Contested education reforms loom over Georgia’s legislative session

Perhaps more than any time in recent memory, education-related bills look to dominate the current legislative session. If last year is any indicator, these measures may redraw political alliances and lead to heated debates. As is always the case, not every proposal is created equally, and in a legislative world that requires compromise, initial bill language often isn’t the author’s best and final offer.

One notable holdover from last year that will certainly make some noise is Senate Bill 233—also known as The Georgia Promise Scholarship Act—which Sen. Greg Dolezal, R-Cumming, introduced. “Funded by the state in the amount of $6,000 per student for each school year, Promise Scholarships would allow families to find the right fit for their students’ education,” reads an article by local think tank the Georgia Center for Opportunity.

While Georgia’s K-12 public schooling has been a success for many, there are some whom it has failed. Not every child learns the same or lives in a top-performing school district. In response, Senate Bill 233—if passed—would provide students scholarships to fund state-approved education assistance, ranging from tutoring to private school tuition, and it stands to benefit the underprivileged the most, without siphoning money from the educational system.

This measure passed the Senate last year, but got bogged down in the House. It was largely a partisan fight, but not entirely. Some Republicans voted against the measure along with most Democrats. Meanwhile, one Democrat crossed over and sided with the majority of Republicans. For her independence, the Democrats banished her from their caucus. With Gov. Brian Kemp throwing his weight behind Senate Bill 233, it stands poised to return, although the language might change to win over skeptics.

Another proposal that could consume considerable time is Senate Bill 351 by Sen. Jason Anavitarte, R-Dallas. It aims to address other issues plaguing young students: social media’s negative effects. While there are myriad positives associated with these platforms, impressionable youths grapple with serious challenges on social media. They face cyber-bullying and an increased risk of anxiety and depression.

Confronted with this conundrum, the Senate is mulling Anavitarte’s bill, which would mostly prohibit students from using public school networks or devices to access social media; and require that schools implement measures intended to clamp down on cyber-bullying and adopt curriculum to help minors understand and navigate social media’s dangers.

Good on Anavitarte, and as we consider adding this to school curriculum, let’s also add more civics education and teach kids how to balance check-books and do their taxes, instead of instructing them how to turn a potato into a battery. Neat? Yes. Helpful? No, but I digress.

There is plenty to applaud in this bill, but also some concerns in the latter part of the legislation that at worst are unconstitutional and at best impractical. According to the bill language, “No provider of a social media platform shall permit a minor to be an account holder unless such provider obtains the express consent of such minor’s parent or guardian.”

At first blush, this may appear fine, but this sets up some nightmare scenarios. In order to ensure no unapproved minors are using social media, companies would have to verify the age of every single user by forcing them to provide personalized sensitive data proving their age and identity.

This would create a massive burden on social media companies who would have to comb through the data and verify real identities versus fake ones. Moreover, they’d demand parents prove that they are legal guardians of minors who want to get online—meaning social media giants would be involved at a very personal level as they sort through adoptions, divorces and so forth.

All of this information would be a treasure trove for hackers who might try to steal each user’s identity. The bill requires that this personal information be deleted, but something tells me hackers will figure out a way to obtain it. Remember that the United States Office of Homeland Security had a breach involving 250,000 people with varying levels of federal security clearance. If they’re unable to safeguard this data, then I doubt some social media companies can either.

Even if the cyber-security risks could be mitigated, there are some constitutional questions, given that minors have a right to access non-obscene content. In Brown vs. EMA, for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, “it does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent.”

It is still early in the legislative session, and there’s no telling how Anavitarte’s bill might evolve, but between his legislation and Sen. Dolezal’s education scholarships, expect many lawmakers to focus closely on education for the foreseeable future.