When students return to school this fall in the Salamanca City Central School District in Western New York, a new kind of teacher will be ready to greet them. The small, rural district located on the Seneca Nation reservation is set to be one of the first in the country to put a humanoid robot in a classroom. It will not replace the classroom teacher, but is programmed to provide learning support to both students and educators. 

At a board meeting last month, the Cattaraugus County school district agreed to purchase the robot from Realbotix, a tech company, along with an artificial intelligence teacher鈥檚 assistant program allowing students to interact with an avatar of the robot on laptops. 

鈥淭his deployment in a working school district represents a landmark moment for both AI and humanoid robotics,鈥� said Andrew Kiguel, CEO of Realbotix, which is currently building the robot. 鈥淪alamanca marks the beginning of a new era where humanoid robots and intelligent AI assistants become standard tools in STEM 别诲耻肠补迟颈辞苍.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

The female robot, named Sally, will have a 鈥渓ifelike appearance鈥� with silicone skin and long brown hair, Kiguel said in an interview with New York Focus. It will be stationary in a seated position but have a wide range of upper-body movements and facial expressions.

Students will use a unique identification code when interacting with the robot during class, allowing it to access their learning data and provide personalized support based on their past communication with the avatar, Kiguel said. 鈥淭hey鈥檒l be able to say, 鈥楬ey, I鈥檓 student number 1234,鈥� and then the robot will be like, 鈥楬ey, we were talking about this yesterday, do you want to continue that conversation?鈥� 鈥澛�

Salamanca plans to introduce the robot and avatar in its high school AI and robotics courses, which use developed by Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak to prepare students for high-demand tech jobs. The district plans to expand it to high school students in other classes if the pilot is successful. 

Salamanca Superintendent Mark Beehler explained the district鈥檚 embrace of AI. 鈥淢any schools are taking the easy solution of simply banning it, but I have found that students will find a way around most rules that schools put in place,鈥� Beehler said in a written response to questions. 鈥淚 also believe it is critical for schools to teach proper use of technology, not simply exclude it.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

During and after school hours, students will be able to use the avatar to receive help with assignments. Kiguel said students could upload photos of homework for feedback, ask the avatar to generate lessons on topics that interest them, or receive real-time translations in over 100 languages. Unlike other Realbotix robots, Salamanca鈥檚 robot will not have advanced features such as facial recognition and recording. 

The robot will also serve as a classroom resource. If a teacher loses their place during a lesson or needs a prompt on what comes next, Kiguel said, they can ask the robot for guidance because it has been loaded with the district鈥檚 curriculum. 

The products cost the district $57,590, according to  attached to the school board agenda. Kiguel said the price was discounted; the company鈥檚 website lists the M-Series robot, the model purchased by the district, at a starting price of $95,000. 

The plan has sparked debate online, with some calling it a forward-looking, innovative step for the district and others expressing concern about the broader implications of further integrating AI into schools, particularly in an underserved area. 

Salamanca is the only incorporated city in the United States located entirely within a Native American reservation. The school district serves roughly聽1,300 students, including聽32%聽who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native and聽79%聽who are economically disadvantaged.听

鈥淲e already have so many issues in our community, including environmental issues. I just don鈥檛 understand the concept of adding AI onto that,鈥� said local parent Sierra Abrams, who learned about the technology in a . 鈥淏ringing it into the school district is contradicting everything we believe, in my opinion.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

For the past few months, the company has worked to establish guardrails to ensure student safety. Kiguel said the robot and avatar were trained on the district鈥檚 curriculum and will always redirect the conversation back to education. References to suicide, self-harm, or other flagged terms would automatically alert school administrators.

In a demonstration for New York Focus, Kiguel told the avatar that he was being bullied at school and wanted to get revenge on the student. 

鈥淚鈥檓 really sorry that happened to you. Being picked on and having rocks thrown at you is not okay, and that must have felt upsetting and maybe even scary,鈥� the avatar responded. 鈥淭he best next step is to tell a trusted adult at school right away, like a teacher, counselor or principal, and let your parent or guardian know, too.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Beehler emphasized the importance of safety and privacy, noting that the robot and avatar operate on a closed system that is not connected to the internet, and that Realbotix will not have access to personally identifiable student information. 

To avoid AI-generated inaccuracies, Beehler said Realbotix trained the robot and avatar to say, 鈥淚 don鈥檛 know,鈥� instead of generating fabricated or misleading responses known as 鈥�AI 丑补濒濒耻肠颈苍补迟颈辞苍蝉.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

The Trump administration has promoted the expanded use of AI and technology in education. Early in his second term, President Donald Trump  establishing a taskforce to help integrate AI into curricula and teacher training. In March, First Lady Melania Trump entered a White House technology summit  and invited guests to envision a future where robots educate children in literature, science, art, philosophy, mathematics, and history. 

