Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermont committee reviews bill to register and certify school educational-technology products
Summary
The Vermont House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development reviewed H.650, which would require educational-technology products used in schools to register annually with the Secretary of State, meet certification standards focused on student privacy and safety, and comply with federal laws; committee members raised questions about the Secretary of State's capacity and timing for schools to comply.
On Feb. 3, 2026, the Vermont House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development began a review of H.650, a bill that would require educational-technology products used in Vermont schools to register annually with the Secretary of State and obtain a state certification before a school may use them. "So we have a bill that, proposes to require EdTech educational technology, products register annually with the state," Rick Segal, legislative counsel, told the committee.
The bill would require any provider of an educational-technology product—defined in the draft as student-facing software, applications or platforms that collect, process or transmit student data used for teaching and learning—to register on or before Jan. 31 each year and pay a $100 registration fee. Providers would have to supply a contact name, primary physical and email address and Internet address, the product's current privacy policy and terms of service, and a list of products they operate and the certification status of each. A provider that fails to register would be liable for a civil penalty of $50 per day up to $10,000 per year; the attorney general would have authority to seek penalties and injunctive relief.
The Secretary of State would have exclusive authority to certify educational-technology products and to create an application and review process. The draft instructs the Secretary to consider a product's compliance with state curriculum standards, its advantages compared with non-digital methods, whether it was explicitly designed for educational use, and design features such as geolocation tracking, use of artificial intelligence, targeted advertising, personalized recommendation systems, avenues for access by adults unknown to a student, and features that could lead to compulsive use.
The bill ties certification to privacy safeguards. A certified product must comply with federal and state privacy laws, including the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), and must provide clear information to parents and guardians about what student personal information is collected, how it is used, maintained and shared, and how parents can access, correct or delete that information. The draft seeks to limit data collection to information essential to the product's educational function, forbids collecting demographic data except for student name and grade level, and bars collection of behavioral or sensitive health data and use of collected data for noneducational profiling, targeted advertising or disciplinary actions.
The Secretary of State would be required to post and regularly update a registry listing certified products, products under active consideration and products that failed certification. The draft explicitly preserves obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), specifying that schools must continue to provide reasonable modifications and necessary assistive technology.
On implementation timing, the draft directs schools to submit a list of educational-technology products in use to the Secretary of State by Dec. 15, 2026, and allows schools to continue using products that have not yet been certified through June 30, 2027. The act would take effect July 1, 2026, while the certified-product requirement would take effect July 1, 2027 to provide time to develop the certification process.
Committee members pressed for practical details. Unidentified Speaker 1 questioned whether the dates should be adjusted because of the burden on schools and whether the bill drafters had consulted the Secretary of State; Segal said he did not believe there had been conversations with that office. "I don't believe so," Segal said when asked about consultations. Another committee member, appearing as Unidentified Speaker 3 in the transcript, raised concerns about placing evaluative authority with the Secretary of State. "I have a couple of concerns about the certification... does the secretary's state have the capacity or really the background to be making judgments on what a good product is?" that speaker asked, warning that curriculum-based certification could be used to bar products that have seen classroom use—citing SimCity and Minecraft as examples of software often used educationally despite not being explicitly designed for schools.
The committee did not vote on H.650 during the session. Unidentified Speaker 1 said witnesses will appear on Friday to discuss the Secretary of State's office and that further questions should be resolved when that testimony is heard. The committee also previewed other agenda items and warned of a crowded schedule in the coming week.
Next steps: the committee will hear witnesses about the Secretary of State's responsibilities on Friday and will continue review of H.650 in subsequent meetings. No formal action was taken during this session.
