Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good morning, everyone. This is the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Thursday, 02/26/2026 at 09:07 in the morning. And so we're beginning our day today with h six fifty. Accurately Educational Technology Products. Siegel is our legislative counsel who is going to walk us through the draft. Good morning, Rick. Thanks for joining us.

[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. How's everyone? It's wonderful.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: So as

[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the chair said, age six fifty, you should have, and I'll pull up on the screen, draft 2.1 of a proposed committee amendment. Just to get a bit of a refresher, this is the bill that would regulate educational technology products in the state. This draft has a fairly significant change from the bill that was introduced. The bill that was introduced would have required certification in the statute itself. It had language about Cameron versus AOE or Secretary of State actually going through that certification process. That has now been moved to a study, you'll see here in a second. But I do wanna go over the language that has changed since the last draft. Okay. So on page one, only one addition, adding the phrase in Vermont. Just to clarify that the products we are looking to regulate must be used in a school in Vermont, if that wasn't clear. Page two, an update to the definition of a provider of an educational technology product.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: So, because we have money that goes outside of our state, right? For some schools, there's like very few schools.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: It's time limited, I think, because it's people who are currently in school, but no more students can go after this current school search.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: So it's because of seven.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Because of x seven. So it's pretty limited. Okay. It's way more limited than it ever has.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: Just want to make sure Vermont kids are safe.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: That's part of the problem when we send money across borders is we can't control that. We can't ensure anything about their education.

[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Submission two, the definition of provider of an educational technology product. A new sentence was added and you'll see why in a little bit. You'll see that the main definition stays the same. Second sentence, a provider shall utilize geolocation and IP address tracking technologies to determine whether one of its contract free products is being used in the school. And I'll kind of get back to that here in a second as to why that's some type of language would be recommended for that.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I'll keep that in the definition.

[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There might be a better place we can talk about that. But so let me say the reason that's there is because providers oftentimes have free products that schools use and the provider may not even know that one of their products being used by one teacher in the school. So, but that provider would still need to register with the state even if it's a free product. So, that language is meant to require those providers, the technologies out there to see where your products are being used. And they should utilize those technologies to determine if one of its free products is being used in a school in Vermont that they don't have a contract with.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper]: And yeah, maybe that language can

[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be moved. I thought that it made sense there, but happy to talk about other places. Okay, the registration piece. This was updated to reflect the data broker H two eleven definition that you all have kind of moved towards. The introduced version had that thirty days after it becomes a provider of EdTech. This is now same thing, thirty days of becoming a EdTech provider, but then also once annually on

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: or before July 1. So that matches the H two eleven language there. Again, it's open if

[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you wanna change it, that's completely up to you all. The fee was 50 no. Sorry. 100. But you also that was based on the data broker language. It was increased to 500. I think two eleven has it at 900. So again, that's open to committee debates what that number should be. Add in the phrase a link on line 17 to their privacy policy in case they don't have a PDF to upload it, they can just link it. It should be on their website. So a link to the privacy policy. C is new or restructured language. And this, again, this is during the registration process. They must provide this information. The name of each school or school district in which the provider is operating into a contract. D, the name and brief description of each product operated by the provider. And e, which products are known by the provider to be in use in any school or school district. So this is where the language, the geolocation tracking language is important. So maybe you could put it here. Again, that's the purpose is to so they can complete the e sub

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper]: subdivision. Just a quick question. If Go ahead, John. Pursuant to a contract, is there a contract if the only product if the free versions of the product's being used?

[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To me, no. They may have agreed to terms of use, but to me that's not a contract. I think that's fairly straightforward. The two parties haven't really met and discussed terms, they just agreed to the terms.

[Rep. Michael Boutin]: In the registration criteria, says the name of each school or school district in which providers operating pursuant to a contract. But what if they haven't yet and they're looking to maybe begin to maybe I've got an educational product and I haven't sold it to anyone yet and I want to go and solicit to the schools. I wouldn't know that.

[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you you could put none or you wanna say if any, that that language can be put in there. But I think the secretary of state would have a category that says none or NA. That's that's my view.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: Does or or would this apply to homeschoolers?

[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That so this the definition of school, I don't believe includes in the 16 VSA one sixty six, I don't believe, but Beth St. James might be who's coming in later. You may want to ask her about that definition. So, then we go to subdivision four on line five, page three. It must also attest that each product being used in a school meets the standard set forth in the Vermont Age Appropriate Design Code Act. And I don't have it pulled up, but if you want, you can see there are several requirements that, in that case, entities must meet as far as design practices, data privacy practices. So that is going to be law 01/01/2027. So, you know, there would be a little bit of a gap in time as to if this was effective 07/01/2026. So we can talk about that, but there was discussion about having that be just clear that you also need to meet these standards that this Vermont's already passed into law. As well as the any other state and federal privacy laws, if Vermont ever passes some kind of data privacy act or if the federal government ever passes some kind of additional child privacy protections, they must also attest that they are meeting those standards as well. So penalties, just that intro language updated, a person that fails to register, that fails to provide all required information, or that provides incorrect information. The penalties stay the same so far. Skip to the next page, adding the word enforcement, but the actual language in that paragraph didn't change. So section two is brand new. This was a previously the statute that would require certification and how that looked, how that worked. That's been converted to a study, that the AOE will work with the secretary of state on. So the task is to consult with the Secretary of State AOE and they shall review all of the registrations pursuant to this registry. So if this is effective 07/01/2026, you would start having some data come in, AOE would look at the registrants and they would see, okay, we have however many are registering to see how many have actually registered. To create this list of products and use across schools after consulting with schools and then cross referencing the list of registrants with the list of products being used to determine the names of any unregistered educational tech providers, provide operating the state, and then forward those names to the office of the attorney general who has enforcement in this law. Four, provide a recommendation as to how the state should certify EdTech products for use in schools. So again, previously, this was just they would develop this on their own with state legislative kind of guidance. At this point now, they would be in the study report recommending how this is to be done. A, which state entities should be involved in the certification process and to what extent? The criteria to be considered in the certification process, which the minimum shall include. This comes straight word for word from the previous bill was introduced. These are things that the bill had in it as far as this is what the certification should be. So I'll read them, but they were in the introduced bill. The product's compliance with state curriculum standards, advantages of using the product compared with non digital methods, whether the product was explicitly designed for educational use, design features of the product, including geolocation tracking, use of AI, targeted advertising, personalized recommendation systems, access to adults unknown to a student, and features that would lead to compulsive use, as well as the data privacy practices of the provider of the product. The timeline needed to establish and implement the certification process and whether any third party services, including Internet Safety Labs should be utilized to assist in the certification. And finally, the study, provide the general assembly with any other information it deems relevant to help ensure that educational technology products are safely and smartly used in Vermont schools. The report will be due on or before 11/15/2027 to this committee and the Senate Economic Development Committee. Maybe you wanna add the education committees if you wanna do this with its findings and information gathered pursuant to subsection a, along with any recommendations for legislative action concerning the certification of educational technology products. Okay. Any questions?