At the same time, there has been  nationwide, with parents forming groups to push for stronger oversight of AI, and clearer guidelines to limit screen time and ensure digital resources are used appropriately in schools. In May, the New York State United Teachers union called for strict  and screen time in schools, and earlier this month, New York City Public Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels announced  until the school system finalizes guidance on artificial intelligence later this summer. 

The classroom marks a new venture for Realbotix, a Toronto-based robotics company formerly known as Tokens.com, that helped customers use cryptocurrency to rent 鈥渄igital land鈥� in the Metaverse. In April 2024, the company acquired Simulcra, the Las Vegas parent company behind RealDoll, which has spent decades  and later expanded into sex robots that remain on the market today. 

In a statement to New York Focus, a spokesperson explained that over the past two years, Realbotix has built a new team focused on education, health care, and wellness applications, and that Realbotix and RealDoll do not share employees, payroll, physical locations, or technology. She said Realbotix 鈥渋s pursuing a transaction with a Nasdaq-listed company that is intended to separate the businesses at the ownership level鈥� with completion expected by September. 

In recent years, Realbotix has worked to expand its presence in commercial settings. Still, it is best known for its 鈥渃ompanion robots,鈥� which are different from sex robots and intended to address what it鈥檚 described as a 鈥渓oneliness epidemic.鈥� Kiguel has previously said the company鈥檚 goal is to produce robots and AI that are 鈥渋ndistinguishable from humans.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Beehler, Salamanca鈥檚 superintendent, said the partnership with Realbotix began after a former colleague met an investor at a dinner and discussed the possibility of bringing the company鈥檚 robots into the education sector. He was initially cautious about the partnership because it represented uncharted territory for both Realbotix and the school district. But he said the company was receptive to feedback and willing to adapt its products for the unique demands of an educational setting. 

The superintendent acknowledged concerns about students鈥� increasing screen time and emphasized that AI and robotics should support, not replace, the human connections at the center of education. 

Beehler said the district will measure the success of the program primarily through qualitative feedback from both students and teachers. 

Ryan Schaaf, associate professor of educational technology at Notre Dame of Maryland University, said he was optimistic about the initiative, but cautioned that its success hinges on thoughtful implementation, with teachers actively monitoring and guiding students鈥� interactions with AI. 

Schaaf acknowledged the backlash against AI in education, but said ignoring the technology is a mistake. 鈥淚t gives students a true disadvantage because once they leave school, they are going to be immersed in AI technologies.鈥� Instead, he argued that schools should balance AI-assisted learning with traditional instruction to prepare students for life after high school.

State Senator George Borrello, who represents Salamanca and surrounding areas of Western New York, said the program could help level the playing field for students by providing tutoring access to those who might not be able to afford private options and sparking greater interest in STEM. 

Borrello said local leaders have long struggled with keeping young people from leaving Upstate New York after high school. He said investments in technology and STEM education could help show students they can pursue fulfilling, high-paying careers in tech while still building their futures in rural communities like Salamanca.

鈥淥ne of the biggest things we see right now in technology is people fearing what the future will be with AI. Will it replace the workforce? Will it grow out of control?鈥� he said. 鈥淚 think this is a great way to get not just the kids but the teachers and the parents more comfortable with what the future may hold.鈥�

This was originally published on .

Taking a computer class at her Fayetteville, N.C., high school, she handed in a paper with the offending word: .

鈥淸The teacher] called me over, and she was like, 鈥業 don’t want to see you using AI,鈥� 鈥� the 16-year-old rising junior recalled. If she鈥檇 asked, Reaves would have said she didn鈥檛 use AI to write the piece 鈥� that鈥檚 just the way she talks.

鈥淪o it was kind of tense,鈥� said Reaves, 鈥渁nd I was definitely upset because she gave me a zero for that assignment.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

High school students, steeped for nearly the past four years in generative artificial intelligence, face this reality daily, attending class largely without a set of agreed-upon guidelines. Over the weekend, a small group of students came together to hammer out a few basic principles for the technology, something akin to an AI Bill of Rights.

Sponsored by a group that includes an and a national , 100 students from all 50 states gathered here to debate a first-of-its-kind set of recommendations, to be shared with district leaders nationwide as AI proliferates rapidly in the lives of both students and teachers.

The nonprofit , which brought the group together, didn鈥檛 make the final recommendations immediately available 鈥� they鈥檒l be released in coming weeks. But students told 社区黑料 in interviews they are concerned about a host of problems: cheating, transparency, hallucinations, cognitive offloading, mental health and environmental factors, among others.

Two students from every state debated and ultimately approved the recommendations by a Senate-style roll call vote on Sunday at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, a museum and conference center that features a of the U.S. Senate Chamber where Kennedy served from 1962 until his death in 2009.

Despite the democratic nature of the proceedings, Day of AI refused to grant 社区黑料 access over three days to any of the student debates, save for the closing speeches and final vote. 

The organization also clamped down on the text of the proposal, refusing to release a draft that students spent nearly three days discussing freely.

