S.B. 267 Software in Education Amendments: transcript

Sure. Yep. We can, yeah, we can pass it around.

Thank you. Okay. So, 2 67. Uh, the impetus of this bill came from conversations I had with parents in my own neighborhood. They started, they approached me about concerns they had with what their children were able to access on school issue devices, and during school related online activities. And since that time, I've heard from even more parents, uh, across the state who share similar concerns. Uh, these parents are not anti-technology. They understand that technology is part of our lives and likely to be part of our kids' education. The concern is simple, though. If schools are assigning, requiring, or recommending software, it should be safe, privacy, protective, and then actually educational. So, that's what this bill is. It's about accountability, transparency, and educational effectiveness. Uh, right now schools use hundreds of digital tools and applications. Many are free or low cost. And, and, uh, schools are quick to adopt them. And parents oftentimes don't know what their children are using. Some software collects extensive data. Uh, some software is designed to maximize engagement and screen time and not necessarily learning. And there's really no consistent statewide standard right now to ensure that this instructional software is academically effective. So this bill creates that framework and addresses those, those concerns. So, at a high level, the bill, um, creates three major guardrails. It creates a statewide digital privacy agreement. Uh, it, uh, requires independent verification of academic, uh, well, it, it requires academic effectiveness and then creates independent verification that the software is not harmful to kids. Meaning it's not, uh, algorithm algorithmically targeted to them. It's not collecting their data, it's, it's securing their privacy and then provides for transparency and accountability. Uh, so the bill will require the state Board of Education or the state office to create a, uh, digital privacy agreement. The agreement must, must require that they comply with Utah's existing student and privacy laws prohibit advertising and promotional content directed at students. Uh, limit secondary use of student data, require encryption and strong security safeguards require student data to be stored and processed here in the US disclose all subprocess prohibit, prohibit unauthorized access, um, to cameras and microphones, and then it will, uh, provide a termination for cause if a vendor violates the agreement. Uh, second, the academic effectiveness requirement. It defines what that means. Uh, it's, it's gotta be academically effective, means it's gotta be supported by research or an independent valuation, and aligns with utah's course standards and demonstrates instructional effectiveness. Um, it addresses addictive design. It requires for parent transparency and oversight, so that LEAs will provide parents annually with a list of all instructional software their children may use. Uh, I think it's important to note that this is this, uh, notice and audit requirement is not effective in here until July 31st, 2028. So gives a ramp up period and allows LEAs and the state office to, uh, help help all vendors get into compliance. And, uh, so what this bill is not, it does not ban technology. It does not prevent innovation, is it does not micromanage teachers, and it does not impose any new appropriations. Rather, if technology is used in classrooms, and if students are required to engage with it, then it simply must be safe, privacy, protective, transparent, and academically effective. Uh, and with that, I'm open to any questions. I I, oh, go ahead. Go ahead, Senator Ruby.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so I, I support this, uh, there is already a lot of this happening. Um, we already have approved software. We have a, um, DPAs, we ha we have abilities to do some of these things. So as I'm reading this bill, uh, there are some people who are reaching out to me and saying that there is some language in here that would be restrictive to educational tools. So, uh, I, I'm, I'm going to keep talking to them and find out how we can make sure that our students have access to tools that they're using already. And, um, try to understand where the problem is. Because when I read it, it sounds like, um, there's a lot in here that I like, but there's a couple of things in here that might have unintended consequences like we just discussed in our last bill. So I wanna make sure I have those straightened out before I can say yes to this completely.

That's fair. And, um, we, I, and the stakeholders are also having those on ongoing conversations. Um, so I expect there will be another substitute at some point. Uh, I will note that I'm not gonna speak for them, but running this by the state office and LEAs they don't, they don't have concerns the way it's currently drafted, but obviously they're not the vendors. So the vendors may have concerns, but at least, at least from the education standpoint, I think, uh, as you mentioned, that they're already doing a lot of this. So it's not a new substantial burden on them. And in some respects, they kind of like, like the idea of, uh, having a curated list of vendors that, that are ensuring that our kids are, uh, our kids' data is private, and that these are academically effective tools. So, yeah. Thank you. I appreciate that.

And, um, I, I think that this is definitely moving in the right direction, but a couple years ago we ran an RFP, or we, uh, created a law that unintentionally narrowed down a list to only have one vendor available, or, and it wasn't intended, it was unintentional, but I just wanna make sure that we're not like creating a situation that benefits one vendor over the other because of something we had written. So I wanna just make sure that we hammer that out. And I would like to see the LEAs say that they support that. 'cause I haven't seen that yet, so thank you. Unless it favors a vendor because of Yeah. Academically effective. Yeah. For the wrong reasons, instead of the right reasons. So I just wanna make sure that we're not moving it in the wrong direction. So thank you. I appreciate your patience.

Uh, technology's a useful servant, but a dangerous master. And to protect our next generation, we must, we must implement rigorous safeguards that treat a child's digital privacy, the same, uh, with the same regard and sanctity as their physical safety. Um, and this sets a gold standard by ensuring that every piece of software that comes into the classroom is vetted, verified, and held to this strict statewide policy. So thank you for bringing forth such a great bill.

I, I have a few questions. Sure. Okay.

And, and you actually mentioned the, the key word, academically effective, and, um, that, that's a word that I don't think is defined, uh, for progress. And I, and I, I really hate that. And, and that certainly unintentional, I'm sure, but there are four acceptable forms of evidence. Peer reviewed research on similar educational interventions. Sound pedagogical principles recognized in the field of education are the problematic phrases. They're exactly, these are, uh, exactly the mechanisms that entrenched whole language for decades. And let me, let me talk about that just a second. Uh, you know, Khan Academy is actually the perfect example of why the verification requirement would hurt innovation rather than protect students. Consider the timeline con launched in 2006 as a completely novel instructional model, self-paced, mastery based video driven under this bill. It would have needed independent verification of academic effectiveness before deployment. But at that moment, there was no peer reviewed research on con, specifically no comparable educational setting to reference. And the pedagogical model was largely unprecedented. The 24 month provisional window sounds helpful, but look at lines 2 61 and 2 63, the software still needs to demonstrate it aligns with the state core educational standards. Okay. Has research supported pedagogical design, or has been successfully used in comparable educational settings? Every con uh, early con met none of those criteria cleanly. Its whole value proposition was that it was different from exact, from e existing pedagogical designs. The deeper irony is that the Bill's framework systematically favors incumbents. Large established vendors like Pearson or McGraw Hill already have decades of peer reviewed research, established evaluator relationships and proven compliance infrastructure. They can absorb the cost and timeline of independent verification easily Con Duolingo or the next breakthrough EdTech startup cannot. So the bill presents itself as protecting students from bad software, but it is actually market, its actual market effect is to raise barriers to entry that protects legacy vendors while freezing out the innovators most likely to produce the next science of reading breakthrough.