[Rep. Michael Boutin]: I would just want to, to Kirk's point, I really think we need to have chiropractor homeschool. I don't think a parent that's being homeschooled should have to go through all this, nor do I think that they should have to register the curriculum. And the reason I say that is there are curriculums out there where there's only five people in the entire state that use it. And it's bad enough paying for this curriculum. So, $106,100, and then to add a $500 charge on top of it.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: I don't think it covers homeschool.

[Rep. Michael Boutin]: Okay. I just want to make sure it's clear that if you're selling educational curriculum to homeschool parents, that they should be exempt. That should be out of be carved out.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Well

[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So they confirm, but yeah, understood. Yeah.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: So following up on that, we have our flexible pathways and specifically Vermont being cooperative. It's the flexible pathway that allows for online learning. That would not affect this. This would not affect that either. Correct?

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: So this is designed for education technology that is used in a classroom to ensure that any tech product follows appropriate rules and is actually designed to educate students and provides that educational support.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: Right.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: The Vermont

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: Learning Cooperative, we know what it's

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Anyway,

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: they Virtual Learning Cooperative.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: It's online school. And if they use it, then they would have to probably ensure that any product that they use is registered, if they're using EdTech as part of their online classroom. It's an online classroom.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: It's an online classroom, but that would not affect using the computer for the online portion. Yeah.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. This is software. This is education technology software.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: Okay. I just want to make sure that is not affected because that definitely would be a concern. Thank you for bringing that up. And whether or not we write in specific, but I don't know if we need to write it in.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, if they use a platform, it could impact it. That would be the only thing, depending on what kind of

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: if it's yeah. So we may want to bring them in to find out if they do use a platform, just because they're if they are preferred vendor, for lack of a word.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: So this isn't stopping a vendor from registering with the state. This is just telling anybody who is an education technology software or platform that there are minimum standards for you to show us or to attest to that you follow in order to be used in Vermont. Yeah, we can bring them in, absolutely.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: I just want to make sure that we're not affecting I didn't see where it would because when I'm looking at this, I'm thinking of public schools, like brick and mortar public schools. But if there's any potential of affecting those virtual schools, then we probably should write in there an exception on that just in case.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: So that they shouldn't have to follow the minimum safety standards and make their products safe for kids.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: That was not the best way to say that to me.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: I'm trying to speak to them.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Why would they be accepted?

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: And I don't know much about homeschooling, so except for I actually am a big proponent of it. So I think it's very good. I just want to make sure that we're not affecting them because it's actually working when it comes to education. And we could disagree on that.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: If you're talking about the on virtual learning, it's a certified school with Correct. So that would be covered here.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: Right. But as he said, a homeschool who uses like a Becca Books, which is down in Florida, they have a homeschooling curriculum. I don't think that they use education technology. They've So

[Rick Siegel (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I don't think homeschool is gonna be included. So we're talking about schools which are defined 16 VSA ones. You know what? Let's just take a look here. So again, St. James knows this better than I, but we can look at the definition of what we use here, the cross reference to 01/1966. So as we're talking if this is approved independent schools, must be seemingly approved by the state board. Which virtual learning would be an independent school. Are

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: you talking about virtual learning or homeschooling?

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: We'll do homeschooling first. I I don't think that and I I might be wrong, but I'm not sure there's much, like, structure around homeschooling. To my knowledge, it's So there is some. Right. There's some, but I don't know if there's a lot. It's There's not.

[Rep. Michael Boutin]: That's by design, because the point is, if a parent wants to educate their child, you know, what we have to do is, we have to send a letter to the Secretary of Education or someone over there that says we're going to homeschool. And then there's a certain criteria that we need to meet. Like what I remember with my kids is drug education. And we basically give them an outline of what we're going to teach and then they either approve it or they don't. And if they don't, they tell you why it's not approved. You also need to make sure you have a letter from a doctor saying your child doesn't have any issues that may prevent them. They need some extra help. And when the when the day, when the year is over, either A, can have a licensed teacher sign off on the work or you can send it to the Secretary of Education and they'll sign off on it. Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It seems like within this structure, this is about the companies that are fostering the technology. So in the case of a virtual school, unless they have a proprietary platform, it's going to be the vendors that they use that would need to register.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: I suspect that Vermont Virtual Learning does have their own platform, but it's designed specifically for education and AOE has approved it. So I don't know why I'm getting all fussy about it. And then if it doesn't apply to homeschool, doesn't apply to home study, that's not an issue. So I'm just running my mouth for no reason.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think if there are software developers in Vermont that are working in EdTech, they would have to follow-up with the Registrarate Clinic.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: But they wouldn't have a problem with that, I'm sure, because they already go through whatever hoops they have to do just to get to a point where their path works.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So our schools are not overly

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: cooperative for that. It's a whole different story. There's a bill on that. I'm done. I worked through it. I'm sorry.

[Rep. Michael Boutin]: You're good?

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: No worries.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Any more questions for Rick?

[Rep. Michael Boutin]: Thank you.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good morning.

[Rep. Michael Boutin]: We're not hearing you.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Sorry.

[Rep. Michael Boutin]: There you go.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: Good

