New Classroom Technology Bills Put EdTech Providers Under Pressure

“Education technology needs to advance learning, be accessible to all students, [and] include security safeguards to protect students and their data.”

Carla Wade, Chief of External Relations at the Consortium for School Networking

When a school district buys a digital learning product, it is deciding on more than software. The product may shape how students practice math, read, take assessments, communicate with teachers, or complete daily assignments.

For much of the past decade, classroom technology expanded alongside one-to-one device programs with relatively little political resistance. That environment is changing.

Lawmakers in at least 16 states are considering restrictions on education technology, including limits on school-issued devices and screen time, stricter internet filtering, and new processes for vetting the software districts can purchase.

The proposals arrive as parents and lawmakers scrutinize what students gain from hours spent on school-issued screens. The concerns span distraction, access to inappropriate content, student well-being, and whether digital instruction produces measurable academic benefits. Research does not point to a single effect across all classroom technology. Well-designed educational software has been associated with academic gains, while heavy use of distracting digital media can interfere with concentration and emotional regulation. How a product is designed, why it is used, and which students use it all influence the outcome.

For education technology providers, that scrutiny changes the market terms. Companies selling into schools may increasingly be expected to show evidence that their products improve learning, protect student information, work for students with different needs, integrate with district systems, and justify the classroom time they consume. Some states are already considering formal software-vetting processes, while education organizations are developing independent validation systems intended to help districts identify products that meet common standards.

To understand what schools should require companies to demonstrate, how new rules could change procurement, and whether stronger standards will improve product quality or reshape competition among providers, we spoke with Carla Wade, Chief of External Relations at CoSN, the Consortium for School Networking.

Carla Wade is chief of external relations at CoSN, where she oversees professional advancement, advocacy, partnerships, sponsorships, and engagement with strategic partners.

Before joining CoSN, she served as Digital Innovations Lead in the Oregon Department of Education’s Office of Teaching, Learning and Assessment. Over more than 20 years at the department, Wade helped lead state and national work on educational technology, including federal grants, STEM, online learning, professional development, technology standards, and strategic planning.

She has also served as a technical advisor to the U.S. Department of Education on digital learning, evaluation, data collection and analysis, and EdFacts reporting. Wade has held leadership roles with both the International Society for Technology in Education and the State Educational Technology Directors Association, including service on their boards of directors. She now serves as an emeritus board member of SETDA and continues to work with partners in the U.S. and abroad to expand equitable access to technology, connectivity, effective teaching, and strong systems for learning.

The first challenge is agreeing on what schools should count as evidence of quality. Academic effectiveness is central, but districts also have to consider whether a product protects student information, works for students with different needs, fits existing technology systems, and teachers can use it reliably in everyday instruction.

Wade points to the EdTech Quality Collaborative as one attempt to create a common standard. The group brings together 1EdTech, CAST, CoSN, Digital Promise, ISTE, and SETDA around five indicators for evaluating education technology:

• Safe
• Evidence-based
• Inclusive
• Usable
• Interoperable

The framework asks providers to demonstrate that their products follow privacy and data transparency practices, are grounded in research, account for accessibility and equity, function intuitively for students and educators, and connect securely with the systems districts already use.

For schools, that expands the definition of whether a product “works.” A tool can have an educational purpose and still create problems if teachers struggle to implement it, students with disabilities cannot use it effectively, or districts cannot integrate it securely with the rest of their technology environment. Evidence of academic impact also carries more weight when schools can connect it to the students and instructional settings in which the product will actually be used.

Wade says districts can use independent validations associated with the five indicators to make those decisions more systematically. The goal, she explains, is to help education leaders “make informed decisions and streamline their review” when a product has already been evaluated in a particular area. She also describes the framework as a way for districts to “strategically allocate resources” while strengthening implementation and “measurable improvements in student outcomes.”

This approach places more responsibility on providers before a product ever reaches a classroom. Companies must consider evidence, safety, accessibility, usability, and technical compatibility as part of the same purchasing decision. As lawmakers begin imposing their own rules on classroom technology, the next question is whether those new restrictions actually change that standard or simply change how companies must demonstrate they meet it.

If schools already expect education technology to be safe, effective, accessible, and usable, the new wave of state legislation raises a more practical question: how much additional proof should companies have to provide before districts can buy their products?