Can, can I respond To that? Yeah. And so that's, that's part of the difficulty I have. Right? And, and I, you know, that that's the problem that I see. Yeah, go ahead.

So if you look at the definition online, it's 52 56 academically effective. I think the, the conjunction you need to look at is, or online 55. And so the examples you gave, Khan Academy, Duolingo, any of those, it could be peer reviewed research, or it could be evidence of positive learning outcomes. So I think, I think Khan Academy could have demonstrated evidence of positive learning outcomes, and that, that that standard, granted is a little bit broad here, but it's, it's one of those, it's not all of those.

And so I, I, but I do think it's appropriate that there be something demonstrated that it's academically effective before we just, you know, throw, throw it out to our kids. And so, uh, I, I hear you that, you know, if we don't want to be entrenched in old, in old ways and old standards, but I, I do think that this bill provides for that pathway, but I do. But with that said, I do believe that software should have some academically effective demonstration before just serving it up to the kids. And, and I, I don't, I don't disagree with that at all. I, I, I, I think you're right. But, you know, our, our charter schools, for instance, are supposed to be learning laboratories. And, and I think that, you know, with parent opt-in and, and other things could be, could be a framework whereby some of this could happen. But I, I just, I just hate to, to put into code, you know, some of these terms as far as what, what that actually means. And I, I, I understand, but there's, but it's not clear to me what that standard is of academic effectiveness. So I, I mean, that's my opinion, but, uh, others will have different ones. Thank you. Yeah.

Can I also say somewhere in the bill, I'm trying to find it right now, but it, it allows an LEA to diverge and test new stuff. They do have to get consent from parents to say, we're, we're trying a new software that, that still meets these standards. But it, but it basically gives a trial period, um, if an LEA wants to diverge from whatever the state, state office curated list is.

Thanks. Um, you brought up some other points that I, so the data privacy agreement, would that be the data privacy agreement that we're using right now? Or would be a new data privacy agreement?

Um, I think it would be very similar to what's being used by right now, but there may be a few modifications to, to bring it into compliance with this bill.

Thank you. That, I wonder how hard that would be to change that for all students. I know we signed it at the beginning of the year, so I'm curious about that one. And then clickstream data, um, would that be something like, um, so what I do a Nearpod with my kids, I'll bring in, um, virtual reality, um, activities where the kids can go someplace and stand in the middle of the records room in Washington DC and look around. Would, would, would that be a clickstream data if they're monitoring their use of how they're engaging with this virtual reality experience? Like at a museum or something? Or, yeah, if they brought it into the class.

So I think it was at a museum, it would be outside of the, uh, contemplation of this bill. But if, but if it was brought in and, and a regular software that, like the school's gonna adopt as a vendor, then it, it might qualify

What was a third party. So I'm not sure about that one. 'cause that wouldn't be a software, but that might be a third party that we're actually using it just, um, like I said, I appreciate this, but I think it captures some things that might be kind of, um, not what you wanna capture. I mean, it is really exciting when you think about a computer as being a window to the world. If you can actually give your kids options of standing in a field in Italy and looking at the Alps. I mean, we've done that with virtual reality, which is really cool. Okay. And, um, things like that concern me, so I'd like to just kind of figure out some more details with this. So thank you.

Hi there. I had not planned on speaking, but you, you guys spoke to something that I felt was important as a mom, as a child safety advocate working with the Child Policy Center. So I'm a mom, I've been a child safety advocate for a decade. Um, Khan Academy, Duolingo, my children used these, these were mentioned. Something that we forget is these companies, as lovely as they are, are not educating our children out of the goodness of their heart. They are data mining. They are taking our kids' data from Google Classroom, everything else, selling it and making billions of dollars. That's how they make their data. So that's why I love the privacy policy and the transparency that's required that to be, you know, let parents know this is what's happening. This is what the software, the effectiveness piece to me is probably the best part of the legislation because there are so few standards for effectiveness right now. And there's many options that LEAs can use to, um, to make that standard. I know that we talk about charter schools being a wonderful experiment, but as a mother, I am sick of my children being used as an experiment. I would love education that's been proven effective to be used particularly with tech. Um, Utah has spent $150 million on ed tech in the last decade with stagnating test scores. We can do better. Our kids deserve better and they deserve a better privacy policy. Parents deserve a little more transparency. And if that, if some of these companies have to spend a little more money to prove that their stuff is effective, um, I know my children are worth it. And I think your children and your grandchildren are worth it too.

Hello Chair. Um, Elise Newey, deputy Superintendent of Policy at the USBE. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I just wanted to, uh, let you know that the Utah State Board of Education has reviewed and discussed this bill, um, and currently just has a few concerns with the way that the bill is currently written and wanted to bring to your attention to specific items that we would love to get clarification from the sponsor. The first is the scope of the definition of software. Um, we would request some clarity on the types of software that are included. Right now we're reading it as in very broad and including a lot of software that, um, maybe was not intended. And then secondly, how this bill would interact with Representative Defay Balance Act in which LEAs are given the opportunity to determine the, um, academic effectiveness and the intentionality of the programs that they choose to use. Whereas this one would be at a much more statewide level and just curious how those two are gonna work together. But we look forward to working closely with the sponsor to address these concerns, and if it should pass the state board of, um, education would like to implement it seamlessly and with fidelity. So thank you very much.

