Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Edtech Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Researcher tells Senate panel H.650 registry is a necessary first step to rein in edtech risks
Summary
Faith Bonninger of the National Education Policy Center told the Senate Education Committee that H.650’s proposed edtech registry and reporting would help schools and families track products, limit data-harvesting harms and create standards for advertising, retention and AI features.
Faith Bonninger, research faculty member at the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder, told the Senate Education Committee that H.650 would provide Vermont with critical information about the digital products used in classrooms and the ways those products collect and use student data.
“Age 650 is a really important step forward in protecting Vermont's children,” Bonninger said, urging the committee to require annual registration and broad disclosures by companies that provide educational products. She described how many districts use dozens or hundreds of different products and noted that some are obtained through click‑through agreements that offer little district control.
Bonninger warned that edtech products often embed pedagogical choices, predictive analytics and proprietary algorithms that can be opaque and may narrow curriculum or introduce biases. “These products...are collecting huge amounts of sensitive data from children as they learn and grow,” she said, noting that so‑called deidentified data can be retained and repurposed indefinitely.
She criticized default national agreements such as the Student Data Privacy Consortium's NDPA for insufficient retention limits and for treating providers as school officials in ways that can mask commercial uses of student data. Bonninger recommended that Vermont’s registry require companies to list products used in schools (including free or trial products), disclose advertising or targeted-marketing features, and consider third‑party certification or expert vetting for privacy and safety claims.
Committee members raised practical concerns about major providers (for example, Google/Chromebooks) and how an annual registry could keep pace with rapid platform changes; Bonninger responded that an annual snapshot is a pragmatic start and that the registry would give districts and parents a better baseline to evaluate tools.
Bonninger offered five draft recommendations in written testimony (annual registration, disclosure of free products and advertising features, broader certification options, AOE reporting and clarity on retention practices) and told the committee that Vermont would be among the first states to require this level of registry detail. Committee members thanked her and asked AOE staff and other experts to advise on implementation.
