Education secretary urges bold social-media limits for children, and higher-education transparency, in Senate hearing

Secretary Jenner told the Senate Education and Career Development Committee that Senate Bill 199 aims to protect young Hoosiers from what she called “the largest unregulated experiment ever conducted on young minds,” proposing age-verification and parental-consent rules for social media, new reporting of degree-level earnings and return on investment, higher literacy intervention thresholds and flexibility on accreditation processes.

Jenner said the bill would raise the intervention threshold for literacy supports from a single-year 70 percent trigger to a 75 percent rolling average on the I-Read 3 assessment, and noted philanthropic support (a $40 million Lilly Endowment grant mentioned in committee testimony) to expand literacy supports. She also said the Department of Education would develop civic literacy and engagement metrics for K-12 and higher education and would be allowed to use a small percentage of ESA/CSA program funds to cover administrative costs beginning July 1, 2026.

On social media, Jenner delivered an extended, prepared statement arguing the platforms are engineered for addictiveness and have contributed to rising rates of anxiety, depression and self-harm among children and teens. “We know the data,” she said, warning that middle schools report students fearful to attend after sustained online harassment. Jenner proposed that children 13 and under should not be permitted to have certain social-media accounts and that supervised accounts and parental consent should apply for 14-to-18-year-olds; she acknowledged the state would work with top attorneys to make the approach legally defensible.

Supporters from school leadership, research and advocacy testified to the committee about the daily harms they said stem from social platforms. Cindy Long of the Indiana Association of School Principals told senators that schools cannot shoulder the problem alone and praised language targeting platforms rather than solely imposing school mandates. Brian Ramirez, an assistant principal, described repeated incidents in which online instigation and anonymous accounts escalated to in-school fights, vaping sales and viral challenges that disrupt classrooms. Dr. Adi Angelov, who said his nonprofit surveyed more than 500 Indiana educators and providers, said schools with strong phone and social-media policies showed stronger academic and behavioral outcomes in their data.

By contrast, Samantha Bresenhan of the ACLU of Indiana urged the committee to reject Section 10 of the bill, which imposes broad age verification and parental-consent requirements. Bresenhan said the provision would require Hoosiers to hand over identifying data to create or maintain accounts, burden anonymous speech and risk constitutional challenges; she cited prior litigation in other states and warned blanket consent rules can violate minors' First Amendment rights.

Committee members asked for legal and technical clarification: Tim Cawgreen of the Indiana Bar Foundation and a policy adviser who joined the committee's discussion said similar laws in Arkansas and Utah were enjoined, while a higher-court decision in the Eleventh Circuit on Florida's law (noted in committee discussion) had left that state's approach in effect following a stay. Jenner said she expected technical adjustments and consultation with the state's top attorneys.

The hearing also drew testimony on other SB199 provisions. Witnesses supported degree-path transparency so prospective students and families can evaluate median earnings for specific programs; some speakers urged caution about using earnings as the primary measure of program value. Testimony ranged from urging parental controls and platform accountability to concerns that raising literacy thresholds and expanded reporting could penalize schools serving high-need populations without additional resources.

The committee did not take a final vote on SB199 during the hearing; members closed the record after extensive testimony and questions and moved on to other agenda items.