By the time of Sunday鈥檚 debate and final vote, nearly 100 students sat in replicas of U.S. senators鈥� seats, paging through their copies of the bill as staff members and security personnel closely guarded the proceedings. A reporter who picked up a stray copy of the bill on an upholstered bench had the paper quickly snatched away by a staffer, while another swept the area for more copies, gathering them up and tucking them under an arm.

During the proceedings, a few participants called the proposal flawed or incomplete and even, at times, incoherent 鈥� one student referred to it as 鈥渁 block of Swiss cheese.鈥� But in the end he voted 鈥淵ea.鈥� In all, 83 students approved the measure, with 15 opposed 鈥� two students weren鈥檛 present for the final vote.

鈥業t鈥檚 an easy way out鈥�

In the students鈥� conception, Al literacy instruction should be mandatory as soon as they start using devices in the classroom. The lessons should focus not just on appropriate academic use but on misinformation, plagiarism, bias in Al systems, privacy, environmental impacts and how Al really works.

Ethan Liu, 17, a recent high school graduate from Morgantown, W.Va., said the recommendations are 鈥減retty fair,鈥� especially the section on students. 鈥淲e basically outline that AI, with the proper supervision, is a great tool for brainstorming and studying,鈥� he said. Liu was one of several students who spoke to 社区黑料 during breaks in the deliberations.

Liu recalled asking ChatGPT to create sets of practice problems. 鈥淭hat was one of the best ways that I would use to study for a test.鈥�

But he said using AI to answer test questions or to generate art, for instance, is a bridge too far. The guidelines, Liu said, suggest that AI should be a tool 鈥渢o help kids truly understand the topic without just spoon-feeding them the answer.鈥�

In candid conversations throughout the weekend, students said AI is basically turning their school experience upside down, simultaneously supercharging their ability to learn while threatening to derail many of their classmates 鈥� and sowing mistrust between students and teachers.

鈥淚t’s an easy way out,鈥� said James Baxter, 14, from St. George, Utah. 鈥淧eople like to know hard things, but learning it is a different story for most people.鈥�

While he relies on tools like Google鈥檚 Notebook LM to help him create study guides, Dillian Campbell, 17, a rising senior in Fayetteville, N.C., said that when teachers pass out assignments, he most often sees classmates simply pull out their phones and snap a photo, asking AI to do the rest.

He recalled a math teacher telling students, 鈥淚 don’t care if you use AI, but if you fail your test, that’s on you because you don’t really know the work.鈥�

Jaelyn Jensen, 17, a rising senior in Lee鈥檚 Summit, Mo., noted that early on in discussions, the group concluded that while limiting AI use for young students is crucial, giving middle- and high-schoolers more autonomy with AI makes sense. Teens, she said, need 鈥渢o make their own decisions, to learn from their own mistakes with AI.鈥� But schools must also teach them how to use it responsibly 鈥渁nd let them know that it is something that is going to be in their future.鈥�

Lucia Herrera, 17, a classmate of Jensen鈥檚 from Missouri, said AI has even crept into the speech and debate world, with debaters asking ChatGPT to help them respond to questions about their cases 鈥� this, in a world where critical thinking and original voice are a key to success.

While she can make a case for AI aiding in research, Herrera said, 鈥淚 think it just takes all of the human out of [it].鈥�

Bihmanji Acho, 16, a rising junior from St. Cloud, Minn., said she鈥檚 most troubled by the ways in which she sees AI undermining interpersonal relationships. She recalled attending a recent summit in which adults said they use AI 鈥渁t like two a.m. as a therapist. And I just don’t 鈥︹�� She paused for a moment. 鈥淚t hurts my heart. I feel like it hurts my heart to hear that.鈥�

While 鈥� or is it whilst? 鈥� many might believe that AI offers a crutch for low-skill students, Reaves said we should think again: Many of those who use AI most are 鈥渟uper-smart kids that are, like, just checked out.鈥�

That loss of student agency might be among the most pressing problems AI presents, said Gyimah Whitaker, of the Decatur, Ga., school district. That results in fewer students able to think critically and take risks.

Whitaker, who chaperoned two Georgia students to the event, said her 5,400-student district proudly embraces and the rigorous curriculum. But AI, Whitaker said, undermines the values in both systems, driving students toward completion rather than helping them master difficult tasks.

Luckily, young people are, for now at least, fighting back. She noted that students in her district鈥檚 IB program 鈥渃an be truly offended鈥� if a teacher uses AI to grade their paper. They鈥檝e even proposed a 鈥渢hree-strikes-and-you’re-out鈥� AI rule 鈥� for teachers. 

To be sure, the students urged AI literacy for teachers, and Cynthia Breazeal, who directs MIT鈥檚 RAISE research program, said that鈥檚 no longer optional. 

