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.
S463 An Act regulating screen time and technology privacy in early and K-12 education.
My name is Kirstin Beatty. 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) and the addition of EMF restrictions in early education.
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, liberal arts).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 and 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 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); §2(e)10; §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 and also restricts cellphones, which are to be left at home or in airplane mode in lockboxes [§2(e)10].
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.