This EdSurge article looks at 2 moratoriums on student-facing generative AI, in New York City and Los Angeles, alongside a new report from the American Psychological Association. It asks whether other schools should follow and reads the announcements as a shift from rapid AI adoption toward more deliberate evaluation.
On Sept. 2, New York City announced a 1-year moratorium for public elementary and middle school students, and Los Angeles Unified restricted generative AI on all student-issued devices across all grades for the 2026-27 school year. The APA report followed the next day, urging thorough analysis of edtech tools and naming generative AI as a particular risk. An IBM survey cited in the piece found 76% of middle school teachers and 73% of high school teachers use AI in class weekly. Chicago and Clark County allow district-approved tools, and Miami-Dade approved a measure to develop guidelines after a large student rollout.
Nicole Barnes, the report's lead author, says many apps treat engagement and usage data as proof of learning, and she sees the same problem in AI tools. She calls the 2 bans a pause that lets schools set their own pace, and she says districts should look for evidence that a tool helps students learn before deciding. If they allow AI, she wants responsibility shared:
- teachers need classroom guidance
- school leaders need procurement and implementation standards
- districts need evidence requirements and data protections
- policymakers need clear expectations for claims about children's learning
St. Louis middle school teacher Dan Clark expects other districts to follow. When his district blocked AI overviews in web searches on school devices, his students asked why, and he used that as a chance to talk it through. He argues students will find workarounds, so they should be part of the discussion. The article concludes that educators broadly see a ban without critical dialogue as a missed opportunity.