Uh, I am Allie Terry represent, and I am a parent and I am also one of Kirk's constituents who, um, uh, was one of the people who brought this issue to him. And I just want to say, I know I cannot go into my whole story here, but I have spent, I kid you not thousands of hours over the past year researching this issue. And it seems in theory that all of these programs, all of the software, it seems in theory, like they're great and that they're helping and that they're wonderful, but they, reality is so much different. And I think we have, um, sorry, test scores to point to, um, that, that are one point of concern, right? Like if we are introducing all of this tech and our test scores have not increased, then what is it for? And maybe the program alone isolated is fine, but tied to a device that is very distracting. And so from a parent's standpoint, my child can access porn no problem on a Chromebook, even at the highest filtering level. I have done this time and time again and have gotten to porn within 15 seconds. Um, I, my kids game all day at school, they play Minecraft, they play fall guy, they play all the dumbest games, and the teachers think that they are on task because they have the monitoring software, but the kids know how to disable that and make it look like they're on task when they're actually not. Um, they text all day long using Google Docs as a way to message back and forth all day. They're not engaged in learning. And so I know in reality these tools seem like they're useful and helpful, but they are extremely problematic to a large extent. And so as a parent, I have poured my heart and soul into this and working with Kirk over the past year of trying to come up with a solution that actually will be helpful. And, and currently I feel like things are not going well and, and when tried to address at a local level, uh, we were not helped locally within our school district.

Hi, my name is Mackenzie Sheeran. I am 14 years old and a student in Canyon School District. We're here to talk about some of my firsthand experiences as a student over the years regarding educational technology. In the last several years, I've seen many gamified learning programs intended for fun and educational purposes. However, many of these programs are addictive and don't offer any new or helpful ways to learn the curriculum. For example, the program, St. Math gives students a math problems that they then solve to let a penguin run from one side of the screen to the other. But the program offers no way to learn how to understand these math concepts and only shows the problem with no teaching on how to solve it. This is one of many examples of programs I've been exposed to that just do not work enough to help students learn in an effective way. One night, several months ago, I was at my friend's house and we were talking about cyberbullying. My friend then told me about a Google doc that her friends had made on the doc. The girls would talk about deep in graphic topics such as suicide and racism. The document was eventually got leaked and all of the girls who wrote bad things got suspended. This is another example of students' safety being at risk Due to the programs and features currently in EdTech and the ED and the Google Doc was written using school issued devices. Without this bill, my peers and I will not receive the education we deserve and not truly learn like we're supposed to. We need bills that advocate for safe and effective learning for me and all children's wellbeing and safety. Thank you.

My name is Angie McFarland and I am a mother of six children in Draper, Utah. My children attend Canyons District. When my son was 11 years old, he was exposed to hardcore pornography on his school, issued computer. He was not looking for anything inappropriate. He was searching for age appropriate cartoon characters in seconds. His innocence was interrupted. We were very careful in our home to monitor electronic devices. We had protections in place, but we never imagined the greatest risk would come from a device issued by his school. When we raised our concerns, we were told there were filters, but the filters were incredibly weak and unreliable. They were easy to bypass, and they were nowhere near strong enough to protect a curious 11-year-old child. Despite our pleadings and protection for protection, he continued to access pornography games, useless YouTube videos, et cetera. Throughout the years during school on his Chromebook. What started as accidental exposure became years of addiction, secrecy, and deep pain for our family that was completely out of our control. Due to the need for students to learn online at school, schools rely heavily on educational technology. But right now, the burden of safety falls on districts and parents, not on the powerful technology companies that design profit from and deploy these platforms intentionally in our classrooms. SB 2 67 strengthens oversight and accountability in our education system. And if we are going to authorize and fund institutions that depend on digital platforms, we must ensure that accountability extends to the companies behind them. Because once a child sees something like that, you cannot undo it. Now to speak to the Senator Vickers concerns, I would argue that these safeguards would help open the way for smaller companies to innovate safe new educational specific software, which right now have no chance against oligo such as Google. Google currently has, um, who also owns the Chromebooks, by the way that our students currently use, have numerous lawsuits against them for not being safe for students. This would force them to either comply or bow out, to provide others to come into play. Please pass SB 2 67 and send a clear message that Utah's children are more important than big tech, than big ed tech profits. Thank you so much. Thank You.

Hi, my name is Col and Terry and I'm in fourth grade. I do s two math and lecture At school. Me and my friends have figured out that if we create a split screen and run both apps at the same time, it counts when it's being used on both apps instead of one. Sometimes I feel like you can get around controls and you can get around controls too easily and too fastly. Thank you.

Okay. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm a high school senior and I'm here to talk about how technology has affected my learning as a current student. Through my junior high and high school years, I've always had a Chromebook. For the majority of my schoolwork, I've struggled with this, but specifically, specifically more in the past two years. A year and a half ago, I got a pretty severe concussion. Um, this resulted in it being very hard for me to stay on top of my schoolwork. When my doctor recommended me to stay off screens, my teachers gave me the option to do my assignments at home, but the assignments were online. In theory, it's a good idea, but when you have a concussion, the number one role is to stay off screens. Um, being on the screen did not help me, and I felt very behind in my classes. I've seen firsthand how Chromebooks have affected not just me, but students around me. There are constantly students who get distracted playing games or watching YouTube when they're supposed to be doing their schoolwork. When an assignment is difficult, students tend to just switch to a different tab to distract themselves from the work that needs to get done. I have seen this from my brothers who are both in junior high Chromebooks are so distracting. I believe technology should support real learning, not keep students hooked. For more screen time. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name's Johnny Thackery. I represent myself and my kids. Um, I'm a husband and a father of five young children. I support this bill. Childhood is short. Attention spans are fragile. School isn't just about academics. It's where kids learn how to raise their hand, take turns, read facial expressions, solve disagreements, and build friendships. Those social skills don't develop the same way through a screen, face-to-face interaction matters, group projects, recess conversations, and real classroom discussions matter. What worries me most is how casually technology has been adopted. It often feels like teachers and district leaders aren't asking hard enough questions about how much is too much, or whether these tools are truly improving. Learning screens or software have just quietly become the default. That lack of urgency or concern is frustrating. The safe act feels like common sense. Use technology only if it's proven to be safe and effective. Protect their focus, protect their privacy. Bring technology into the classroom only when it has shown, only when it's shown to enhance learning. Let our kids have real books, real pencils, and real conversations. Uh, this is a step in the right direction to protect our kids. Thank you.