[Lisa LeVasseur (Founder & Research Director, Internet Safety Labs)]: morning. Hi, everyone. One second here. Thank you, Chair Marcotte and Vice Chair Greening and committee members. I'm happy to be here again. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the amended H H650 and also answer any questions from the committee. I think as you know I'm Lisa Levasser, founder and research director of Internet Safety Labs. We are a non profit, non partisan, independent digital product safety testing organization. As far as I know the first and only one of its kind that has this kind of scope. I only have a few comments on the revised bill and for those of you who know me the first one will come as no surprise that definition that the added language in the definition of provider of an educational technology product that we just saw with the you know the the obligation to track geolocation of users. Later in the bill in that section for the report that the agency of education is going to produce it actually calls out geolocation tracking as a risk. So on one hand you're mandating it as a measure to identify the off the shelf technologies that are being used in the state and on the other hand you're flagging it rightfully as a risk to students. So geolocation which is really the conversion of the IP address to a course location, we also flag that as a risk. So So I do understand the need for the state and the manufacturers to really know if their contract free products are being used by students in Vermont, but I would encourage the state to maybe explore other options to try to try to manage that without mandating location surveillance. That would be my comment there. Some considerations for the report in section two one is a little bit of a reinforcement from my earlier comments. The use of artificial intelligence really needs a much much more precise breakdown and I imagine that will be an undertaking of the report itself. But I just really want to emphasize that artificial intelligence is a buzzword, it's a marketing phrase, you really need to break it down to concrete software behaviors that you're interested in that can be measured. That's the important thing. So just wanted to underscore the need for that and then the there's an item called targeted advertising and I didn't say this before and I should have. We regularly find traffic to advertising platforms, data brokers, identity resolution platforms, customer data platforms, all of that, a lot of it that does not correlate to the appearance of an actual advertisement in the app. This is really quite an important thing to be aware of. So when they get to this item you might really want to go more deep than just the appearance of advertising because there is a lot of communication and a lot of information student information being passed to advertising and marketing platforms that isn't mapped to the appearance of an advertisement. And I'll just underscore it I think you all know this but we are available and all of our online resources are available to the agency of education as resources to ensure that whatever comes out of that certification from a safety perspective again we are not we are not at all weighing in on educational effectiveness or efficacy. We have nothing to add to that But in terms of overall digital product safety for children and adults, but also children, we have, you know, several years experience and an enormous amount body of work to to offer to have more precision to that will result in something that is measurable and enforceable. Some other general comments that I will say the question of the terms of service it it the terms of service is a contract. It is not with the state or the district of course but for the off the shelf technologies that there that contract is between the user and the manufacturer and I'm certain that manufacturers will tell you that it is a binding contract even though it is click, you know, contract of adhesion, frankly. But they will tell you it is a contract. So, but but it is between the user and the manufacturer. So, it's completely outside of the state. You know, like the state really in the in the district and the school has nothing to do with that. It's the individual saying, yep, I wanna create an account and I abide by your terms of service. So, that's just a clarification on that.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Sorry Lisa where was that? Can you?

[Lisa LeVasseur (Founder & Research Director, Internet Safety Labs)]: So this is just in general like terms of service in general for off the shelf technologies than the you know the what do you call it? Contract free the contract free products. There are terms of service. Those are contracts and they are between the individual user and the manufacturer. They are understood to be contracts.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Yes.

[Lisa LeVasseur (Founder & Research Director, Internet Safety Labs)]: They need to be tested frankly in a court of law because I think that there are several criteria of contract law. I am not a lawyer but I've spent a lot of time in this space. I think there are several criteria about being informed that are impossible to meet. So but they have not been tested in the way that I think they should be tested. So just a point of clarification on the nature of those contracts. The other thing I want to just underscore is attestation by the manufacturer has been historically ineffective and that's why these certifications that you have the different and I understand them broadly in two different categories of certification I think they're really important and sorry it's early here you're first time I'm using my voice this morning. I also wanted to mention that Utah State Board of Education has quite a lot of experience and actually sense making of the ed tech in their states and putting some general guidelines around the districts and the obligations of what the schools need to do. So if I can facilitate anything there if your if your agency of education would like to have an introduction or I I don't you may be already connected but they're really have done some good work there and they also have an ed tech bill a similar ed tech bill currently in under review in their state legislation. And it also has the two sort of two types of certification educational effectiveness and overall technology safety. And it's really important to have both of those as you do and you're contemplating in yours. Because they're totally different disciplines. They're different expertise. And like I keep underscoring, we have no expertise in educational effectiveness. That is not we are software experts. And we have a we have enormous expertise in the safety side. But so so I also understand that California and Texas are also working on similar bills so I just raised that to you as information. And that's really all I have to say today, unless there are questions.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Any questions, Felicia? So Lisa, I just have one question. On the free applications and software, 100% agree. I know that the geolocation is being used. I know that the ID addresses can be seen. Is there a better way to loop them in to make sure that we have them covered under the same law. And I can look at what Utah has done. I haven't

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: checked that.

[Lisa LeVasseur (Founder & Research Director, Internet Safety Labs)]: Yeah, I don't know that Utah has solved this particular issue. I haven't fully absorbed their revised bill. The last bill I saw actually didn't address the off the shelf stuff. So I knew you're gonna ask me this, and I don't have a great answer.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: That's fine. Just knowing there isn't a great answer is an answer.

[Lisa LeVasseur (Founder & Research Director, Internet Safety Labs)]: Yeah. I mean, like one thing I think about is like proactively auditing the technology and assessing you know, some level of compliance with the certification criteria. I mean, off the shelf stuff likely is not it's it's educational light in a way like a lot of times it's educational games. It's that sort of thing. So so maybe they even need different criteria for the educational effectiveness. I I don't know I'm spitballing here. Really this needs greater deeper thinking, but I I do think like possibly just proactively understanding who's complying and and making that instead of having to do the surveillance, know, like rather just ensuring and certifying technologies as viable for the state. And I I don't know, something like that maybe would be better.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper]: Yeah. Other questions for Lisa?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Hey, Lisa. Thank you. Travis?

[Travis Gilley (Executive Director, Real Safety AI Foundation)]: Yes, hello.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good morning.

[Rep. Michael Boutin]: Monique. How are you? Good.