Actually, the advent of generative AI may require more than just literacy. To truly combat the technology, she said, schools may need to adopt an entirely different pedagogical model, one that encourages students to more deeply engage with material.

She invoked legendary MIT mathematician and computer scientist , who co-developed the Logo programming language in the 1960s and founded what became MIT鈥檚 Media Lab. Papert helped popularize the term 鈥溾�� to describe the productive struggle learning something complex often requires. In his conception, children should be encouraged to build things and embrace difficulty, not shun or outsource it. Upon hearing a teacher describe the difficulties a child encountered programming in Logo once in the 1980s, he concluded, 鈥淚 have no doubt that this kid called the work fun because it was hard rather than in spite of being hard.鈥�

鈥楢 Sputnik moment鈥�?

Chase Johnson, 15, a rising junior in Kenai, Alaska, uses AI 鈥渁 lot鈥� in his personal life. These days, he said, it鈥檚 helping him develop a business to automate processes such as customer service. 

As if to prove it, he鈥檒l pull out his phone to show off no fewer than 10 apps, all of which allow him to explore AI in different ways. 鈥淚 do a lot of research,鈥� he said.

But in his high school, he said, generative artificial intelligence is largely banned because of students using it to cheat.

Some of that responsibility should be borne by teachers, he said: In writing, for instance, instead of assigning essays that are easily outsourced to a bot, teachers should assign research projects that require students to present their findings in front of a class. 鈥淵ou can鈥檛 cheat your way out of that,鈥� Johnson said.

Sarah Zahka, a rising junior in Weston, Fla., said she鈥檚 not above using AI when needed. 鈥淚f I’m stuck on a math problem, I’ll ask it, 鈥楬ey AI, help me solve this problem step-by-step.鈥� 鈥�

While she鈥檚 worried about AI causing students to lose foundational skills, sometimes she simply needs help brainstorming. In writing, Zahka said, she might ask an AI bot how to approach a topic, 鈥渂ut then I’ll write ethically on my own. Although I’m going to sound like a teenager writing an essay and I might not get the grade that the cheaters get, ultimately I’ll know what level I’m at.鈥�

Jeff Riley, the former Massachusetts who now leads Day of AI, said he鈥檚 both excited by the technology鈥檚 possibilities 鈥� and a bit terrified. He predicted that AI could 鈥渒ickstart the next revolution in education,鈥� particularly with its ability to help teachers differentiate instruction and personalize learning. 鈥淏ut there’s some bad stuff with it too, right? Bias, voice clones, deep fakes, hallucinations, companions, energy concerns. The list goes on and on and on.鈥�

While deadly serious, he said, those concerns aren鈥檛 activating enough adults 鈥� this should, by all rights, be 鈥溾�� pushing schools and communities forward, but he sees little urgency. He noted that in 2029, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development鈥檚 international PISA exam will for the first time assess . 鈥淚 can almost guarantee you right now: American schoolchildren, 15-year-olds, are going to score 30th in the world on AI literacy 鈥� on a technology that was largely created in this country.鈥�

On the flight back to Atlanta on Sunday night, Whitaker, the Georgia superintendent, recalled that the two students she accompanied told her they鈥檇 split their vote on the recommendations, one approving the plan and one voting No. The one who opposed the measure told her the proposal 鈥渄idn’t meet the mark completely鈥� and needed more work.

鈥淚 think that’s exciting,鈥� Whitaker admitted. 鈥淲hat excites me is that our children are wrestling just like we are 鈥� and that level of inquiry as a superintendent is what you want to see in students every single day.鈥�

Now, it is artificial intelligence. And educators must ask: What does this innovation help students learn that they couldn’t without it?

Unlike previous classroom technologies, generative AI can perform the very thinking that many lessons are designed to develop. It can write essays, solve problems, summarize readings and produce analyses that students are meant to do themselves. 

聽have now issued AI guidance for schools. Much of it centers on data privacy, human oversight and teacher training, rather than whether a given use of AI is developmentally appropriate for a child.

That leaves the question most states have been skipping: What thinking should students do themselves? To answer that, it helps to look backward. In 1958, psychologist B.F. Skinner designed a  around a simple principle: Students could not move to the next problem until they had produced the correct response themselves. The machine provided immediate feedback, but it never completed the work for the student.

Whatever one thinks of Skinner’s broader work, he understood that students learn by responding to problems, answering questions, making mistakes, receiving feedback and trying again. The student must do the thinking.

But today, generative AI can complete the assignment without the student.

This is referred to as cognitive offloading, handing one’s thinking off to an external system. A  involving about 1,000 high school math students tested this, comparing two versions of an AI chatbot. One answered questions outright. The other offered hints and guidance, but not the answer. Students with the first chatbot performed worse on later exams than those who did not use AI at all. Students who received only hints and guidance performed as well as the no-AI group. One tool did the thinking for students; the other made them think first.

The rule that should anchor any school AI framework is simple. Its role should expand only as a child’s own foundation grows.

