If you read the recent headlines about ed tech, you might think schools across the U.S. are eradicating screens and returning to the days of paper and pencil. The Economist declares, “AI is accelerating a tech backlash in American classrooms.” Scientific American announces, “The backlash against screens in schools is escalating.” Education Week reports, “The Ed-Tech Backlash is Here.”
While a few school districts, including in Los Angeles and New York City, have put significant limits or guardrails into place, especially for younger students, most of the tech-related policies that have passed this year are more measured than headlines suggest. Congress has held hearings on curbing the use of technology in classrooms. Many states introduced bills related to digital devices in schools, including some that would have sharply restricted access to technology or AI, but few passed and none of the most restrictive ones became law. Of the state bills that were enacted, most do not impose unreasonable restrictions on classroom technologies.
For the most part, the state bills that passed reflect an understanding that all screens, from social media feeds to evidence-based AI-enabled tutors, are not equal. But drawing those distinctions in policy is difficult when the evidence base has not kept pace with rapid technological advances. Too little research exists about how schools, teachers, and students are using ed tech tools, how they impact learning and development, and how those effects vary across students, ages, and contexts.
Growing that evidence base should be a priority. Ongoing research on how ed tech use impacts students’ learning and well-being will build the basis for trust. Programs like ED’s Education Innovation and Research Program, Accelerate’s Call for Effective Technology, the Learning Engineering Virtual Institute (LEVI), and the Tools Competition support the development and scaling of evidence-based ed tech, including innovations that incorporate AI. Continued support for this kind of research will be critical to ensure decisions about technology in schools are driven by evidence rather than enthusiasm for, or fear of, new education technology.
Key Findings
For a clearer view of how the “ed tech backlash” has shaped state policies throughout the country, our team analyzed state-level digital device legislation considered this past year. We wanted to know whether state policies that went into effect matched the tenor of the headlines. Largely, they did not. We found that:
- The most restrictive state bills are not passing. One-sixth of the bills analyzed would have, if enacted, significantly limited student access to evidence-based, effective digital interventions by prohibiting digital devices or AI in classrooms (with very few exceptions) or allowing parents to opt their children out of using digital devices entirely. For instance, a Kansas bill would have prohibited digital devices in K-5 classrooms, with exceptions only for students in virtual schools, with a doctor’s permission, or on IEPs requiring digital devices. None of the highly restrictive bills passed.
- Four moderately restrictive bills passed. A quarter of the bills analyzed would put some limitations on student access to high-quality digital interventions (e.g., by putting daily time limits on younger students’ use of digital devices in classrooms), and most focus on early grades. Four of these bills passed, in Iowa, Oklahoma, Utah, and Vermont. The Iowa legislation limits K-5 students’ digital device usage in schools to 60 minutes per day (with several exceptions); the Oklahoma law allows families to opt their student out of using AI tools (but not all digital devices); the Utah law prohibits classroom screen time for K-3 students (with minor exceptions); and the Vermont law requires ed tech providers to register annually with and be certified by the state.
- All other bills analyzed are not overly restrictive, and 13 of those passed. These newly enacted laws impact digital devices in schools in light-touch ways: by mandating studies or best practices on digital device usage, limiting screen time for kids in child care and preschool, and enabling limited parental monitoring or controls. The Tennessee law prohibits digital devices for K-5 students but makes critical exceptions, including “targeted instructional support, intervention, or remediation” and the administration of state-required assessments, including the Tennessee universal screener, dyslexia screenings, and state-adopted benchmark assessments.
Background
A growing number of parents, teachers, and even celebrities are expressing concern about the prevalence of digital devices (e.g., smartphones, laptops, tablets) in schools (not to mention, outside of schools, too, where big tech is being challenged and facing consequences). Several forces converged to create the current “techlash” in education: school districts’ pandemic-era ed tech investments, a societal recognition of the link between smartphones and youth mental health, and students’ rapid uptake of generative AI (GenAI). Policymakers have responded differently to each strand of backlash, from widespread cellphone bans in schools to select school districts limiting the use of GenAI in classrooms, particularly for young children.
