The following testimony was shared orally in abbreviated form at a public hearing June 2025 – starting at 1:03:54 at this video – only 2 minutes time was allowed. Organizations that would like to support this bill can contact Last Tree Laws and prepare written testimony for the education committee as described here ASAP.
S463 An Act regulating screen time and technology privacy in early and K-12 education.
My name is Kirstin Beatty, director of Last Tree Laws Massachusetts which works on petition initiatives. I formerly taught in our public schools. A different version of this bill was sponsored in a previous session by Rep. Patricia Duffy, exclusively regarding screen time. At the last minute, however, I requested this be filed only as a senate bill because of senate president Karen Spilka’s prior support for an EMF study bill (S.1278 2017-2018).
(REASONS TO SUPPORT THIS BILL:) School tech often disrupts time-on-learning, privacy, health and allows illegal site access, addiction, and corporate control of educational programming.1 2 3 It often takes time away from mastering skills like computation and higher order thinking (e.g. literary analysis).4 5
Thousands of studies also show non-ionizing radiation or EMFs cause harm – one WHO-funded study recently concluded there is high certainty in evidence linking cancer to cellphones.6 7 8 Another found, like several before it, that rats exposed to cell phone radiation in utero had decreased estrogen, progesterone, ovarian size, follicles: all of this is needed for egg development. The CDC continues to document rising infertility such as to 14.2% and impaired fecundity to 23.6% between 2011 to 2015.9 10 In France, Israel, Cyprus and other countries, steps have been taken to reduce exposures to non-ionizing radiation or EMFs in early education & care.11 California has also studied in schools how to reduce fields from electricity, leading to a checklist of no- and low-cost methods to reduce field exposures, and has also established power line distance restrictions.12 13
(BILL CONTENT:) This is a practical bill using performance benchmarks [§4] to reverse excess tech and limit harm. S463 also ends the mandate to use tech in all subjects[§2(k); §3], providing the option of choice to teachers & schools. Training on harms is provided for violations K-12 [§2(h)] and included in certification and recertification for early education and care [§7(b)9].
It establishes cellphone limits under local control [§2(i); §7(b)7,13] and basic limits on screen time [§2(e); §7(b)] from early education through grade 12 (e.g. maximum 4 hours passive screen time in kindergarten year)allowing some exceptions [§2(f); §7]. Local school authorities must tie screen use to educational benefits and can set stricter limits during an annual public review [§2(e)(d)].
Virtual schools may use correspondence learning [§5] and are required to give access to real teachers, teacher-led instruction, and, when possible, reduce time online (e.g. provide printed reading) [§6].
Privacy safeguards include attention to technology utilized [§2(g)], avoiding risks [§2(b)10-13], transparency, allowed opt outs [§2(b)8; §2(g); §3], performance benchmarks and, in early education, eliminating toys that can record [§7(b)3].
This bill limits EMFs by requiring in early education and care that necessary tech is hard-wired, wireless use avoided, and electric and magnetic fields checked [(§7(b)15-17], as well as allowing less exposure via less technology K-12. Section 2 (c) 10 provides a window to reduce EMFs K-12 by mandating that technology implementation follow best practices for health and safety.
Please report this bill favorably. Thank you.
1David Lundie, Andrej Zwitter, Dipayan Ghosh. January 31 2022. Corporatized education and state sovereignty. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/corporatized-education-and-state-sovereignty/
2Jeff Bryant. Feb 13 2020. How Corporations Are Forcing Their Way into America’s Public Schools. EdPolitics: A Project of OUR Schools. https://edpolitics.org/how-corporations-are-forcing-their-way-into-americas-public-schools/
3Lauraine Langreo (March 25 2025) Schools Face an Uphill Battle in Protecting Student Data in the Age of AI. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/technology/schools-face-an-uphill-battle-in-protecting-student-data-in-the-age-of-ai/2025/03
4Muppalla, Sudheer Kumar et al. “Effects of Excessive Screen Time on Child Development: An Updated Review and Strategies for Management.” Cureus vol. 15,6 e40608. 18 Jun. 2023, doi:10.7759/cureus.40608
5Jared Woodard (August 2019) Rotten STEM: How Technology Corrupts Education. American Affairs Journal. https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/08/rotten-stem-how-technology-corrupts-education/
6Moskowitz, J. Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields [2000+ studies from 2016 to 2025 alone] June 5, 2025. https://www.saferemr.com/2022/06/recent-research-on-wireless-radiation.html
7Moskowitz, J. The Need for More Stringent Wireless Radiation Exposure Limits to Protect Human Health [Summary Reports]. (June 17, 2025) https://www.saferemr.com/2025/01/the-need-for-more-stringent-wireless.html
8Mevissen M, Ducray A, Ward JM, et al. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review. Environ Int. 2025;199:109482. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2025.109482
9Yousefi, B., Jadidi, M., Nabizadeh, Z. et al. Impairment of Oogenesis and Folliculogenesis in Neonatal Rats after Maternal Exposure to Mobile Phones. Reprod. Sci. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-025-01880-0
10Evelin Fajardo-Alvarez. Percentage of women ages 15-44 who have impaired fecundity. CDC National Center for Health Statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/i.htm#infertility
11International Action Database. https://ehtrust.org/policy/international-policy-actions-on-wireless/
12California Electric and Magnetic Fields Program’s School Exposure Assessment Survey (The Electric and Magnetic Field Exposure Assessment of Powerline and Non-Powerline Sources for California Public School Environments). California EMF Program and Enertech Consultants. (January 2000)
13Title 5, California Code of Regulations. Article 2. § 14010 (c) Standards for School Site Selection.