Record. I'm April Barton, and I represent myself and my family. I am a mother of five, four of which are school age and attend a public school in Utah. Um, as parents, we do all that we can to protect our kids. We trust our schools to do the same. We learned from an independent study this last summer that our kids' data is being sold, data that will be used against them. Please help protect our kids in an area where parents cannot venture by voting for the Safe act. And, um, as I've been here listening, um, I loved how you said computers can be a window into the world. And I do believe that they can, but they can also be a window into a very dark world that we as parents are doing all we can to protect our kids from. And they are being handed devices that they are not ready for, and that we are very limited in protecting them from. I am a very on top of it, parent. I have time to be with my kids. I prioritize coming here to speak. And I also plead with you for all of the kids that do not have a parent in a position to safeguard them the way that we're able to and it isn't working. So I can only imagine what other parents are up against and what they are dealing with or that the kids are dealing with because they don't have a parent to help them through it. Anyway, I am very excited about the Safe Act and hope to see it come into action. Thank you. Thank You.

Hello, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Sarah Sanchez. I am the owner of a business called Tamir Tech. One concern that we often hear is whether legislation is targeting specific companies or types of technology. This bill isn't doing any of those things. It's completely content neutral and company neutral. Instead, it uses a contract based framework that sets clear expectations for any vendor that wants to work with Utah schools. Every company plays by the same rules. Every software product must follow the same privacy agreement. Every tool must demonstrate academic effectiveness. That approach protects children without picking winners or losers within the marketplace. From a legal perspective, this is a very balanced model. Schools already enter into contracts with vendors. This bill simply ensures those contracts prioritize student safety, parental rights, and focused educational outcomes. Innovation is still welcome, but children should come first. Thank you for your consideration.

Oh, could, could we first adopt the substitute? Oh, yeah. Thank you. And I, and I actually noticed the substitute a actually answered some of my questions too. So, uh,

Well, I've moved to adopt the substitute and I'm gonna let the, uh, bill sponsor state what the substitute is and what it does. Okay, go ahead.

That'll be my motion. Every, everything I spoke to is the substitute bill.

Yep. I'll make a motion that we favorably recommend the bill as substituted, and, and I wanna speak to it.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, your concerns are valid and I, I, I understand your concerns about this bill. Um, this bill does not take technology out of the classroom, but just limits it. Um, as a person who's worked for 25 years in schools, I can tell you that in my classroom, I've maybe had two or three kids that I've had to take off their computers. And, um, we have something called land school where I put all the kids' computers on a screen up front. And I know that you're shaking your head and that's not your experience, but a lot of people are having experiences that are different. I just wanna share with you some of the experience I've had. Okay. Um, we, when our kids are not using their computers properly, you can actually go into their computers and look at every keystroke they've hit. So that is something that I've done numerous times. I've printed out every keystroke they've hit, and I've seen the words that they have searched. Um, I also use this as a efficiency tool. When you're teaching kids what really is best when they're trying to learn is having immediate feedback. When I first started teaching, I didn't have the ability to give immediate feedback because I'd have to go grade all the papers and then come back. Now it grades it for me. So I know that this is, I I'm just trying to illustrate, there are some really great things happening in our schools with technology. Um, when I first started teaching, when the kids wrote something, I had to go home and read all those papers, and I had to edit every word that was spelled wrong. We now have programs that help us with these things. We also have the ability to, um, understand what our kids are getting wrong. So if you have a math question as a multiple choice, the kids pick a, it's like, oh, they forgot to carry, they pick B. They added the first digits before they added the second digits. So, um, I, I just wanna kind of say a little bit of praise as a digital technology teacher, that there are lots of safeguards in places, and I know that you guys haven't had these experiences, but in the overall of my career in teaching technology has been kind of an excitement for me. And it's actually been a great efficiency tool for me. So I, I wanna make sure we do this right. I wanna protect kids, but I also wanna make sure that we are using tools that help help us meet our kids' needs in a more rapid fashion. And I know our, um, our, our grades are flat and some of our students are struggling. But when you look at the real kids that are struggling, a lot of them are on five oh fours and IEPs and language learners. And some of the technology that we have actually helps those subsets more. So there are some pitfalls. I hope this bill captures them, but there also are a lot of benefits to technology that I hope we can appreciate as well. So, thank you for bringing this bill. I hope to continue working on it right now. I'm gonna vote no, 'cause I need the, I need some answers question. I need some questions answered before I can move forward. So thank you for the work you've done with this, and thank you for being so receptive to suggestions.

That's right. Okay. Uh, so, you know, I, I've, I, I appreciate all the comments personally. I, I think people made a lot of comments that were very valid and very good, and they're important things. And, you know, any software vendor ought to be listening to this just to, to understand what's going on. I, I've been in classes, I've, I've visited a number of schools and I, I've been in classes and I, I, there are some teachers that know how to use the technology and there are others that really don't. And, and I think sometimes, uh, in fact, one class I was in, the only time the kids used the Chromebooks was when they took a break, which is exactly the wrong time for them to use the Chromebook. Right. And, and I think, you know, some of that comes to training, right. And, and, uh, so, you know, I, I, I think what you're trying to do is really important. And I think we, I, I think a lot of these things need to be addressed that parents brought up. I, I don't see the details about the, the, the very things everybody brought up. I don't see the details in the bill about how, how we're gonna stop that. But I do like the f the framework that you put together. I mean, I, you know, I'm gonna support this going forward, and I just hope we can, I hope we can put some of that guardrail on it, right? That, that maybe we could improve some things in there. But any, any other comments?