Policymakers have responded differently to each strand of backlash, from widespread cellphone bans in schools to select school districts limiting the use of GenAI in classrooms, particularly for young children.
Jonathan Haidt’s 2024 book, The Anxious Generation, was a key driver of the movement to get cell phones out of classrooms. Haidt’s argument — that the shift from a play-based to phone-based childhood has increased rates of adolescent mental illness — resonated with many parents, youth, and policymakers. It led to grassroots efforts that have resulted in policies across 39 states and the District of Columbia banning or significantly curtailing cell phones in schools. Early evidence indicates that the bans have positive outcomes for students, even if not immediately.
For some parents, the problem with tech in classrooms is not limited to cell phones. It extends to 1:1 devices, tablets and Chromebooks, which are now the norm. Eighty-eight percent of schools provide students with personal devices, largely the result of COVID-era virtual learning and an infusion of federal dollars to combat pandemic learning loss. Parents who see the negative impacts of take-home devices on their children are calling for change.
In response, some states and school systems are exploring ways to roll back access to devices. While no state has yet to pass a bill to explicitly limit 1:1 devices, some districts have. Most notably Los Angeles Unified School District, are rolling back 1:1 programs in favor of computer labs and laptop carts.
Access to the devices is only the tip of the concern. As GenAI becomes more common, students are increasingly using it to complete schoolwork raising concerns about cognitive offloading. This adds another layer to the debate.
As AI infuses classrooms, 77 percent of American voters say clearer government rules and standards are needed around how AI and technology are being used in schools. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has called for no student-facing AI in elementary schools. New York City Public Schools instituted a ban on student-facing GenAI for preschoolers through 8th graders in the current academic year. Other school districts, like Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia, have also implemented bans.
Analysis of 2026 State-Level School Device Legislation
This was a particularly active year for state legislators seeking to curb ed tech use in classrooms, especially in the younger grades. From coast to coast, state policymakers introduced, and in some cases, passed legislation aimed at limiting or putting guardrails around tech and AI in schools. Most legislative sessions have now adjourned, making this a good time to take stock of what was introduced and what actually got enacted.
Our team reviewed 2026 state-level digital device legislation, relying largely on data compiled by the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA). The methodology used is described below. Our 2026 School Device Legislation Tracker includes 51 state bills (not including companion bills), all active in 2026. Some were introduced this year, while others were introduced in 2025 but remained under consideration in 2026.
Of the 51 bills:
- The majority were unsuccessful. Thirty-one bills (61%) did not pass, 17 (33%) passed and were enacted, and three (6%) are still technically active (even if they have stalled in the legislative process) because their legislative session has not adjourned. Our research did not surface any current opposition to the bills still under consideration. Importantly, regardless of state policies, district policies could still restrict ed tech usage in schools.
- Most would impact K-12 broadly, but a significant number target the youngest learners. Thirty-eight bills (74.5%) contain provisions impacting K-12, and 12 (23.4%) are specific to students who are in 5th grade or younger. One bill (2%) focuses on elementary and middle school students.
- The largest share of the digital device bills influence state or local ed tech policy (e.g., by requiring the development of model policies). Other bills impose or encourage screen time limits, mandate research or best practices, facilitate parental control or opt-outs, require or encourage AI guardrails, impose or encourage social media limits, or require ed tech vendor approval or registration. Some bills do more than one of these things.
| What the State Bill Includes or Influences | Number of Bills | % of Bills |
|---|---|---|
| State or local ed tech policy | 24 | 47% |
| Screen time limits | 22 | 43% |
| Research or recommendations | 15 | 29% |
| Parental control or opt-outs | 14 | 27% |
| AI guardrails | 14 | 27% |
| Social media limits | 4 | 8% |
| State approval or registration | 3 | 6% |
- Most of the bills would not significantly limit student access to evidence-based, high-impact digital interventions. Of the 51 bills analyzed, 8 (16%) would significantly limit access, 13 (25%) would somewhat limit access, and 30 (59%) would not place unreasonable limitations, if any, on the use of digital devices in schools. See the table below for details on how these bills were categorized.
