AN ACT relating to digital instruction.
SB 318 would place new limits on the use of digital instruction in Kentucky public elementary schools. It defines “digital instruction” broadly to include lessons, assignments, testing, and activities delivered through instructional technology, and then caps that use at 45 minutes per elementary student per instructional day across all subjects. The bill also requires that at least 70% of elementary assignments be completed with paper-and-pencil materials, that students have daily access to printed books or other traditional materials, and that physical manipulatives be used in foundational math and science instruction.
The bill further restricts how schools may use technology in core elementary subjects. It prohibits instructional technology from replacing traditional teacher instruction and materials in reading and literacy, foundational mathematics, certain science lessons, and social studies content knowledge. It also bars technology-based homework, daily transport of school-issued devices by elementary students, and replacing library time with reading labs on devices. Limited exceptions are provided for IEPs, Section 504 plans, assistive or adaptive technology, and teacher demonstrations using shared display equipment such as projectors or smartboards.
If enacted, SB 318 would add a new section to KRS Chapter 158 and require public elementary schools and local boards of education to change classroom technology practices, assignment formats, and parent notification procedures. School districts would have to adopt written technology-use policies, set daily screen-time limits, create a process for parents or guardians to request lower limits, and publish annual reports on student screen time, digital services used, and availability of traditional materials. The bill would directly affect public elementary schools, district administrators, teachers, students, and families, while preserving accommodations for students with disabilities and assistive technology needs.
The available record shows no committee transcript and no recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a precautionary or restrictive approach to screen use in early education, emphasizing traditional instruction, handwriting, and hands-on learning over device-based learning. The absence of recorded discussion means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from proceedings, but the proposal is framed as a child-centered educational policy rather than a technology expansion measure.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the 45-minute daily cap on digital instruction, the requirement that 70% of assignments be paper-based, and the prohibition on technology replacing instruction in core subjects. Supporters would likely view these provisions as protecting foundational learning, reducing screen time, and preserving parent choice, while critics may argue they limit teacher flexibility, conflict with modern instructional practices, and create administrative burdens through reporting and policy requirements. Another likely issue is implementation: districts would need to track screen time, distinguish between counted and exempt technology use, and ensure compliance across grades and subjects.