[Travis Gilley (Executive Director, Real Safety AI Foundation)]: All right. Notes here. All right. Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Greening, and members of the committee. My name is Travis Gilley. I'm the Executive Director of the Real Safety AI Foundation, an AI safety ethics and literacy nonprofit. I use assistive technology every day to communicate and process information. For me, it's not optional in that same relationship wheelchair user has with the wheelchair. I homeschooled my son for five years. He's currently in a special separate education program, a special education program. I navigated the education system as a disabled student myself. I navigated it again as a parent of one. I'm not here representing any company. No one's paying me to be here. I just saw a gap in the testimonies that I couldn't stay quiet about. I want to acknowledge that draft 2.1 addresses some significant concerns at the introduced version. Moving from immediate certification to a study with a reporting deadline is a meaningful structural improvement. The study criteria in section two will shape whatever certification system Vermont eventually builds. And several of those criteria, if carried forward unchanged, will create serious problems for students with disabilities. I'd like to walk you through what I see in the study criteria, not in the registration system, but I think is a reasonable step, but in the criteria that will define certification down the road. The study criteria include evaluating advantages of using the product compared with non digital methods. For a neurotypical student, maybe a physical textbook works just as well as a digital one. For a child with cerebral palsy, there's no non digital equivalent. For a non verbal child, there's no non digital AAC device. For a student with dyslexia, there's no non digital text to speech. If this criterion carries forward in certification, it structurally disadvantages assistive technology because it frames digital tools as optional alternatives rather than necessities with no analog equivalent. The study criteria flags features that would lead to compulsive use as a design feature concern. I understand why that language is here, but for an ADHD student, gamification is a dopamine delivery mechanism. ADHD is at its core, at its neurological core, a dopamine regulation disorder. Gamification increases dopamine and serotonin release. Does that for what attention it does for attention what a ramp does for a wheelchair. The FDA has authorized a video game as prescription treatment for ADHD Endeavor Rx cleared in 2020, Endeavor OTC cleared in 2024. Published in The Lancet Digital Health. The line between compulsive use and effective engagement for a neurodivergent pseudian is not obvious. And if the study doesn't account for that distinction, the certification it recommends won't either. The criteria also flag personalized recommendation systems. That is how adaptive learning works. The software adjust content based on how the student interacts with it. For a student with an IEP, personalized recommendations aren't a design concern, they are the accommodation. If the study treats personalization as inherently suspect, it will produce certification criteria that conflict how IEP mandated tools function. Similarly, the criteria flag the use of artificial intelligence. AI is not a risk category, it is a tool category. AI powers text to speech, speech to text adaptive learning platforms and communication devices for nonverbal students. Flagging AI overall as design concern without distinguishing between exploitative uses and assistive uses will produce recommendations that sweep assistive technologies into the same bucket as targeted advertising. I'd also like this committee to consider the $500 registration fee for large EdTech companies, that's nothing. For a small company that builds specialized AAC apps used by a few 100 nonverbal students nationwide, 500 per state adds up fast. Small assistive technology providers operate on thin margins because the market is small by definition. That flat fee is invisible to Google, but it's a barrier to the company that builds tools for nonverbal childs. This committee has heard testimony citing that well over 95% of EdTech products have no evidence base. That statistic is measuring the wrong thing. It measures whether individual products have run their own clinical trials. Most haven't, that's true, but the methodologies those products implement have been studied exhaustively. Computer supported collaborative learning, meta analysis that had four twenty five studies over 11,000 participants, effect sizes ranging from 42 to 89. Gamification in K to 12, effect size of 78, nearly double that of most pharmaceutical interventions. Universal Design for Learning or UDL, 20 studies showing benefits for all learners, not just disabled students. The evidence exists, it just doesn't live at the product level, it lives at the methodology level. The National Disability Rights Network's managing attorney has said that these bans stop an IEP team from considering a full range of options. I'm not asking you to kill the bill. The registration systems are reasonable first step. I'm asking you to ensure that the study criteria account for assistive technology and disability from the beginning and not as an afterthought. Specifically, I'd ask that the study be required to consult with disability rights organizations and special education experts that the non digital comparison criteria include exception for tools that have no non digital equivalent. That compulsive use be defined in a way that distinguishes between exploitative engagement and therapeutic engagement for neurodivergent students and that personalized recommendation systems and AI be evaluated based on their function, not flagged as inherently risky. This committee has heard from no disability rights organizations as of last meeting.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Oh, you're on speaker.

[Travis Gilley (Executive Director, Real Safety AI Foundation)]: Oh, I'm back. Okay. All right. So, as of February 6, there were no education experts, no students. The study is where the real decisions will be made. If disability isn't at the table for the study, it won't be in the recommendations. And if it's not in the recommendations, the certification system Vermont Builds will have the same problems that I'm describing today. Every issue I've raised has a specific fix. I'd like to submit them in writing to the committee. If I'm not asking, I'm asking you just not to build a certification system that puts the next student like me in a queue with no accommodations. Yeah, that's it. Thank you.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Travis, thank you. That was incredibly helpful. And I took a lot of notes from your testimony. I appreciate that perspective. Looking at how we bring it in, I completely agree that assistive technology should not be limited through this. As long as it's assistive, as long as it's providing the appropriate supports, as long as it's not exploiting student information, all of that, it makes perfect sense. So, you.

[Rep. Michael Boutin]: Appreciate

[Travis Gilley (Executive Director, Real Safety AI Foundation)]: it. Thank you for your time.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper]: Jonathan? Hi. Travis, something that you'd said that caught my attention was, I believe, if I can paraphrase it correctly, that the line between, that in gamification, there's a line between something that is enhancing learning and something that becomes compulsive using that line is murky. Do I have that right? If so, where is that research today and who is undertaking that?

[Travis Gilley (Executive Director, Real Safety AI Foundation)]: So currently one of the meta analysis that I mentioned, and I have given you all the references ahead of time, mentioned that gamification helps both neurotypical students and neurodivergent students like overall. But you're right about the distinction being something that doesn't exactly have a good definition between something that's addictive and something that is actually helping. That would need to be, I guess, studied further. But as of right now, I don't think there's really a distinction. Although I personally have thoughts about the problematic usage of the term addiction. I just think that it leads to a legal loophole that people might not be considering as far as ADA accommodations.

[Rep. Michael Boutin]: Thank you. Questions for Travis?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Travis, if you would send us your written testimony, that would be great too.

[Travis Gilley (Executive Director, Real Safety AI Foundation)]: Yes, I'll do that as soon as I say it's complete.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Perfect, thank you.

[Rep. Michael Boutin]: Andrew?

