groups usually meet once a week and, uh, that particular interest group meets on Friday, so they haven't had a chance to meet since the substitute is out. I wouldn't presume to say what they might say on a bill. Uh, but we did address all the concerns that their representative brought to the meeting. Address those and work them into the substitute.

Uh, thank you, Mr. President. I would like to talk about one meeting I was able to have before this session where I met with I think about a dozen or so, uh, UEA representatives from Northern Utah and to a t as we talked about this bill and about, um, the problems they're having to a t The teachers all said that if a student is sitting in front of a device, they are not learning. So they were very in favor of this bill and was very supportive of the bill. Without Mr. President, I would, under suspension of the rules, move the second substitute house Bill 2 73 as amended pass.

Yes. This bill, uh, these, these amendments do two things. First, it removes the parental transparency provision. There were some questions about costs and workability among the LEAs, so we removed that. And then secondly, it clarifies that an educational technology doesn't need to be specifically designed for education only that it has to have, um, significant educational value. And that's it.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to concurring because to remove the parent's ability to be able to see what's happening in those digital devices in the classroom, I think, I mean, even if it may cost some money, if we are going to require all of this digital access in the classroom, we have to allow the parents to be able to have access to, and I feel like that this is a step toward not having transparency with our parents. And I don't think that that's going to help our state increase trust with the parents. And we've been struggling with that lately. I feel like we keep this in and we go to a committee, a conference committee on it.

Representative Defay for summation. Yeah, so we actually passed a bill, um, through the house and the Senate that does, does the parental, uh, transparency piece. Um, and that's another reason we took this out. So we have it. The way it was written in my bill was a little less workable than the other way. So we still have that piece.