In kindergarten through second grade, students are building the skills everything else depends on, including sounding out words, forming letters and developing number sense. How well a child masters these literacy skills  in third and fourth grade, and  is indicative of math performance years later.

Children build those skills by doing the work; such as sounding out words, making errors and trying again. If AI gives students the answer, that productive struggle never happens, and the skill never truly forms.听聽shows that the more students hand a task to a machine, the less able they become to do it themselves.听

So, in K-2, AI belongs only in the teacher’s hands. There, it can help educators in planning phonics instruction and generating practice at each student鈥檚 level.

Third grade marks the shift from learning to read to reading to learn. The same shift happens in math and writing, where the foundational skills become tools for building arguments, drawing inferences and working through problems. That’s what makes a different kind of AI use possible. 

In grades three through five, students should use AI only after they’ve done an assignment themselves, and only under a teacher’s direction. A teacher might take a paragraph a student has written, generate an AI version, and have the class pick out errors and find weak reasoning, wrong facts and claims that do not hold up.

Working with flawed examples is one of the oldest ways to teach analysis, and AI produces an endless supply of them. A  found that when students critique AI-generated work with a teacher鈥檚 guidance, their critical thinking improves. The same research points the other way, too; the more readily people trust AI’s output, the less they think for themselves.

By middle school, AI should become something students should study, not just something they use. This is the age when the judgment to evaluate information聽.听Every eighth grader should be able to explain how these technologies work, where they fail and why they can produce convincing but wrong text 鈥� the beginning of true . Students鈥� own work should still come first, with AI used afterward and under a teacher’s direction.

By high school, students who can read critically, write clearly and work through problems independently can get real value from AI. In writing, they can first draft an essay, then use AI to help identify gaps or missing arguments. The students would then weigh the feedback to decide whether to follow the tool鈥檚 suggestions. AI could also work as a tutor, helping students, say, catch up in algebra or progress beyond grade level, giving feedback faster than a teacher with 25 students can.

High schoolers are also entering a world where AI is embedded in most professional fields, and they need to learn to use it well. That means having the capacity to think, write and reason without it, direct the tool and catch its errors. Those skills are the prerequisite to AI readiness. 

One principle should hold across all grades: Keep assessments AI-free. Tests should measure what the student can do, not what a chatbot knows.

Technology has never been the goal of education. Learning is. Schools exist to help students develop knowledge and skills they couldn’t develop on their own, and every technology should earn its place by helping accomplish that. AI may become one of the most powerful instructional tools schools have ever adopted. But its success shouldn’t be measured by what it can do. It should be measured by what students can do as a result of it.

Anthropic, one of the world鈥檚 most prominent artificial intelligence companies, is launching a version of its AI-powered assistant Claude for teachers, entering a race by technology companies to infuse AI into education.

Anthropic boasts that its product can incorporate academic standards from all 50 states, and teachers can use it to help devise lesson plans, personalize instructional materials to students, and harness data to improve instruction, according to a company news release.

Claude for Teachers joins Google, OpenAI, and Khan Academy 鈥� among others 鈥� in marketing AI products specifically to K-12 educators. The new product launched Tuesday and is available for free for verified educators in the U.S. It will also be piloted in Detroit Public Schools Community District for a study on educator well-being and practice.

Claude鈥檚 formal arrival into the classroom comes during a complicated moment at the intersection of technology and education. The , the , and have all encouraged educators to adopt AI. But a is simultaneously gaining momentum, prompting some of the nation鈥檚 largest school districts to rethink how much time students spend in front of screens, as well as the contracts they鈥檝e signed with huge players in ed tech.

Drew Bent, education lead for Anthropic, said that teachers using Claude鈥檚 educator product could, for example, pull in a student鈥檚 past assessment data and assignment data, along with past lesson plans, and ask Claude to build lesson plans for individual students based on that data 鈥� all while they鈥檙e sleeping.

In developing Claude for Teachers, Bent said Anthropic staff often heard that while teachers are already using AI to generate lesson plans, the plans generated were often detached from the content teachers actually needed to address. Anthropic鈥檚 tool will help teachers save time and toil less to improve student outcomes, he said.

鈥淭here鈥檚 a lot of evidence of what works well for teachers in terms of aligning with high-quality instructional materials, formative assessments, differentiated instruction,鈥� he said. 鈥淏ut of course, if you have 30 students in your class, you鈥檙e not able to do all of that.鈥�

Bent said Detroit was already using other Claude products, and in a 鈥渉uman-centric鈥� way that impressed Anthropic, leading to the pilot program in the district that will start next school year. Anthropic will train teachers at a handful of schools in Claude for Teachers, and evaluate how the product may shape teaching practices in the district.

While AI companies have been eager to cement the technology鈥檚 status as a classroom staple, tech giants likely have a long way to go to quiet skeptics. Student-facing AI and so-called cognitive offloading, a reference to the reliance on AI to complete tasks instead of using critical thinking skills.

