Utah policymakers are wading through a lot at the intersection of education and technology: anticipating the upcoming July 1 school cellphone ban and its effects, charting a path for the use of artificial intelligence (AI), and offering statewide virtual schooling. These may raise different questions, but the need for a governing approach to education and technology is clear.
As Utah policymakers navigate education technology, they should be guided by a simple principle: technology should expand educational opportunity for families while being evaluated honestly for its results on student learning.
Protect virtual schools as an important part of education choice
Virtual schools are now a fixture of the education landscape that many families choose.
According to national parent-reported data from the Institute of Education Sciences during the 2022-23 school year, 7% of students took at least one virtual course, and 3% took all courses virtually. And according to a National Association of Secondary School Principals report, 36-40 states offer full-time, publicly funded statewide online schools.
According to Utah State Board of Education 2025-26 data, Utah’s public education system has 38 virtual schools, including 9 public charter schools and 29 public district schools. That is an increase from the previous year, when there were 36 virtual schools. The two virtual schools created since then were both charter schools.
Since 2011, the state has offered middle and high school students the chance to take courses through the Statewide Online Education Program, where eligible Utah students can choose from several providers that offer course flexibility, advanced courses, makeup coursework, and more. The program has undergone changes, expansions, and audits because it is https://le.utah.gov/interim/2024/pdf/00003254.pdf an important part of the state’s offerings.
Likewise, a growing number of virtual private schools or homeschool providers are popping up. The point is simple: virtual schools have become increasingly common.
At the same time, research continues to suggest that academic outcomes from online learning generally lag behind those of brick-and-mortar learning.
In 2015, a well-known study showed that students attending online charter schools performed significantly worse than their counterparts in brick-and-mortar schools.
Other studies show a negative association between overall screen time and learning, raising questions about how classroom screen time affects learning in virtual school settings.
More recent college-level studies have shown lower scores after years of online schooling. https://www.educationnext.org/zooming-to-class-slows-student-learning/
Still, virtual schools remain a valuable option. Achieving the highest academic outcomes, such as test scores, may not be the only reason parents choose a virtual school.
Researchers have noted that virtual schools sometimes serve families well for reasons such as helping children escape bullying, leaving behind an unsafe environment, providing access to specialized courses not offered in their area, providing schedule flexibility, or addressing other academic needs.
Furthermore, parent satisfaction – part of which may reflect academic rigor – can indicate whether a school is working for parents.
For these reasons, virtual schools are an important choice for families, and policymakers should protect them so parents can make the best education decisions for their children.
Policymakers should continue to seek evidence on questions such as when online learning works best for particular courses, which geographic areas need online options most, and how to protect student data privacy.
Seek an evidence-based philosophy for technology in schools
Many issues related to technology in education are newer than virtual schools. Issues such as AI tools and cellphone bans require state leaders to navigate thorny questions in real time. Furthermore, there is no shortage of opinions and perspectives on the “right” policy in these spaces, making it difficult to determine how to create policy.
Leaders do not need to have every answer right now. Instead, they should adopt a measured approach that provides a safeguarded space for innovation, assesses outcomes transparently, shares results publicly, and develops a data-driven philosophy about what works.
For instance, the impacts of the Utah school cellphone ban should be studied over time, since recent research by the National Bureau of Economic Research has shown mixed results from cellphone bans, including that initial negative effects tend to wear off. Utah will need to understand the impacts of its new policy on its schools, specifically in the years to come.
Creating a “sandbox” for AI use in schools with requirements to share results (as proposed in S.B. 322 during the 2026 general session, which did not pass) is a prudent approach to policymaking, balancing action with humility about outcomes.
For instance, the Utah State Board of Education recently announced the launch of Gemini for Education in partnership with Google, with full discretion given to LEAs to decide whether to adopt it. A recent opinion piece suggests that the USBE’s recent adoption of Gemini for Education for public schools will do more harm than good for children who have not learned to think critically first. Districts and charter schools that use the AI tool should be required to share their experiences with it to state leaders or simply choose to measure it on their own.
The state has been active in addressing education technology, passing a law requiring a course on digital skills, reducing funding for digital learning in school districts, and passing a bill to create guidelines https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/static/HB0273.html on AI in schools and to decrease screen time in classrooms, especially in the earlier grades. These legislative efforts, along with those of the state board, are commendable and often trailblazing.
A focus on gathering evidence from these policies ought to be a high priority to inform choices in the future.
Conclusion
Through data, reflection, discussion, and collaboration, policymakers can protect virtual schools as an important education choice while evaluating the effectiveness of other technologies in education.
Sutherland Institute public policy intern Samia Tueller contributed research for this article.