[Andrew Liddell (EdTech Law Center)]: Hi. Good morning. My name is Andrew. How how are you all? Thank you for inviting me today. And apologies I couldn't make the first session. I have some prepared remarks, and I'm happy to answer any questions at the end. So thanks again for having me today. I'm Andrew Liddell of the EdTech Law Center. We're a consumer protection law firm in Austin, Texas that was founded by my wife, Julie, and I to solve problems where school needs technology and to help protect kids' privacy rights and safety at school on their school devices. I'm not being paid to be here today. H650 is an important step in ensuring transparency and accountability for the education technology that has taken over the K-twelve classroom. Over the past fifteen years and counting, the EdTech industry has preyed on the public's inherent trust in schools and educators' well founded concerns about preparing students for the future to cynically pump schools full of technology that does not keep students safe, does not help them learn, and flagrantly violates their privacy rights. Compared to the robust vetting process that supports curriculum adoption, where subject matter experts and everyday citizens alike have a chance to weigh in and which is conducted in full view of the public, EdTech adoption has been ad hoc, cloaked in secrecy, and driven by Big Tech's desire to hook students young and create customers for life. As a result, students' privacy rights are being invisibly invaded daily by the products they're forced to use to receive the education that they're legally entitled to. Flagrantly distorting federal laws that are meant to protect children's privacy rights online and student records while in school, the EdTech industry asserts that under COPPA, companies are schools, and that under FERPA, schools or parents, so that no consent or disclosure is required to begin pervasively data mining children as early as kindergarten. And I'd be happy to discuss these distortions further if if you'd like. As bad or worse, students are experiencing acute harms through their school mandated computers. Most common is pervasive distraction, which is an obvious result when Google, a company that makes money by observing users' web activity, is given free rein to shape the classroom environment with laptops that serve its bottom line. So when a kid spends all day watching YouTube instead of paying attention to math class, he's not misusing his Chromebook, he's using it as Google designed it. At the other end of the spectrum are the harms that follow when young children are served violent or pornographic content in response to innocent search queries, or when adult strangers contact children through school devices that their parents assume are safe, or may not even know connect to the Internet at all. And these are clients of mine. I'm happy to tell you about those cases in more detail if if you'd like. Internal Google documents recently unsealed in the social media lawsuits, so not in litigation I've been involved with and publicly available, show that Google has, for many years, viewed schools as a way to grow its base of young users of Google products and young viewers of YouTube. Google executives have known for just as long that the administrative tools that well intentioned IT school IT personnel use to try and keep kids safe online and on task are trivially easy for students to bypass. They just thought it wasn't worth the effort to improve them. I have some of these documents open here in front of me, and I'm happy to share them at the end of my prepared remarks. It would be one thing if EdTech were like steroids, and these serious side effects accompanied remarkable gains in academic performance. So there was a serious cost benefit discussion to be had. But student outcomes in math, science, and reading have fallen every year since 2012, when one to one programs began being implemented in earnest, erasing fifty years of progress in public education in The United States. Somewhat darkly ironically, kids are even less computer literate now than they were in 2018, despite spending a lot more of their lives and time in front of a computer. Digital learning platforms that may show positive results in lab settings, in industry funded studies, they consistently fail to deliver when used in real school by real kids. And that's not to say it's impossible to educate children using digital devices, only that it hasn't seriously been tried. H650 is an important first step in ensuring that any device or program that comes into the classroom is shown to be safe, legal, and effective before it's ever used by a student. These are sensible requirements that parallel the safety and efficacy standards of everything else in the school environment. And to my mind, it's long past time for big tech to play by the same rules as the companies that make textbooks, desk, paint on the walls, the insulation within them, and the playground equipment that all these companies must obey. A final comment, specifically about the amended bill under section 2444B subsection C about enforcement, leaving the enforcement to the attorney general only. I would encourage the committee to provide some type of private right of action, whether it's even a backstop where, know, think about a complaint is made to the attorney general. If no action is taken within a year, then a private lawyer may act because what I've seen in my practice is these federal laws with no private right of action have gone under enforced for twenty five years, which has led to the rise of this essentially unregulated exploitative industry in schools. And so with that, thank you for inviting me to speak today, and I'd love to answer any questions you have.

[Rep. Michael Boutin]: Thank you, Andrew. Michael?

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: Andrew, so I've been told about illegal activity happening

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: in schools

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: on the issued devices. But can you speak on that?

[Andrew Liddell (EdTech Law Center)]: I can. I can. So if you think about the worst possible things that can happen to a kid on the Internet, those things are happening to a kid on the Internet at school. Because what's you know, the platforms they use by and large are Google Chromebooks, and by and large, they're open portals to the Internet. Google has admitted as much in filings and arguments in in my own lawsuits. And let's get specific though. The types of things that we're talking about are unwanted contact from adults to children. And if you're aware of the Roblox lawsuits that are currently happening, there is a pattern, and there is, you know, as crazy as it sounds, there is a network of people who try to exploit children and share tips online for how to do it. And so they go to these, you know, unregulated platforms or platforms that people think are safe, but that have a communication function like Roblox. And this is a client of mine, this happened too as well. Go on Roblox, whether that's at the school, know, so the kids on Roblox, school thinks it's safe, parents thinks it's safe, they think it's educational, there's this communication function. When, you know, an adult predator goes on there and starts befriending a student user and pretending they're another kid, whatever it is, and they say, hey, know, now that we're friends, let's go over to Discord or Telegram. These are other communications applications that are end to end encrypted, and they don't maintain logs, and so there's no evidence of of the criminal activity. And there, they begin, you know, engaging these children in this in this manipulative relationship, eventually encouraging them to share naked pictures of themselves, try and meet up in person. So these things have happened. My clients so far fortunately have been near misses, but we know from these Roblox lawsuits that other kids haven't been so fortunate. And the danger with these school issued devices is we're all kind of habituated to think that if it comes from school, it's safe. If it comes from school, somebody's gotta be looking out for this because that's how everything else in school is. Right? It's like we have textbooks, like I said, that take a long time to get the content within them approved. We've got standards for the type of paint you can use. It can't be toxic lead paint anymore. You can't put asbestos into schools. The physical devices and products that are in school, there's been more than a century of consumer products regulation around what a safe school bus looks like, what a safe desk looks like for the age of the kid, what safe playground equipment looks like. Well, there's none of that when it comes to what a safe computer for a young student is. And so we're all living in this false sense of security that at least somebody's got their hand on the tiller. Well, they don't. And so essentially what we're doing, what we have to assume is that when you give a kid a computer at school, you're giving them access to the open Internet, and you're giving the Internet open access to them. Through my work, I've been in contact with the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, which is a task force of US law enforcement that is devoted to preventing and solving internet crimes against children. And another unfortunate aspect of this is that since COVID, online crimes against kids have skyrocketed, but we don't have the evidence that we need or the rigorous study of, we talk about internet crimes, but at the end of the internet, there is a computer and in front of the computer, is a kid. What we don't have is where did that computer come from? Is that a device that the parents bought for the kid and gave to them? Is it something that child obtained themselves? Or is it something that the school gave to them? We just don't have that information yet. I've been encouraging anyone who will listen that this is an area worthy of study. We don't have that, but we do know that the internet is not safe for kids, it's not designed to be, and there are people who are intentionally out there trying to exploit children, and can succeed. And it doesn't have to happen, it doesn't have to be this way.

[Rep. Kirk White (Ranking Member)]: And how would you address people that would say that we shouldn't why we should not blame students if they come across harmful content?