Bent emphasized that Anthropic is focusing largely on teachers, and that most K-12 students can鈥檛 access the company鈥檚 Claude assistant, due to an age restriction for anyone under 18.

Daniel Buck, a research fellow at the right-leaning think tank American Enterprise Institute, argued that if teachers outsource work to AI, 鈥渄on鈥檛 be surprised when classroom community and academic outcomes rapidly deteriorate.鈥�

Skeptics have also raised questions about student privacy in using AI, such as Claude.

Anthropic is working with the American Federation for Teachers on aligning the product鈥檚 privacy practices with what the labor union has said will become a 鈥済old standard鈥� in best practices around safety, according to the news release.

Among the privacy features in Claude for Teachers: It won鈥檛 use conversations between the AI assistant and teacher accounts to train its AI, student information will be protected in a manner built to comply with the federal law governing student privacy, and privacy terms of service are written without jargon so teachers can understand what they鈥檙e signing up to use.

鈥淚t鈥檚 important that Anthropic is committing to these principles in their new Claude for Teachers 鈥� a tool designed by and for educators to assist them instructionally and hopefully give them more time for the human relationships at the heart of learning,鈥� wrote AFT President Randi Weingarten in the company鈥檚 press release.

Weingarten has been walking a tightrope when it comes to AI. She鈥檚 in elementary grades while promoting teacher training in the technology. Just a day before calling for the ban, she , an AI chatbot from Khan Academy, in action.

While AFT is working with OpenAI, Microsoft, and Anthropic on privacy standards and AI training for educators, it is notably not working with Google, .

Utah鈥檚 state education board recently made a deal with the tech giant , promising personalized instruction tools for educators.

It鈥檚 not yet clear whether one AI product reigns supreme in schools, but more teachers overall are using AI. Around 61% of teachers , compared with 32% in 2024.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at .听

鈥淚’m not going to pretend like you aren’t,鈥� he tells his students. 鈥淚 know it’s readily available for most of you, if not all of you.鈥�

A math teacher at in Fullerton, California, where he works with students as old as 19 who are struggling to get enough credits to graduate, Rabanera has watched AI creep into homework assignments over the past few years as students use powerful tools like ChatGPT and Google鈥檚 Gemini to race through assignments. 

It has forced him to change his approach. 

He has stopped sending home problems that can be lifted wholesale into an AI chatbot and pasted back into an assignment. Instead, he builds lessons around what students actually care about, creating, for instance, a unit on buying a car that weaves together calculating interest rates and monthly payments with learning about credit scores. He has replaced rote problem sets with one-of-a-kind poster projects and in-class design challenges. 

When Rabanera assigns practice, he often has students devise their own word problems around personal interests to prove they understand the underlying concepts.

He鈥檚 hardly the only one scrambling to try something new: Nationwide, teachers at all levels are rethinking, scaling back or, in some cases, abandoning homework altogether as evidence mounts that students who outsource their assignments to AI aren’t just submitting work that isn’t theirs. They鈥檙e surrendering the cognitive struggle that makes learning stick and makes homework, well, work.

New large-scale research suggests that teachers鈥� fears are valid. A led by Sina Rismanchian of the University of California, Irvine, analyzed 3.2 million student math problems on the digital platform over a decade and found that after ChatGPT’s release in late 2022, high school students spent 31% less time on word problems 鈥� the kind easily copy-pasted into an AI 鈥� compared with graph-based problems that required a hands-on interaction with the platform. College students showed a 27% decline. 

When students were tested under proctored conditions with no access to AI, the copy-paste behavior vanished. And when researchers examined whether students had actually retained anything, they found that the odds of correctly answering AI-susceptible word problems fell by 25% in the post-ChatGPT years.

鈥淪tudents are using AI a lot,鈥� Rismanchian said in an interview. For those who do, “it’s coming at a cost for their learning outcomes.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

The College Board last fall that the percentage of high school students who said they use AI tools for schoolwork grew from 79% in January 2025 to 84% in May 2025.

In a , 37% of K-12 principals said students were using AI for homework help, slightly higher than the percentage who said students were using it to help draft essays.

John Singleton, an associate professor of economics at the University of Rochester and a co-author of the study, said the finding 鈥渃ertainly requires a rethinking of what the object of homework is.鈥� For him, assigning short writing assignments to his college students is 鈥渋nsane these days, because you’re going to get back 25 AI-generated short essays, and so it’s really not gauging comprehension. It’s not even doing the work of forcing the student to engage with the material, because they can put it into the AI.鈥�

Conscientious instructors are drafting AI policies that they post to class syllabi, he said, 鈥渂ut I think the temptation is there.鈥�

Talking to colleagues, Singleton said, 鈥淓veryone feels sort of bewildered about whether they’re doing the right thing.鈥� Moving toward presentations and oral exams make sense, but giving up traditional writing assignments as a way to assess student thinking, he said, 鈥渋s too bad, in some ways.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

The irony of this moment is that AI was supposed to offer students a , capable of explaining concepts, adapting to individual learners and helping them work through difficult material at their own pace. Instead, many educators say, for a significant share of students it has become the most efficient cheating device ever invented.

