Bill
S 463
Mass. S.463 limits student screen time in preK–12, treats digital tools as secondary, requires districts to set/publish limits with privacy protections and public input.
Status & procedural history (as provided)
- Introduced in the Massachusetts Senate: 02/06/2025 (Senate Docket No. 2285 / Senate No. 463).
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (02/06/2025). Subsequent referrals/steps listed include referral to Education (02/27/2025), hearings scheduled (06/17/2025), and an accompanying new draft S.2549 (07/10/2025). The bill record also indicates referral to Judiciary.
- Petitioned/presented by: John C. Velis (by request) on behalf of Kirstin Beatty (petitioner).
- Related/companion measures: HR 1065, A 1071 (companions), SD 2285 (replaces), prior-session bills S.577 and S.7568.
Purpose / policy goals
- Encourage that technology and screen time be treated as secondary tools in instruction, used only when supported by strong evidence of benefit and with student privacy protected.
- Limit mandated use of digital technologies across curricula, provide baseline limits on student screen time from early education through grade 12, and promote alternatives to virtual/digital learning (e.g., Montessori, Waldorf, outdoor learning).
Key provisions (from available text)
- Findings: The bill cites research and expert opinion about potential harms of extended screen time (neurological, physical, environmental) and raises concerns about corporate control of digital educational content and data practices.
- Definitions: Establishes statutory definitions for terms including “screen time,” “passive screen time,” “interactive screen time,” “virtual reality,” “augmented reality,” “confidential data,” “board,” “commissioner,” “department,” and “authority.”
- Confidential data: Enumerates categories considered confidential when collected on students/staff — e.g., identifying information (names, DOB, addresses), grades and assessments, medical information, biometric/location data, political views, socioeconomic and disciplinary data, observed/inferred data, and personal writings/art.
- Local limits and process: Requires each public school authority (district, charter, virtual school authority) to set and publish limits on school screen time and cellphone use, distinguishing passive and interactive screen time. Authorities must:
- Base limits on principles in the bill,
- Use a public comment process for initial adoption and annual review,
- Hold public hearings for revisions (except as otherwise specified).
- Baseline: The bill references a statutory baseline limit in subsection (e) that would apply unless the local authority adopts different limits; text providing the numeric baseline and exceptions (subsections (e) and (f)), enforcement mechanisms, penalties, and compliance details is truncated in the provided version.
Who would be affected
- Public school authorities (district school committees, charter school authorities, virtual schools), teachers and school staff, students (PreK–grade 12) and their guardians, education technology vendors and service providers, and entities handling student/staff data. Local curricula, procurement of ed‑tech, training, and data‑sharing arrangements could be materially affected.
Uncertainties / missing details
- The provided text is truncated; key operational elements are not visible in the excerpt: the specific baseline screen-time limits (subsection e), enumerated exceptions or permitted uses (subsection f), enforcement and remedy provisions, funding or technical assistance, and any penalties or civil remedies for violations. Those provisions will determine practical impacts and compliance burdens.
Potential impacts (likely)
- Reduced in-class use of screens or restructured digital instruction where local authorities adopt stricter limits.
- New local policy processes and transparency obligations (public comment/hearings).
- Increased emphasis on privacy protections and restrictions on collection/use of sensitive student data.
- Possible shifts in district procurement away from some ed‑tech products, with accompanying vendor and training implications.
Notes on sponsors listing
- Metadata includes names of federal legislators (e.g., Charles E. Schumer) alongside Massachusetts sponsors; this appears inconsistent with a Massachusetts state bill and may reflect related federal companion measures. The primary Massachusetts legislative proponent in the bill text is John C. Velis (by request), with petitioner Kirstin Beatty.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