Yeah. Thank, thank you Chair and committee. I'll, I'll just sum by saying, I mean, you heard a lot of the testimony. This bill arose out of real conversations with real parents. There are real concerns. Um, I think some of the concerns would, trying to navigate this has been difficult. There are some that would just like to see technology completely removed from the classroom. Um, I don't think that's a, that's not, that's not reality. Our kids need to learn to use technology. There are efficiencies in technology, and so, you know, we're trying to navigate it the best we can without turning the clock back. Uh, but we're just looking for guardrails. And I do think our children should learn how to appropriately use technology. But when it's introduced in the classroom setting, just saying it should serve learning and not distract from it. It shouldn't harvest data, of course. And it shouldn't expose students to unnecessary risks. And so trying to strike that balance, as with all bills, we may not get it perfect the first time, but, but just looking to take that big first step and acknowledging that there is work still to be done even within this session, if this bill's to pass. So, Thank you very much.

Um, you want me to speak to the amendment or want

Okay. I apologize. Lemme pull that. So the, let's see where the amendment is mostly smaller technical changes just to ensure that, uh, lass in the state office can more easily, easily implement the intents here. Uh, it looks like it does create some certain exceptions, um, for software providers to self-certify. And that's, uh, potentially a point of contention, but something to, something to note in the, in the sub, in the, uh, substitute. And so with that, I can speak to, speak to the bill at large.

So the impetus for this bill came from parents in my school district and senate district. And it was people who had concerns about what their children are able to access on school issued devices and during school related activities, uh, particularly those activities online and through software programs. And since that time and, and in running this bill, I've heard from parents across the state that share these concerns. And it's not that anybody is necessarily anti-technology, um, that's necessarily gonna be a part of our lives and a part of our school. But if schools are assigning, requiring or recommending software programs, we just want to ensure that it's safe, that it's privacy, protective, and actually educational. And so that's what this bill does. Um, on a high level, it does three things. It makes a statewide, it creates a statewide digital privacy agreement. It makes that more robust. And then in the substitute, we have a couple, um, distinctions. One for administrative software that's not really intended to, uh, engage with kids in learning. And then the other one that is more educational and purpose, and it, it more specifically addresses that second class and requires more robust digital privacy agreement for those types of, uh, software programs that are interacting with our kid to ensure that they're academically effective, that they're not data mining, and that they're not targeting advertising to our kids. And that the, that the intent of the program is not just screen time for the sake of screen time, but actually driving learning. Uh, the second part of this bill creates an independent verification of academic effectiveness. And so part of the DPA would require these companies to go, to go through a process to, to validate that they are in fact academically effective. And then the last part talks about transparency and accountability. Uh, we provide parents annually with a list of all instructional software that their kids may use, uh, which would include the names, vendors, and all of that. Uh, we expect, uh, reasonable and regular updates and notifying parents of new software assigned during, during a school year. Uh, there would be state oversight and accountability. The state board must maintain a master list of the, uh, software used statewide, maintain a list of approved software, conduct periodic audits of LEAs and vendors, and issue compliance reports and require corrective action when necessary. So this bill is not to ban technology, it's not to prevent innovation. Um, it's not to micromanage teachers. And, uh, instead we're recognizing that technology is gonna be used in the classroom. And if students are required to engage with it, then it must be safe, privacy, protective, uh, protective, transparent, and academically, academically effective. And with that, I'm open to any questions or,

Yeah, I just wanna speak in favor of the bill. Uh, I don't know if you all are aware, but, uh, Senator Cullimore and I worked in a working group over the summer, um, on tech and balancing tech and safe tech for our students. And, um, he's put a lot of work, he's done good work with, um, all the stakeholders working with, uh, industry and with parents and with teachers, and I appreciate this and, um, support the bill. Thank you chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just, just to clarify, and I think I, I think you said it, I just wanna make sure it's repeated. So let's say that there is a vendor approved, there's a, there's some kind of technology that is approved. We've heard in years past that updates will oftentimes have stuff that comes in that doesn't necessarily get caught right away. I think you said that there's gonna be auditing and, and remind me who's responsible for that to make sure that that's being monitored. Because let's say something does happen in an update, you know, sometimes that those happen overnight on a computer, a device, and not necessarily anybody's kind of watching that. Is there anything in here that kinda helps protect that?

Yes, probably. Um, Honest answer, yes. Yeah, so there is compliance requirements that is enforced through periodic audits. So, and I'm trying to find the line number, but that that is in there.

Well as long, as, long as you feel for sure that it's in there, I just wanna make sure that, 'cause that's a concern a lot of parents have and I just wanna make sure that on the record they know that that's going to be happening.

Thank you Senator. Thank you for that clarification.

Hi, I'm Liz Jenkins and I'm actually reading a comment from a father who was here who had to leave. That's just fine. Thank you for being here. So I'll just speak on proxy for him. He, his name's Matt Palmer and he's a data scientist who works at Pinterest and he says he'll have children in the public school system for the next 16 years. And I'll just read this part of his statement. This bill is not just about privacy though. It's about requiring the software providers that we trust as tools for our children's development to prove that their quality is what we all expect. We don't want them exposing our children to unsafe and inappropriate material. We don't want them hurting their ability to think deeply and solve problems. And we don't want them selling access to our kids' attention or personal information. Ultimately, we want something that helps and does no harm. We must hold educational vendors to a higher standard. I urge you to support this bill to ensure our children's data and their attention or our protected for the next generation. Thank you. Should I write down Matt's name here or

Okay. I am April Barton and I'm a mother of five four of which are school age and one that will be entering in the next couple of years. And I am thrilled to see the safe back act come before you. Um, because I am very worried about the screens that the kids are, um, exposed to in school and the data that's being sold that will then be used against them, um, as businesses capitalize on their, um, attention economy. Um, but I also want to add that it is very inspiring to sit here and listen to people who also want the best for our kids. And, um, but want you to know that as a parent I see the safe act is the best thing for them. Thank you.

My name is McCall Sho and I have four kids. I have two in middle school and two in elementary. And one of my greatest concerns is the productivity and effectiveness. When digital learning tools become the default rather than the supplement, we risk academic growth. It is, if a tool does not clearly improve learning outcomes, increase engagement in a measurable way or enhance teacher effectiveness, then we must question whether it belongs at the center of instruction. Um, it, I think it's unrealistic to expect children and adolescents whose brains are still developing to cons, consistently regulate devices that are designed to capture and hold their attention and not necessarily in a good way. Our students mo will benefit mostly from direct in-person teaching by skilled educators. And I'll stop there. Thanks.