Wade does not see the underlying standard changing. Asked whether the new restrictions should alter what companies need to demonstrate, she responds, “It shouldn’t.” She adds that “education technology needs to advance learning, be accessible to all students, [and] include security safeguards to protect students and their data.”

The proposals now moving through state legislatures could still change how those expectations are documented and reviewed. Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont have considered new vetting processes for school software, while proposals in Utah and Tennessee have included stricter filtering rules that could require districts to approve websites individually before students can access them. Other states are considering limits on when or how long younger students use school-issued devices.

For providers, those policies can introduce different requirements depending on where a product is sold. One district may focus heavily on evidence of academic impact, while another may place greater weight on filtering, privacy, accessibility, or how much time students spend using the tool. A company operating across several states could therefore face a growing mix of approval processes even when the product itself remains unchanged.

Wade says those decisions should remain closely connected to the communities using the technology. “School districts should be working with families, teachers and students to purposefully implement education technology that serves local needs,” she states. Because districts differ widely in resources and student populations, she says decisions about device rules, screen-time expectations, and instructional technology are “best made locally rather than through one-size-fits-all mandates, which may unintentionally harm students.”

That local variation also makes procurement more consequential. Districts have to determine why a tool is being used, which students it serves, what evidence supports it, and whether its design fits the way teachers actually work. As more states add formal review or approval requirements, providers may need to arrive with stronger documentation before those conversations even begin.
The next question is what that documentation should look like, and whether independent validation becomes part of the price of entering the classroom.

Independent validation could become one of the clearest ways for districts to turn broad expectations into purchasing requirements. Wade recommends building the five quality indicators directly into requests for proposals so that safety, evidence, inclusion, usability, and interoperability are considered before a company can compete for a contract.

“District and state procurement processes should mandate alignment with the five indicators as prerequisite conditions for bidding,” she says. Wade also calls for companies to provide “proof of independent validation” through measures such as accessibility certifications, interoperability badges, or research aligned with federal evidence standards, rather than relying on vendor claims about their own products.

Parts of the industry are already moving in that direction. Education organizations have begun developing certification and validation systems intended to give districts a more consistent way to identify products that meet agreed-upon standards. Formalizing those expectations through procurement could make the evidence behind a product more visible before schools commit money, staff time, and classroom hours to implementing it.

The additional requirements also raise questions about which companies can afford to meet them. Research studies, accessibility reviews, privacy documentation, technical validation, and certification can require resources that younger firms may have in shorter supply. Wade does not expect that dynamic to automatically favor established providers. Asked whether stronger approval or compliance standards risk making it harder for smaller companies to compete, she answers, “No.”

“Every company should be striving to meet the Five Quality Indicators,” Wade says. She adds that “newer and smaller companies may be more nimble in their ability to implement these criteria than larger, more established companies,” particularly when quality requirements are incorporated into a product from the beginning.

How those standards are implemented will help determine their effect on competition. A clear set of widely recognized requirements can give a less familiar provider a way to establish credibility with districts. Multiple certification systems, duplicative reviews, or substantially different state-to-state requirements can add time and expense to the same sales process.

Wade also points beyond the initial purchase. She highlights outcomes-based contracting as a way for districts and providers to agree on contract specifications, communicate regularly, and review performance data throughout implementation. A 2026 WestEd evaluation cited in her response examines this approach and its relationship to implementation and student outcomes.

That creates a longer test of value. Providers may increasingly have to demonstrate quality to enter procurement, provide outside evidence to win a contract, and continue producing measurable results once their technology is in use.

The current wave of state legislation suggests that education technology companies can no longer assume that a product’s place in the classroom will be justified by access, convenience, or innovation alone. Districts are being pushed to make more deliberate choices about which tools students use, how those tools affect instruction, and what evidence supports the purchase.

For providers, that can mean a higher standard at every stage of the relationship. Wade’s framework centers on safety, evidence, inclusion, usability, and interoperability before a contract is signed, with continued attention to implementation and outcomes after the product reaches classrooms. Certification and independent validation may give districts a more consistent way to assess those claims, while stronger procurement requirements can clarify expectations from the start.

The impact of the new rules will depend heavily on how states and districts design them. Broad restrictions may treat very different technologies as if they serve the same purpose, while fragmented approval systems could make it harder for companies to operate across markets. More consistent standards could give schools a clearer basis for deciding which products belong in classrooms.

As scrutiny of student screen use grows, the companies best positioned to remain in schools may be those that can show, with evidence, what students gain from the time they spend using their technology.