[Andrew Liddell (EdTech Law Center)]: Oh, I think students aren't to blame at all. These things are being thrust in their faces. I think let's take a big step back. These aren't kids that are sneaking out of school and walking down the street to go to the sex shop, for example. These are kids who are in the library and go to their the kids section of the library and open a book that they think has to do with, you know, something that they're interested in and they they open it up and all of a sudden, it's full of violence and pornography, right? Because they are not in control of the algorithm. The algorithm feeds information to children. And so when you've got clients like mine, who for example, are curious about, an animated character that they like. And then it leads to they do a Google search. And then they continue to search, and then that leads to pornography involving that character. And then that leads to pornography involving real adults. This happens, and this isn't the kid's fault. And it's also not a problem for kids to be curious about their body and about their changing lives and social dynamics. In a physical library that is curated by professional librarians, you're not going to run across Hustler magazine, which isn't to say that there's not a place for Hustler magazine in our society. It's just, I think we can all agree it's not in a library of an elementary school. And so kids are really at the mercy of these opaque search algorithms and content surfacing algorithms. They really have no control over. And we also think about the school environment being one where you have to go, and it is a controlled environment. You don't get free rein. You have to be there, and you have to kind of stay on task and do what you wanna do, or to do what you're supposed to do in order to get an education. That's what we've societally decided is good for kids. And so a computer can't be just like a way to get out of school, because the point is you're supposed to be there for your own benefit and really for all of our benefit.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Other questions for Andrew? Andrew, thank you very much.

[Andrew Liddell (EdTech Law Center)]: Thank you all.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper]: Patricia. Yes.

[Patricia Agner (Technology Director, Rutland City Public Schools)]: Good morning.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Members

[Renee Boutin (Director of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: of My the

[Patricia Agner (Technology Director, Rutland City Public Schools)]: name is Patricia Agner, and I serve as a technology director at the Rutland City Public Schools in Vermont. I'm also a Vermont parent of a child who has attended school here, and this is my thirty first year in education. In that time, I've worked as a middle school teacher, a kindergarten through five tech coach, and a technology director. I'm licensed as a kindergarten through six teacher, middle school teacher, principal, and superintendent in Vermont. And I appreciate the opportunity to discuss age six fifty. I want to thank you for considering how we can best protect students from a consumer safety perspective. It's essential work, and I appreciate the facts that all the experts have brought to bear on this topic. I do wanna share a bit about our software implementation process, which is very similar to the information Jeff Wallace shared with you. It's really nice to see consistency across state systems, and it's not uncommon for technology directors to adopt the same practices as a result of our collaborative work on student data privacy through the AOE, COSEN, and VitalLearn, our ISTE ASCD affiliate. So how do we how do we select software? In our district, the vetting process starts with the experts closest to the students, our teachers, department heads, and curriculum specialists. We choose software based on specific academic goals. In our schools, decisions are made by professional licensed staff based on content expertise. So what does this intake process look like? Who and how? I wanna take you through a typical software implementation cycle. We have established clear entry points for our new technology requests. So who can initiate a request while a classroom teacher, a curriculum specialist focused on math, ELA science or another subject departments such as world language or technology, CTE teachers or directors requesting technical reviews for industry tools, school administrators or principals, and district leadership, including assistant superintendents or special ed directors. How does the process start? Well, sometimes staff emails the tech director directly and asks for guidelines. Sometimes they submit a help desk ticket regarding the process. Then we ask them to complete a formal request form to document the age of the students, the purpose of the software, much more. Once the request is made, we connect with our principals and assistant superintendent so that they can guide the process from an educational perspective, determine if there's a need for the software, if the software is critical and not redundant, and decide if we should pursue a data privacy agreement. Sometimes the agreement already exists for Vermont, and sometimes they don't. If they do, we leverage the work completed by other school systems by adding their agreement to our portal. And our process is very much like the process Jeff Wallace explained on February 6, and it covers many of the areas found in the bill. So I wanna share with you too that it's a collaborative process. So once a request is made, it follows a specific multilayered flowchart to ensure curricular and environmental fit, Data privacy, account management, budgetary and funding considerations. We purchase very little new software as a district. If a software solution is not a good fit, we actively consider replacing it, But in general, very little new software is purchased at the district level. In fact, we've spent the post COVID era weeding out vast amounts of free duplicative software offered by vendors. After all, nothing is truly free, and that's why we have a vetting process. So what might it look like in that collaborative workflow? Well, at the teacher level, the teacher might make the request, the department reviews it, then the principal, then the assistant superintendent. Then it comes to technology, and we, do our technical review and data process, agreement creation. At the school departmental level, it might look like a school department, then it goes to the principal, the assistant superintendent, and then technology department review and data processing agreement creation. At the curriculum level, it might be content specialists or coaches, and then it goes to a committee, like a content committee, and it might be a year long study. Then it goes to the assistant superintendent and onto technology and a DPA creation. It can come from the principal to the assistant superintendent with that same workflow or from the assistant superintendent to technology. Something else to consider is that in schools in general across Vermont, our safety nets are more robust than ever. So in talking to IT directors around the state, the majority of us, leverage that legal protection, the student data privacy consortium, which, again, Jeff discussed in detail, which so I won't. And we signed those national data privacy agreements that were edited for Vermont. This includes things like district ownership of data, the right to audit vendors, much more. These are renewed and reviewed regularly with beginning and end dates, in the portal. We actively monitor in schools. School districts around Vermont use tools like GoGuardian Teacher or Hepara for instructional management to provide teachers with data on how technology is being used, allowing them to manage screen time in real time. Teachers can see if students are on task or if they're in the wrong place and correct it without singling students out and embarrassing them. They can also consider engagement data and time spent online across these software products and other software tools. School districts in Vermont use single sign on for security, and, they use products like Clever or ClassLink for a software launch pad and single sign on, and some products collect engagement usage and other data. And then we filter in schools. So, schools use products like GoGuardian and Securly, and these allow schools to filter on the go in addition to firewalls on premise. We do face challenges when students try to circumvent filters to access games and block content, and sometimes blocking also impacts educationally viable information. Then there are common standards of practice within districts, like, as a district, if a teacher requests free software that will not sign a data privacy agreements through the student data privacy consortium, we block the software. We block all games in a wide variety of websites. We block game, websites that display advertising, even those that comply with the COPPA Safe Harbor services. YouTube is blocked for student search on our education domain through Google, and teachers must create links to resources and vet them first. When we consider school technology, we have a wide variety of adopted softwares suited to different purposes. So as children get older, the software becomes more specialized. We may purchase music composition software, science software, biology, chemistry, statistics software, designing CAD software, world language software, and much more as we move from middle to high school. Some of the software we purchased includes library software, the student information system, special ed software, assessment software, the Google education domain, reading and writing support software, parent engagement software, video design software, robotic software, school lunch software, and content area software mentioned earlier. There are some broadly adopted software programs that curriculum specialists review, then content committees, and then the assistant superintendent, are gamified and geared towards learning and practice in math and literacy. If gamified learning software is not approved with a data privacy agreement and we see it, we block it. Students tend not to ask for time in gamified content software. They're doing additional practice in an area where they may already be struggling. So even if it's gamified, they aren't consistently engaged because they still have to do math and literacy work. Just because something is gamified doesn't mean that they wanna do the job. And it's worth mentioning that students will ask about working with robots, laser cutters, and three d printing. Many students like hands on activities like this as well as engineering and STEAM. So what does technology look like in schools? In our schools, we believe in a developmentally appropriate philosophy prioritizing human connection and scaling tech usage for maturity as students prepare for college and careers. I personally don't believe that kindergarten students should use computers regularly. This is me as a parent, as an educator. The work of kindergarten is to understand what it means to be a student and a citizen of a school, how to be a good friend and a classmate, and what it means to be an active learner. Computers are sometimes used in kindergarten, but it is not required except on occasion for assessment such as phonological awareness or number sense, which is guided one on one with a teacher. In fact, I expressed to K two principals that I don't support technology in kindergarten, and I think many educators side with relief. As you can imagine, if a student can't read their letters or numbers, they can't log on to a Chromebook very easily. So students in nine through 12, however, have some heavy lifting to do to prepare for workforce or college. If you look at the future of jobs report 2025 by the World Economic Forum, you'll see how technology is trending. For example, teaching about AI will be essential as the workforce expects fluent users. Today's college students take courses online and in person. I know that because I have a student in college, and there's heavy reliance on technology and instruction and assessment. There are no more snow days in schools like colleges. CTE and other employment tracks require the use of Microsoft suites, specialized medical software, engineering software, auto repair software, you name it. If you look at how agriculture has changed in Vermont, you will see how even businesses like syrup production are beginning to rely on data analytics, AI and smart monitoring systems, leak detection and alerting, and much more. The landscape is shifting. So what I hope you'll consider as you work towards making educational technology consumer safe, state and national assessments partially drive the need for technology understanding and usage. Students need to be able to navigate the software, use a mouse, access tools, type, and more by third grade so that they can take the VTCAP. Then later on the NAEP maybe or perhaps the WIA testing. This is how you measure if our schools are providing a good or a bad education. If students cannot read online, type, navigate, or perform other basic functions, they will not be able to complete the required tests. Me, I'd be happy to get back to paper and pencil testing in k four, but I don't know if vendors are offering Scantron on a national test. National testing has changed, and it's changed our school reality. Technology is a global reality. If you look at the ISTE standards for students, teachers, and leaders, you can better understand the work we need to do in k 12 and why technology is essential for children and young adults. The student standards covered by digital citizenship, being an empowered learner, a knowledge constructor, innovative designer, and computational thinker, creative communicator, and also global collaborator. This is the best kind of work enabled by technology. I also have a wondering, about centralization and how it might be tricky for schools with the volume of software mentioned by Jeff and a deadline of June 2027. I'm glad that you've made some changes. So ongoing software implementation could be complex for some areas. I'm thinking about perhaps some programs like at CTE. For example, in health science, students might rely on industry standard software for the LNA role and for testing. If a state acts as a sole gatekeeper for these niche tools, we could be trapped in state level bottlenecks for months. This could effectively prevent students from meeting the certification or graduation requirements necessary to enter the workforce. And I do not think these companies would pay for researchers to vet their tools for nine through 12 necessarily. If that's the case, then who would do the work in this model? I don't know that the vendor would pay for it, and would these tools be exempt? So what could this process look like? Well, I'm wondering about the AOE and other state agencies having the capacity to be nimble and responsive to schools and the needs of k 12 and CTE. We do use hundreds of products. Would we need to stop using them? What would happen in that instance? Textbooks aren't readily available like they were twenty years ago when I was teaching, and sometimes a teacher needs something quickly. We've been very effective at doing this through the student data privacy consortium because they have lawyers and staffing to assist us. I also wonder if this could cause issues with educational purpose and review process. The AOE and other state agencies lack the content area expertise to select software for such diverse needs. We could end up with the wrong software because the vetting and selection process doesn't align with the educational need. The methods we use in school districts support reasonable decision making authority and educator initiative as well as departmental and cross functional or grade level collaboration. We can offer more value to students in the classroom teacher by working with schools rather than just state level vetting, streamlining internal processes, engaging our content experts, implementing internal review processes, and establishing post implementation software review processes and feedback loops on effectiveness and engagement and much more. So what if we could change how all schools review software using something like a district based standardized education software life cycle? Well, to streamline digital tool management, the AOE could develop some comprehensive guidelines covering the entire software life cycle. This initiative could be spearheaded by a multi district committee of schools and integrated into the school consolidation process to ensure statewide consistency. The AOE and schools could develop comprehensive guidelines covering vetting, procurement, and recurring audits. This model empowers local content experts, ensures legal protections through existing alliances like tech and STPC, and maintains the nimbleness required for Vermont students to thrive. Some key components of a process life cycle like this could be pre acquisition vetting, formalizing criteria for privacy, security compliance, and pedagogical value, perhaps updating the Vermont state data privacy agreement to ensure alignment with consumer privacy concerns through the SDPC. That would be a logical, leverageable, and a win for all. Procurement and implementation establish standard protocols for onboarding new software, and then a post implementation review to find a recurring process for auditing usage, cost, and educational impact to to determine if we will renew a software or retire it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I was gonna ask you about lunch.