Okay. Hi, I'm Becca Kirkman. I am an educator and I live in South Jordan, Utah. I just like to say that, um, I think we do need to protect our kids in especially data, in this data mining world that we live in. And I also think though it's missing a critical piece. What about software monitoring programs that teachers can use? We do not have a statewide program that's approved for use. Did it's up to LEAs to decide. Um, it would be nice if we could have a statewide contract where teachers could better monitor students' Chromebooks and maybe even have the, have parents be able to monitor them. Um, I think this is something that's missing in this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would move house amendment one.

Yes. Thank you. Um, I really appreciate the sponsor's Really good work on, in this policy space. This is a very difficult policy space that we're constantly wrestling with as we try to address student privacy and, um, software in schools. And so what this does is it online, 180 5 removes the term directed at a student from that sentence. And that's all it does. And that's to make sure that we're protecting, um, against all of the advertising and promotional content that could potentially be in front of, um, our students and teachers.

Yeah, I'm okay with that.

I would like to move that we favorably recommend second substitute Senate Bill 2 67 as amended.

Yes. Just again, thanks for your work. Good, bill. That's It. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, I, I'll wa as well. I mean, um, you've heard the concerns and we're just trying to take steps in the right direction,

I will waive. Okay.

All right. Thank you, president. The impetus for this bill came from conversations with parents in my neighborhood. Uh, they began approaching me with concerns about what their children are able to access on school issued devices and during school related online activities. Uh, since that time, I've heard from many other parents as well who have similar concerns and, and these parents are not necessarily anti-technology. They understand that that's a part of our lives. Now, the concern is simple, though, that if schools are assigning, requiring, or recommending software, it should be safe, privacy, protective, and actually educational. So to be clear too, I've got a substitute that I'm working on right now with some stakeholders, but in the interest of six working days left, I'm hoping to keep this bill going. And so I, I do expect to have some, uh, substitute. But right now, schools are using hundreds of digital tools and applications. Many of these are free or low cost and adopted quickly. A lot of times parents don't know what their children are using. Some of this software collects extensive student data, and some of it might even be designed to maximize engagement and string time and not screen time and not necessarily learning. So at a high level, what this does, it, it creates, uh, it, it beefs up, I should say, a statewide digital privacy agreement. We already have one at the state office level, but it, it beefs it up and puts some additional requirements on there. It would require independent verification that the software using has, is educational, academically effective, and then it provides for transparency and accountability. Um, uh, with that, um, I'm open to any questions. Thank you. Am I, maybe I am. We'll see who ask questions. I guess.

Thank you, Mr. President. Um, the good sponsor, and I have spoke about this bill a little bit. Um, my job when I'm not up here is to work with digital teaching and learning, uh, venues. And when we think about what we're using in our schools, we are all trying really hard to make sure we're using academic instructional learning tools to the best of their ability. And our students have figured out ways to get around that as quickly as possible. Um, when we were listening to testimony in the committee, many parents expressed frustration with Chromebooks, which this isn't part of the bill. They expressed frustration with, um, getting access to pornography, which is a little bit part of this bill. Um, but you know, when we have a, a student that's looking at pornography, we do have a protocol in place, and it's not always, um, I would say it's not easy to find pornography at a school, but we have students who actively go and find it, and sometimes they can. So I mentioned when we talked about this bill in our schools, I use land school, uh, I can tack all of my students' cameras and put them up on the board, and I can watch what each student is doing. When I'm concerned about what a student is doing, I can actually watch what their student is doing on my computer at the same time that I am working and I can see everything that student is doing. I can also log into their history. And when I look at their history, I can see every key that they have hit while they have worked on their computer. And we also make sure that they can't erase their history. So we have put in extreme measures to make sure that students are not going where they're not supposed to be, but we have a large percentage of students that are doing what they're supposed to be doing with their computers. And this bill would create a white list, which would be established by the State Office of Education. Now, I know that sounds like a great idea, but we have very different diverse populations in our schools and very different needs. A school in Daggett might wanna have an agricultural website or an app that they're working on. Beehive technology school might wanna have something different than another school that specializes in autism. So this white list would be very comprehensive and it would be very hard to maintain and think of the layers of government we'd have to go through to get to that list and approve something. So that's really, uh, concerning for me. It doesn't give our schools the ability to respond to what they're doing. When you also think about, um, technology, it's always moving. It's changing. So this would hamper our ability to say, Hey, look at this cool thing we just discovered on Mars. Looking at a website from NASA if we wanted to, and I, I'm being a little hyperbole there, but maybe not. One of the other things I'm concerned about is on line 91 it says, clickstream data. When I ask people what is clickstream data? They're like, I don't know. I said, well, what does it incorporate? I don't know. Well, it's supposed to track what you do, and it's supposed to follow how you interface with a website. Well, that's every website. So if we're gonna use clickstream data, would that be every website we couldn't use or every computer program? So I'm willing to work, um, I'm willing to work with this sponsor, with this bill, and I think all of our school districts are willing to work with sponsor on this build. Having our kids be safe in school is important. We really do want our schools to be safe. But ratcheting down an amazing tool that provides all these great assets to us is not really the best way to go about it. If we were gonna go back to paper tomorrow, our work would be hampered tremendously. These websites are incredible efficiency tools that allow me to see where my kids are going, how they're going there, answering their questions quickly. So I I, I do appreciate the safety mechanisms in this bill, but there's also a lot of unintended consequences for our school districts and for our ability to be as robust in education as possible. Thank you.

