Within the first three days of September, three announcements regarding young students’ access to generative artificial intelligence (AI) made national headlines.
On Sept. 2, New York City announced a one-year moratorium on student-facing generative AI use for public elementary and middle school students. Later that day, Los Angeles Unified School District announced the implementation of a moratorium of its own, restricting access to generative AI tools on all student-issued devices across all grades for the 2026-27 school year.
The next day, the American Psychological Association (APA) released a report recommending thorough analysis of edtech tools to ensure they help students learn, citing generative AI as a particular risk.
The flurry of caution underscores the education field’s attempts at taking a thoughtful approach when choosing AI tools. With the academic year just starting, educators are balancing the popularity of AI among students and the cautious approach to adopting classroom tools.
The Case for Caution
Nicole Barnes, APA’s executive lead psychologist for education and lead author of the report, decided to pursue the issue after mistaking her son’s kindergarten homework for a video game during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“It was at that point where I realized that psychology, and the learning sciences in particular, had a lot to contribute to the development of edtech apps,” she says.
Barnes worries that too many edtech apps mislead the public on their effectiveness in helping students learn by using engagement and usage data as a proxy. “While there is a relationship between these two constructs, one does not equal the other,” she says.
Barnes sees the same issues with the current AI tools, as reflected in the report, which comes as AI’s presence in classrooms continues to grow.
In a recent IBM survey, 76% of middle school teachers and 73% of high school teachers reported using AI in their classrooms on a weekly basis.
The moratoriums from the two largest school districts in the country seem to represent a departure from this trend. The rest of the five largest districts encourage thoughtful AI use:
-
Chicago Public Schools allows use of district-approved, age-appropriate tools in all schools, with guidance tailored to students, staff, families and vendors.
-
Clark County School District in Nevada similarly allows district-approved tools across all schools, with more general district-wide guidelines.
-
Miami-Dade County Public Schools approved a measure to develop AI use guidelines after implementing one of the largest district rollouts of student-facing AI in the country.
Barnes thinks New York City and Los Angeles could set an example for other districts.
“I am viewing what New York and Los Angeles are doing as a pause. And to me, this pause is a reminder that schools do not need to let the market or outside forces set the speed of childhood,” she says. “They can slow down enough to ask, what does this tool do? What learning does it protect? What is the risk that it might introduce?”
Turning Restrictions into Lessons
With the NY and LA decisions making such big waves, teachers may be left wondering if their districts will adopt similar restrictions or wait to see what happens.
“I have the gut feeling that they will probably follow suit,” says Dan Clark, a middle school teacher at Lafayette Preparatory School in St. Louis, Missouri, and a Voices of Change Fellow.
Rather than shutting down conversation, Clark argues that AI restrictions force an essential dialogue. When his district recently locked the use of the AI overview in web searches on school-issued devices, it opened the door for students to critically analyze the tool and its outputs.
“My kids have asked, ‘Why did you do this? Why did you get rid of it?’ And to me, that’s an educational opportunity,” Clark says. “I love that they’re asking us so that we can sit down and talk about why.”
He believes that structured discussion about the positives and negatives of AI is the key to getting buy-in for any decision.
“[Kids are] going to find ways around [restrictions]. They’re way smarter than us,” Clark says. “If we’re not involving them in the process of their own learning, I feel like that is a missed opportunity.”
What Happens Now
As districts deliberate their own next steps, Barnes recommends that before decisions are made, those involved should evaluate AI tools for evidence that they help students learn. From there, if they do decide to allow AI in classrooms, she says it takes a full community effort to craft AI policies.
“The responsibility can’t just sit with one teacher or one parent or with one child,” Barnes says. “Even teachers certainly need classroom guidance. School leaders need procurement and implementation standards. Districts are going to need evidence requirements and data protections, and policymakers need to set clear expectations for claims about children’s learning and development.”
Whether districts opt for temporary moratoriums or cautious rollouts, most educators agree on one thing: a blanket ban without critical dialogue is a missed opportunity. The real work lies in interrogating tech alongside students.
Clark agrees that openness is essential.
“When we just say, ‘There’s a ban. Don’t ask. Let’s not talk about it. Let’s pretend it doesn’t exist…’ It’s not really helping anybody,” he says. “That’s a Band-Aid on a much bigger problem.”
Discussion about this post