[Patricia Agner (Technology Director, Rutland City Public Schools)]: The last thing, I would like to share is that I heard some concerns about addictiveness and digital wellness. And because we review parents as partners, we could consider how we engage families as part this broader initiative in conjunction with the AOE. We could use the student data privacy resource registry as a transparency portal, and that could show every approved app and its curricular purpose. We could post it on school websites or on the AOE website. We could consider how we support parents with parental controls. Some software allow parental controls and monitoring of Chromebooks outside of school hours. That might be something we consider exploring on a statewide basis and talking with other directors. Some districts are already implementing this. Looking at reporting, we could work towards standards and monitoring usage of technology by students using some of the products we have in place so that we can ensure that students are not experiencing digital or screen fatigue and grade bands. This could be part of the AOE's guidelines on screen time and students in k through 12. Some of the data we could work towards in schools include teacher engagement tracking of software to look at whether students are fatigued, post implementation reviews of usage metrics showing how long students in specific grade bands use tools, efficiency audits to identify subpar software that is underutilized or ineffective, and the long term impact of software on educational value, seeing that students are actually growing from usage, versus just, having no impact. Another thing we might consider is digital wellness webinar series. It would be amazing if the state supported a district based or regional series to help parents understand and manage technology use. This series would help parents mirror the boundaries we work to set at schools, such as create appropriate screen time, age based software requirements. I know from students that some parents allow social media use for young children, for example. And working with school districts as a partner in the child's overall well-being as part of our Portrait of a Graduate and Strategic Plan implementation. So what I'd like to leave you with today is that I appreciate the updates to age six fifty, the AOE's role, school engagement, and study criteria. Schools wanna be nimble, innovative, and safe. Let's leverage the robust systems we already have to improve student safety, such as the student data privacy consortium, without freezing innovation in Vermont classrooms. We could add to this conversation by working collaboratively with parents in the AOE on student health and wellness to address concerns about digital fatigue and monitoring and to develop guidelines for a standardized education software life cycle for schools, harnessing schools' expertise and the state's guidance as partners in regulation. Thank you.

