The Growing Backlash Against Digital Learning Tools

For years, parents and teachers have voiced concerns about the impact of cellphones in the classroom, pushing for bans or restrictions. Yet, the school-issued laptops and tablets—along with the software that powers them—have largely escaped the same level of scrutiny. Now, that dynamic is shifting, as a new wave of criticism targets the vetting process for educational technology (edtech) products. Kim Whitman, co-lead of Smartphone Free Childhood US, previously told EdSurge that "a lot of the issues with personal devices can move to the district-issued devices." She noted that even without smartphones, students can message each other on Chromebooks or via collaborative tools like Google Docs, adding, "There are definitely issues with school-issued devices as well."

This growing unease has led to legislative proposals in three states—Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont—that aim to overhaul how schools choose and approve digital tools. The central concern: no independent body currently verifies that these products are safe, effective, and compliant with privacy laws. Instead, school districts often rely on vendors’ own claims. "There is nobody right now that is confirming these products are safe, effective and legal," Whitman said. "It should not fall on the district’s IT director; it would be impossible for them to do it. And the companies should not be tasked with doing it — that would be like nicotine companies vetting their own cigarettes."

Vermont’s Proposed Legislation: A Detailed Look

Among the three states, Vermont has made the most concrete progress. The bill—titled An act relating to educational technology products—passed the state House on March 27 and is now before the Senate Committee on Education. If enacted, it would require all providers of student-facing edtech products to register annually with the secretary of state and undergo a certification process. Key features include:

• Annual registration with a $100 fee, along with submission of the most recent terms and conditions and privacy policy.
• A certification standard developed by the secretary of state in collaboration with the Vermont Agency of Education.
• Review criteria including: compliance with state curriculum standards, advantages over non-digital methods, explicit educational design, and evaluation of features like artificial intelligence, geotracking, and targeted advertising.

Initial versions of the bill included fines of $50 per day (up to $10,000) for uncertified providers that continue operating, but that language was removed in the final House-passed version. The bill now awaits Senate action.

Why This Matters for Schools and Families

The push for stricter edtech vetting reflects a broader reevaluation of screen time in education. Critics argue that without proper oversight, students may be exposed to data privacy violations, distracting features, or tools that prioritize engagement over learning. Whitman emphasized that the current system places an unfair burden on overworked IT directors, who lack the resources to thoroughly evaluate every product. By establishing a state-level certification process, Vermont hopes to create a consistent standard that protects students while still allowing for innovative digital tools.

What Rhode Island and Utah Are Doing

While Vermont’s bill is the most advanced, similar proposals in Rhode Island and Utah reflect a regional trend. Lawmakers in those states are exploring measures to increase transparency and require independent reviews of edtech products. Although details vary, all three initiatives share the goal of moving away from self-policing by vendors and toward third-party oversight.

As the debate over screen time continues to evolve, the spotlight on edtech vetting is likely to intensify. For parents and educators who have long worried about the effects of digital devices on children’s attention, privacy, and well-being, these legislative efforts offer a potential path forward—one that balances the benefits of technology with the need for accountability.