| Level of Restriction | What the Legislation Would Do | Number of Bills | % of Bills | Number Enacted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Prohibit digital devices or AI in classrooms with very few exceptions and/or allow parents/guardians to opt their children out of using digital devices entirely | 8 | 16% | 0 |
| Medium | Restrict digital devices or AI in classrooms (e.g., place daily time limits on digital device usage); generally prohibit devices or AI but makes meaningful exceptions; allow parents/guardian to opt children out of some but not all devices; or require ed tech vendors to register with the state | 13 | 25% | 4 |
| Low | Would not put unreasonable limitations on the use of digital devices for educational purposes | 30 | 59% | 13 |
Conclusion
As public skepticism of ed tech and AI continues to draw media attention, state policymakers are generally responding with nuance, often targeting younger learners and making key exceptions when enacting tech-limiting legislation. Instead of imposing bans that overreach and prevent students from accessing evidence-based tools, the current legislative landscape reflects a basic understanding that not all screens are the same.
Looking ahead, ed tech developers, policymakers, and other stakeholders will need to make a concerted effort to ensure students have access to high-impact ed tech. At the same time, they must engage in the evaluation and vetting necessary to keep harmful, distracting devices out of schools. Developers must commit to rigor, safety, and clear demonstrations of impact on student learning. Policy leaders must continue to bring nuance to their debates; they have a responsibility to pass legislation that limits devices known to pose real risks without undermining tools with strong evidence of safety and effectiveness. By keeping research and student outcomes at the center of policy debates, education leaders can restore public trust and ensure technology serves its intended purpose: improving teaching and learning.
As public skepticism of ed tech and AI continues to draw media attention, state policymakers are generally responding with nuance, often targeting younger learners and making key exceptions when enacting tech-limiting legislation.
Methodology
To analyze state-level digital device bills that were considered this year, our team started with a school device legislation tracker maintained by SIIA, an advocacy coalition that actively responded to select digital device bills in 2026. We then developed our own tracker, adding information about grade levels impacted, levels of restriction, and rationales for the restriction-level determinations to facilitate our analysis of the bills. We used ChatGPT Plus to identify and add 2026 bills that were not listed on the SIIA tracker but would impact ed tech in schools if enacted. Our analysis did not include bills that solely banned cell phones in schools. While some of the bills have higher education provisions in them, all of the bills analyzed focus on P-12 education.
We ranked the restrictiveness of each bill as low, medium, or high and provided a rationale for each ranking. We based the levels of restriction on the following criteria:
- High if it prohibits digital devices or AI in classrooms with very few exceptions and/or allows parents/guardians to opt their children out of using digital devices entirely. These bills would significantly limit student access to evidence-based, high-impact digital interventions.
- Medium if it restricts but does not ban digital devices or AI in classrooms. Some bills in this category limit digital device usage to 45 or 60 minutes per day for elementary and/or middle school students. A few bills in this category say they prohibit digital devices or AI but have important exceptions (e.g., students in 5th grade or younger may use AI tools if they are directed and supervised by school personnel). Some “medium restriction” bills would allow parents/guardians to opt out of certain digital devices, but not all. One bill in this category requires ed tech vendors to register with the state, which may create administrative burdens and slow innovation. These bills would put some limitations on student access to evidence-based, high-impact digital interventions.
- Low if it does none of the above. Bills in this category seek to explore, study, or put some guardrails around digital device or AI usage in education but they are not overly restrictive. These bills would not put unreasonable limitations, if any, on the use of digital devices for educational purposes.
We acknowledge that others may categorize the bills using different criteria, potentially leading to different determinations of restrictiveness. We invite readers who have analyzed, or would analyze, these bills differently to reach out to the authors and share their approach.