鈥淭here’s a zillion people that are trying to come up with these guided learning environments and Socratic tutors and stuff like that,鈥� said Justin Reich, director of MIT鈥檚 Teaching Systems Lab and host of the AI-focused podcast 鈥�.鈥� 鈥淎nd I’m just like, ‘Guys, you’re putting the “Carefully teach me this stuff” button directly next to the “Do everything for me” button.’ 鈥�

Reich has spent years studying why students cheat. When they’re being honest, they typically tell researchers that the assignment didn’t seem worth their time, or that they ran out of time. They felt pressure to perform or, in many cases, they found themselves stuck on a problem with no other help in sight. 

鈥淲hat’s new now is that, with all the gen AI stuff, the cost of taking a shortcut is zero,鈥� said Eric Cosyn, a researcher who co-founded the .

Ashley Kannan, who has taught eighth-grade U.S. history for 30 years in Oak Park, Illinois, said that if schools continue to go down the same path of assigning work and expecting students not to be tempted to take shortcuts, 鈥渢he war is over 鈥� we’ve lost.鈥� Classrooms, he said, will be left in 鈥渁 race to see who can plagiarize and cheat the best, and who has the resources to do so,鈥� a dynamic he calls a losing bet for everyone. 

Start your homework in class 

In interviews, many educators and researchers were quick to point out that AI didn’t invent academic dishonesty. 

Denise Pope, a senior lecturer at Stanford’s Graduate School of Education and co-founder of , a research and school reform project, has been tracking student cheating behavior for two decades. Long before ChatGPT, she said, copying a classmate鈥檚 homework was consistently the most commonly admitted form of academic dishonesty.

The group鈥檚 latest academic integrity study, drawn from nearly 30,000 high school students, shows that this pattern still holds: 32.7% of students reported copying someone else’s homework at least once in the past month, a figure almost identical to the share who reported using AI as an unauthorized aid: 32.8%.

Students, Pope said, are simply swapping out one shortcut for another.

鈥淭his sort of hand-wringing that AI is changing homework like never before is a little bit off,鈥� she said, 鈥渂ecause there were high amounts of copying and cheating homework long before.鈥�

All the same, Pope鈥檚 team has surveyed more than 100,000 students since November 2022, and the results are unambiguous: They鈥檙e using AI to do homework. Many don’t frame it as cheating, making the case that consulting an AI is no different than asking a parent, calling a tutor or typing a question into Google. Echoing Reich鈥檚 findings, she noted, 鈥淪ome of them are saying it’s another piece of technology that helps us when we’re stuck.鈥�

Teachers, naturally, see it a bit differently. A Challenge Success survey of 678 faculty and staff members found that the most pervasive concern, raised by about 58% of respondents, wasn鈥檛 cheating itself but the erosion of critical thinking. Teachers complained that students aren鈥檛 developing the intellectual stamina that hard problems require. 鈥淚f school is about skills and not content,鈥� one teacher wrote, 鈥淐hatGPT takes away critical thinking skills at a time that we are supposed to be teaching those skills to the students.鈥�

Pope said her group is hearing from teachers that they鈥檙e afraid to send homework home 鈥渂ecause it’s even more clear that there’s this 鈥楨asy鈥� button, and students are not having the productive struggle that they need to really learn the material.鈥�

She recommends rethinking homework, starting with what she calls a homework audit 鈥� a systematic review of assignments to ask whether they actually require a student to do the intellectual work required. Teachers should also be able to tell if the work was done by the student or by AI.

鈥淪tart your homework in class,鈥� she advised. 鈥淵ou will get a really good picture of who understands what you’re asking and who doesn’t by looking around and seeing what happens in the first 10 minutes 鈥� one kid is done and one kid is still stuck.鈥�

Kannan, the Illinois history teacher, has landed on a similar idea, built around conversations. He still assigns a version of the same paragraph students have long written to identify a historical figure and place them in context 鈥� but the process now unfolds through one-on-one conferences rather than solo writing. Because of the conferences, the writing looks different. 

The goal, he said, is to locate the assignment 鈥渋n the hearts and minds of a student鈥� rather than in a generic prompt that AI can complete on command. 鈥淚 think that there’s a way to personalize rigor,鈥� he said. 鈥淲hen students, when young people feel that something is personal to them, they do come alive.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Kannan said this kind of individualization isn’t new 鈥� special education teachers and speech-language pathologists have practiced it for decades. 鈥淎ll I’m suggesting is that there are pathways that we know work. Why not bring it into the mainstream classroom for every student?鈥�

鈥楬ow this could this stronger?鈥�

Researchers are also grappling with the limits of what they can measure. Self-reported cheating data, as Rismanchian’s paper notes, is 鈥渢he least reliable way to measure anything.鈥� In his own earlier research on 70 undergraduates, more than half of students who were directly observed relying on AI denied using it. 鈥淲e were actually observing this copy-pasting behavior,鈥� he recalled.

