Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, experts and schools back study of classroom technology; lawmakers hear risks to learning and privacy (LD 20‑52)
Summary
LD 20‑52, a resolve to study technology use and safeguards in Maine classrooms, drew extensive testimony from parents, educators, tech‑law experts and MEPRI about device time, privacy risks, and the need for a statewide snapshot. MEPRI noted limited resources and opportunity costs for conducting the study.
Representative Holly Sargent opened a public hearing on LD 20‑52, a resolve directing a study of how technology is used in Maine classrooms and what safeguards are in place.
Sargent said the aim is to collect baseline data so policymakers can understand device use, safety practices and potential harms. She framed the study as a low‑cost, high‑value starting point for future policy decisions.
Experts testified in support. Emily Cherkin (parent, author, screen‑time consultant) told the committee that "edtech products are extractive, harmful and unsafe" and urged Maine to study how educational technology is deployed. Andrew Liddell (EdTech Law Center) recommended technical approaches including anonymized network logs and randomized surveys of teachers, principals, IT administrators and students to detect off‑task use, exposure to violent content, predation risks and student privacy violations; he offered specific logging sources and cited a related court filing for further reading.
Parents and local educators described concrete classroom and home‑life impacts: Chelsea DeLorme recounted a third‑grade child's dysregulation tied to app notifications; Ellen Coughlin Quinn and Jenny Eastman described students accessing games and YouTube on Chromebooks, and a teacher community that could not confidently quantify minutes students spend on screens. Many witnesses urged state‑level study to support school leaders and create transparency for parents.
Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI) Director Amy Johnson testified neither for nor against, explaining that MEPRI could conduct a landscape snapshot but stressed the institute's fixed annual resources would create opportunity costs and that the work would likely reduce capacity to produce other reports. MEPRI described the anticipated study as a statewide landscape and recommended clarifying policymaker intent if the resolve passes.
Committee members asked about feasibility, whether existing district data could answer questions, and how MEPRI's work plan could accommodate the study without new funding. The chair closed the hearing and encouraged submission of written testimony and requested MEPRI and other stakeholders coordinate to define scope before any work session.
