Committee advances bill tightening privacy and academic review for instructional software
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The committee adopted and favorably recommended substitutes to SB 2.67, which creates stronger digital privacy agreements, requires independent verification of academic effectiveness for instructional software, and increases transparency and state oversight of vendors and district software lists.
Senator Colmore introduced SB 2.67 to strengthen the state's digital privacy agreement for instructional software used in K‑12 classrooms and to require independent verification of academic effectiveness for software that interacts with students.
The substitute differentiates administrative software from instructional products and requires a more robust Digital Privacy Agreement for vendors whose products engage directly in instruction. The bill calls for a state master list of instructional software, periodic audits of local education agencies and vendors, and corrective actions if compliance problems are found. Senator Colmore said the goal is to ensure software is privacy‑protective, not data‑mining, and demonstrably educational.
Public commenters emphasized concerns about student data mining and screen time: a data scientist (comments read by Liz Jenkins) urged higher quality standards for vendors; parents and educators stressed opt‑in consent, transparency, and the need for tools that measurably improve learning. Becca Kirkman, an online commenter and classroom teacher, asked about statewide options for monitoring student devices and software.
Committee action: Representative Lisonbee offered and the committee accepted a house amendment that broadens protections against advertising exposure; the committee adopted substitutes and voted unanimously to recommend SB 2.67 (second substitute) favorably.
Next steps: The bill advances to the floor; further rulemaking and audit procedures will be required to operationalize vendor verification and statewide reporting.