[Rep. Michael Boutin]: Thank you, Patricia.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Any questions? Thank you. Renee?

[Renee Boutin (Director of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: Good morning. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to be here today. My name is Renee Boutin and I serve as the Director of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment for Central Vermont Supervisory Union. Our Supervisory Union includes six schools serving the towns of Washington, Orange, Williamstown, and Northfield. This is my fourth year in the role, my eleventh year in public education as an administrator, and my twenty first year in public education. I'm here today to provide you information on how our district currently vets educational applications for instructional use and to provide context for how those tools are implemented within our schools. I'll begin with the security and privacy of student information. Whenever we consider adopting a new educational application, it is first reviewed by our technology department to ensure full compliance with all applicable laws and supervisory union policies governing the collection, storage, and disclosure of student data and other confidential information. All district applications are entered into Clever, which is a secure single sign on portal. Any application that does not meet these requirements is eliminated from consideration. Protecting student privacy is non negotiable. It is foundational to our decision making process. In addition to security and privacy protections, we carefully evaluate each application for educational value and alignment. The district applications currently in use have been implemented for several years. All are aligned with our coordinated curriculum and are used strictly as supplemental supports to core education. These applications serve varied instructional purposes. Some provide additional practice for students who need reinforcement of prior grade level skills. Others offer enrichment opportunities for students ready to extend beyond grade level standards. Additional applications support current grade level instruction through extended practice or assist students with individualized special education needs. Importantly, none of these tools replace core instruction delivered by certified teachers, nor are they used for prolonged unsupervised instructional periods. Teachers have access to Securly, which allows them to monitor all student activity on all student devices on their computer all at once. When we do consider adopting a new application, the process is deliberate and evidence based. After passing security and privacy review, we examine research to determine educational soundness. We consult established reputable sources such as Evidence for ESSA, ERIC at the Institute of Education Sciences, the Best Evidence Encyclopedia, and the National Center on Intensive Intervention. If the application demonstrates strong research support, we proceed with a structured pilot. A group of teachers implements the program and we analyze data both from our local common assessments in conjunction with classroom performance data to determine whether student outcomes improve. Only if the data demonstrates measurable benefit do we move to the supervisory union wide access. Prior to broader implementation, teachers receive formal training followed by ongoing virtual and in person professional development as programs evolve to ensure fidelity and effective use. Our supervisory union recognizes the value of educational applications as supplemental tools that can personalize learning and provide targeted practice. However, we are equally clear that technology is never a substitute for high quality instruction delivered by our certified educators. These tools are designed to enhance and support classroom teaching and not replace it. Thank you for the opportunity to share our process, and I'm happy to answer any questions if you have any.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thanks, Renee. Peggy?

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Thanks, Renee. I appreciate you being here. I'm curious about when a platform, when software is being chosen versus when books are being chosen. When a teacher wants to add a book or some kind of support in the classroom that is not technology, do they have ways to check and see if that is appropriate for their age group, for whatever they're trying to learn? Are there outside systems that help them understand how that can fit? I don't know if I asked that question really well. We're consumer protection. We're not education. So I'm not really

[Renee Boutin (Director of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: I think that's when you're thinking K-twelve, that's a really broad question. I think that if there is a kindergarten teacher that wants to add a book to her read aloud, no, it's not necessarily vetted through anyone. And as far as looking at the bigger curricular piece of what books are being taught in sixth grade, that's a collaborative process that the teachers do together. And we periodically will get them together every couple of years to review and discuss, are these the books that we're going to continue? Are there new ones we want to bring in? What is the purpose? What is the focus? And so at the district wide level, as far as the bigger picture, there are those discussions. At the individual classroom level, like I said, for example, if kindergarten teacher is reading an individual book one day for read aloud, no, every single book is not vetted.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: And curriculum, like a math curriculum or something like that, there are places to review where they are effective, right? Where a math curriculum is effective?

[Renee Boutin (Director of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: Yes, absolutely. So, for example, we do have a K-eight math curriculum. And that is something that our Common Local Assessment also aligns with that. And so we have a pacing guide that shows all of our principals and teachers where they should be throughout the year. And so that they know where, you know, that they're ensuring that they're teaching all the grade level material, and that the principals can help support if there's any anywhere where they're getting off track. And in regard to this bill specifically, one concern that I do have is that there is an online portion of our math program that is adaptive to each individual student based on the assessment that they take three times a year. So when they take the assessment, it identifies areas of need that the student has gaps that they need filled. And it gives them individualized support to get those gaps filled. And one concern that I would have is, you know, we're making contracts now with companies for next year That if, and because as you're aware, school districts across the state have different programs. That some of, if some of these programs are not approved, or the online portion is not approved, then our teachers would be left without those resources and our students in a time where we're focusing more than ever on improved student outcomes, that they could actually potentially lose those supports. Then we would have to shift gears and try to figure out ways to fill those gaps that would be lost with that.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: I guess, yeah, my question is more around what we're trying to do is set up a place where schools could have an easier way to get whether the software was both safe for kids and effective in use. And I'm trying to understand if you have those places where you can look at a math curriculum or a reading curriculum or other curriculum. Are there other places that those are vetted outside of your individual school?

[Renee Boutin (Director of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: You mean as far as their educational effectiveness?

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Renee Boutin (Director of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: Yes. Yes. So, of the places that I listed, and there are also places that the AOE recommends. Let me just find it here. So, evidence for ESSA, ERIC at the Institute of Education Science, the Best Evidence Encyclopedia, National Center on Intensive Intervention, they vet educationally a lot of resources so that we can go in and see if there are products that we should pursue.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Other questions for Renee? Renee, thank you for taking time to talk with us this morning. We appreciate it. So, why don't we work through our break? So, why don't we take five minutes? Five minutes? Five minutes? That doesn't mean fifteen minutes. Back here at twenty five up so we can continue our discussions on CTE.