Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff outlines national examples and details of proposed Kansas screen‑time bill that did not pass
Summary
Staff told the board that about 40 states have student‑data‑privacy laws, multiple states considered screen limits this year, and Kansas Senate Bill 350 (which did not pass) would have imposed grade‑band restrictions, device limits and parental opt‑in/opt‑out provisions.
Kansas State Board staff presented a national overview on June 8, saying roughly 40 states have student‑data‑privacy laws and that about 16 states introduced legislation this past session to re‑evaluate educational technology; only a handful enacted measures.
Payton summarized examples: Utah has the most prescriptive model, requiring state model policies with age‑based limits for K–3 and tighter restrictions on screen exposure in early grades; Tennessee requires districts to develop age‑appropriate policies that prioritize teacher‑led, non‑electronic materials in early grades and restrict social media access during instructional time.
Payton also described Kansas Senate Bill 350, which was introduced in the recent legislative session but did not advance out of committee. The bill would have:
• Prohibited routine digital device use in kindergarten through grade 5 and required print‑based instruction and assessments in that band; • Banned one‑to‑one device issuance in grades 6–8 (allowing classroom sets instead) and limited such devices to instructional purposes only; • Limited daily instructional device time for older students and restricted homework device time; • Required parental opt‑out/opt‑in for district issuance or take‑home use and mandated parent tracking settings and camera disabling on issued devices; • Required age‑appropriate media literacy instruction.
Board members and staff discussed feasibility and unintended consequences. Several said rapid, broad bans would be difficult for districts that have invested in devices and lack capacity to produce parallel paper alternatives for state assessments; others said a state‑level ban would protect some young children but could harm students who rely on assistive technologies. Members requested staff probe technical feasibility, procurement consequences and the logistics of opt‑in vs opt‑out approaches.
What’s next: staff were asked to compile national examples, evaluate implementation burdens, and return with recommended methods for surveying teachers and parents and for piloting feasible alternatives.