Okay. Just to sum a couple things, again, working on a sub, but, but a couple things to address that. One, it does have the state office vet a lot of software, but it does provide a path for local LEAs to vet their own software and come up with their DPAs as well. So there is a path for local LEAs to do their own thing. Uh, three there. Or the other issue is, um, there's a path for provisional use so you don't have to jump through all the hoops to get in there and, and start using it, but eventually you gotta come and work to come into compliance. So those, those will remain in the, in the substitute, uh, that's expected. But there, there are some path paths to deal with some of the, some of the issues raised. Uh, and with that, ultimately this bill is about, uh, addressing parent concerns that our children should learn how to use technology, but should learn how to do it within particular guardrails so their dad's not at risk. They're not targeted. Just looking to put in simple guardrails and ensuring that when technology is introducing the classroom, it should serve learning, not distract from it, not harvest data, not expose them to a unnecessary risk. And with that, my motion is that we read first substitute Senate Bill 2 67 for a third time. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. President, I, I know that Darryl's gonna be escorting

Yeah. It clarifies, uh, some of the digital privacy agreements where there might be some that are more administrative and some that are more for educational software and provides for different, uh, privacy agreements. Uh, it creates a process for vendors. The substitute creates a process for vendors to certify that their software is academically effective. Um, it require, it still requires the digital private agreements for administrative soft software with, with less robust provisions than the educationally effective software. And then it more explicitly allows a vendor to offer educational software to, uh, LEA on a provisional basis.

To the bill. So we discussed this on second reading calendar, but, but to remind, to remind everybody, schools use a lot of digital tools and applications and many are free and low cost and, and can get quickly adopted into the classroom. So a lot of times parents don't even know what their kids are using at school. And some software collects extensive student data. Uh, some of it's designed to maximize engagement and screen time and not necessarily learning. And then there's not really a consistent statewide standard to ensure that this software is academically effective. So this bill seeks to address that by creating a more robust digital privacy agreement to ensure that the software being used in school is educational, is academically effective. Uh, it creates an independent verification to ensure that, uh, that same thing. Uh, it provides for transparency and accountability and, uh, in this, by using these tools, we can ensure that what is being introduced to our kids is, is in indeed vetted and is academically effective and is being used to actually educate our kids and not to simply distract our kids or provide mechanisms for them to see or learn things that, that, uh, they shouldn't be seeing or learning at school. And with that, that's my presentation.

Thank you Mr. President. Has the sponsor yield to questions? Senator Colmore, were you Yale? Sure. Senator Riebe.

Thank you. I appreciate all the changes that have been made to this bill, but one of my questions still concerns clickstream data. The definition of clickstream data is that anything that you click through, it kind of follows where you're going and kind of leads you in a different direction or to the direction that you need to. My concern is that everything seems like it would use clickstream data. And so would the unintended consequence of this bill be that we have to cancel our, uh, contracts with anything that used clickstream data?

Senator Cullimore? I think the, the idea is that some of the clickstream, it defines clickstream data and then it simply states that, um, if well, well, you just simply have to agree to the data privacy agreement that, that, uh, there is consent and that the data is not being used for targeted advertising or to take kids away from the academically effective educational purpose of the software

Riebe. Thank you Mr. President. Um, I know this, uh, goes into effect, um, July 1st, 2026. So would that mean that every one of our contracts and all of our schools would be canceled and we would have to go through this process to start the next year?

No. The intent is that these obligations be, become effective immediately, but it's not to undo any existing contracts. There's a runway built into this that allows for any existing contracts to get up to speed over the course of, I think it was at least 18 months, but maybe even two years. Lemme find the date.

Thank you. Uh, I, I believe that this bill has some unintended consequences that'll make it really hard to implement for our schools. And so I'll have to be a note. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, I have a question about line 2 0 1 and I first wanna preface this by saying how much I appreciate the sponsor's work on this. And I did vote yes on it. I just saw, uh, here this line that, um, the digital materials cannot have any content that's related to sexual abuse. Uh, but I do also know that, uh, we, uh, teach our kids every year, uh, we have a, a program to teach our kids, uh, about, uh, sexual abuse to prevent sexual abuse. And I'm wondering if this would prevent any sort of digital teaching in that, in that space.

No. The intent for this bill is to not to step on any other laws that we already have passed, whether that deals with sensitive materials or, uh, other sexual abuse harm, rather, the intent is that the, the software that's being provided should not lead kids to sexual exploitation or abuse materials that are not part of the instructional intent of the, of the software program.

Senator Kwan, Thank you Mr. President.

I I just wanna rise in support of this bill. I think it does a lot of great things, but the main thing that it does is it provides the leverage necessary for our local education, uh, entities to be able to negotiate the contracts that they need without being stepped on by larger entities. That, that provide a one size fits all solution that doesn't always fit our laws and our standards within the state of Utah. And so without this, without a bill like this from the state that says, we cannot do work with you unless you make these modifications, it ends up being a negotiation that they simply are not equipped to have and that they simply don't have the ability to, uh, engage with these vendors in a way that is meaningful to create this kind of change. And so I highly support this bill. I think it's necessary and, and I wish we would've done it five years ago. Um, but, uh, you know, the, the next best time is today. Thanks.

Yeah. I appreciate the last comment. And I'll just say that, uh, I'll ditto that, that we have software in, obviously in our schools. The intent of this is not to be anti-technology, but this, this bill, the impetus of this was from real conversations with parents who have concerns about what is happening in the classroom and making sure that technology is using appropriately. So we're not looking to turn back the clock. Uh, we're just asking for some guardrails and making sure that our children should learn how to appropriately, appropriately use technology. And that when technology is introduced in the classroom, it should serve learning and not distract from it. It shouldn't be harvesting data and shouldn't expose our kids to unnecessary risks. So with that, I'll make the motion that we pass second substitute Senate Bill 2 67.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move that we circle.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Now I move to adopt the fifth sub.

Sure. We, we made some significant changes here, uh, due to some funding. Uh, this moved from actually setting the standard to having, um, the State Board of Education run a study on software and digital tools being used in schools. And so that's the big shift here is we moved from actually stating what those minimum requirements and standards would be to just doing a study.

Thank you Mr. Speaker, colleagues. Uh, this bill is simple but important. It asks the State Board of Education to study the software and digital tools being used in our public schools and identify the best practices for how these tools are being used. Now, our our kids are being in front of screens constantly and it's important that we study what is actually being on those screens. Uh, the software and the tools that they're actually educating our kids and not just use for engagement, which we've seen a lot of these tools being just white labeled and called EdTech. And so what this bill does is it asks the State Board of Education to run a study to ensure that all of the software that's in our schools are safe, secure, and that they aren't driving more addiction, but are actually educating. And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I'm open to any questions?

Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, would the sponsor yield to a question? Representative Fiefia, will you yield?

Yes. Yes. Representative.

So it looks like on the fiscal note, that should be cut out a lot. Do you, do you know about, I mean, it doesn't look like, uh, you have a current fiscal note, but, uh, do you know what that's gonna do to the cost of it?

Yes. Great question, Mr. Speaker. This will reduce the fiscal note to $150,000 ongoing, and, uh, we've met with EAC in both leadership to approve the funding of this bill.

Uh, could I ask a follow up question? Representative, will you yield

to a follow up question? Yes. Yes, representative.

Thanks. So, uh, I was thinking this was just a study, so can you tell me what the money would go towards?

Yes. In our current budget, we have removed some of our, uh, budgets and, uh, staff from the state school board. And I'm told that because of that reduction, they don't have resources to do a study. And that is where that money would go to, is to allow staff to focus on studying the tools and the software in the schools.

One more, if I may. Is that ongoing or one time

That's on, that's ongoing.

Mr. Speaker, Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I just wanna rise in support of this bill. While it may not have everything that we started with in terms of protecting our children, it's still a step in the right direction and I appreciate the, the efforts and encourage your support.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to amend

Yes. Okay. State the amendment. Yeah. Simple amendment Line 180 5 to remove the words. Okay, Hang on just a minute. Let me get to line 180 5. Okay. Okay. In line 180. See it. Make sure I got the right line. I think it's 180 5. Uh, remove the words directed at a student

I, I don't know. Are you on the fifth substitute? I don't think you're on the fifth substitute. Okay, well hold on. Is that not there? Fifth substitute. I have different wording. Well then maybe the pro, maybe that's the problem. Darn it. Maybe I should motion to circle. I can't. I probably out of order. Yeah. Is that already done? Okay. I don't know why I was still seeing it. I guess I withdraw my amendment.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Again, this is a simple study. Um, the tools that are in our schools, um, are important to make sure they're safe and secure. As, as a parent of four young kids that are in our public schools and in our schools that we we fund, I want to be sure that what is put in front of them in our classroom is actually there for education and not for engagement. And so I'd ask your for ask for your support.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Now I move to adopt the fifth sub.

Sure. We, we made some significant changes here, uh, due to some funding. Uh, this moved from actually setting the standard to having, um, the State Board of Education run a study on software and digital tools being used in schools. And so that's the big shift here is we moved from actually stating what those minimum requirements and standards would be to just doing a study.

Thank you Mr. Speaker, colleagues. Uh, this bill is simple but important. It asks the State Board of Education to study the software and digital tools being used in our public schools and identify the best practices for how these tools are being used. Now, our our kids are being in front of screens constantly and it's important that we study what is actually being on those screens. Uh, the software and the tools that they're actually educating our kids and not just use for engagement, which we've seen a lot of these tools being just white labeled and called EdTech. And so what this bill does is it asks the State Board of Education to run a study to ensure that all of the software that's in our schools are safe, secure, and that they aren't driving more addiction, but are actually educating. And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I'm open to any questions?

Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, would the sponsor yield to a question? Representative Fiefia, will you yield? Yes. Yes. Representative. So it looks like on the fiscal note, that should be cut out a lot. Do you, do you know about, I mean, it doesn't look like, uh, you have a current fiscal note, but, uh, do you know what that's gonna do to the cost of it?

Yes. Great question, Mr. Speaker. This will reduce the fiscal note to $150,000 ongoing, and, uh, we've met with EAC in both leadership to approve the funding of this bill.

Uh, could I ask a follow up question? Representative, will you yield to a follow up question? Yes. Yes, representative. Thanks. So, uh, I was thinking this was just a study, so can you tell me what the money would go towards?

Yes. In our current budget, we have removed some of our, uh, budgets and, uh, staff from the state school board. And I'm told that because of that reduction, they don't have resources to do a study. And that is where that money would go to, is to allow staff to focus on studying the tools and the software in the schools.

One more, if I may. Is that ongoing or one time That's on, that's ongoing. Mr. Speaker, Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I just wanna rise in support of this bill. While it may not have everything that we started with in terms of protecting our children, it's still a step in the right direction and I appreciate the, the efforts and encourage your support. Thank you Representative Kotler.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to amend That motion is in order.

Simple amendment Line 180 5 to remove the words. Okay, Hang on just a minute. Let me get to line 180 5. Okay. Okay. In line 180. See it. Make sure I got the right line. I think it's 180 5. Uh, remove the words directed at a student Representative. I, I don't know. Are you on the fifth substitute? I don't think you're on the fifth substitute. Okay, well hold on. Is that not there? Fifth substitute. I have different wording. Well then maybe the pro, maybe that's the problem. Darn it. Maybe I should motion to circle. I can't. I probably out of order. Yeah. Is that already done? Okay. I don't know why I was still seeing it. I guess I withdraw my amendment.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Again, this is a simple study. Um, the tools that are in our schools, um, are important to make sure they're safe and secure. As, as a parent of four young kids that are in our public schools and in our schools that we we fund, I want to be sure that what is put in front of them in our classroom is actually there for education and not for engagement. And so I'd ask your for ask for your support.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move to amend. Oh, I don't know what I say next then Circle. Oh I move to circle this.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move to encircle fifth sub two 60 SB 2 67.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. We found just one, one word that's important in here, um, between different subs. There was one word that added in targeted advertising. We wanted to make sure that no advertising is is within our kids. This word targeted, um, is kind of a loophole for industry and we want to make sure that our kids are safe from any advertising.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Now I move to amend.

Thank you. Line 2 42. Line 2 42. Mm-hmm. Right after the A, we're just gonna remove the word targeted.

Just really quickly? This is a study that they're gonna be doing and this will just make it so that they study all of the advertising, which is more complete.

This is a friendly amendment. Uh, I, I think this, this was a, a word that was added in the later sub that I, I think needs to be taken out. So I appreciate, um, the good sponsor of the amendment.

Um, yes and I, and I apologize to do this now, but personal privilege during my explanation here, but Well, you