A group of McGraw-Hill researchers co-authored the Rismanchian study, and Dylan Arena, the publisher鈥檚 chief of data science, said solving the AI cheating problem has two prongs: Better detection helps, but it’s insufficient without a cultural shift inside classrooms. Students who believe their sole obligation is to produce a completed assignment, he said, will always find the path of least resistance. 

鈥淭here are kids who are here thinking, ‘I need to punch my ticket, I need to get this thing done,’ 鈥� Arena said. 鈥淲hat’s the most expedient way to do that? Hand it over to this tool.鈥�

But he suggested that something deeper is actually happening as AI colonizes students鈥� thinking: They鈥檙e losing their tolerance for 鈥渘ot knowing鈥� something at any given moment, for what he calls the productive discomfort of sitting with a hard problem before the answer becomes clear. 鈥淚t used to be that we would spend weeks not fully understanding something, and we would read, and we would write, and we would talk, and we would try, and we would write drafts 鈥� and they wouldn’t be quite right. But there is now an expectation that I either instantly know what I should do, or I should turn to a tool.鈥�

A few teachers are experimenting with a more informal version of that transparency, built on relationships rather than documentation. 

Kannan described pulling aside a student last year whom he suspected, based on months of conversation, of leaning on AI for most of his schoolwork. 鈥淚 knew that because I was taking the time to talk to him,鈥� Kannan said. 

Rather than report the student, he asked him to run his own writing through the same chatbot he’d been using, in a bid to 鈥渞everse-engineer鈥� and improve it. 鈥淟et’s actually ask questions to ChatGPT about how this could be stronger? How is this weak?鈥�

Kannan has since built that move into his regular teaching: After students draft work with AI’s help, he sometimes has them ask the tool to critique the output, with students in effect 鈥渃o-designing” assignments rather than simply handing them to a chatbot and turning in whatever pops out.

In the absence of such guidance, he said, students will do what they must to complete assignments. He recalled a student who鈥檇 been assigned an essay on the American dream by an English teacher. 鈥淭here was really no instruction as to what that was, and she said, 鈥業 carried on a conversation with Gemini about what the American dream was, and that helped me understand it more.鈥� Given the demands of what the student was facing, she used AI as a partner, as an opportunity.鈥�

, a longtime education researcher who has studied homework, noted that teachers have been assigning less homework for at least a decade 鈥� and that the rise of AI might reduce it further if teachers lose confidence that take鈥慼ome work is genuinely done by students. But it could also work the other way: If teachers believe that AI is a kind of all-purpose helper, they could actually assign more homework because they believe students 鈥渁re going to be helped out and kind of semi-tutored,鈥� he said.

Many school districts are trying to reframe the relationship between students and AI from the ground up. The Laguna Beach Unified School District in California, working with researchers at Stanford, found that AI policies had generated a culture of suspicion in which teachers spent their energy trying to catch cheaters 鈥� and students felt guilty for using AI.

Michael Morrison, the district’s former chief technology officer, called it 鈥渢he absolute worst culture that I can think of.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

In response, the district developed an add-on tool for Google Docs called , which asks students to disclose exactly how much and in what ways they use AI on a given assignment 鈥� a kind of nutritional label for AI-assisted work. Surveys suggest students generally use it honestly because the tool gives them something they didn’t have before: a sanctioned way to tell the truth.

Michael Keller, Laguna鈥檚 director of social-emotional support, noted that the district is already rethinking homework altogether for high school students, since 70% are athletes who devote an hour or more each day to practice and training. 

He sees the AI initiative as part of a broader commitment to treating students as full partners in their own learning. Monitoring how students are using AI, he said, is not the point. 鈥淲e really view it as our moral obligation to make sure that we put trust and supportive relationships as the foundation to their learning experience,鈥� he said.

For MIT鈥檚 Reich, transparency is necessary but not sufficient. The deeper challenge is motivational. 鈥淜ids are just natural boundary pushers,鈥� he said.

And though they may not be able to articulate this, 鈥渢he boundaries are what make them feel safe and loved and cared for.鈥�

The problem, Reich argues, isn’t that students are weak-willed or morally deficient. It’s that the incentive structure of homework 鈥� grades for completion, not for thinking 鈥� has always been fragile. AI has simply exposed that fragility. 

鈥淚t’s not like homework is perfect,鈥� he said. 鈥淎ny teacher will tell you that some of the assignments are dumb or don’t work. But across the tens of millions of minutes of stuff that we ask kids to do in the afternoons, some of it’s got to be useful. And if we turn that spigot off, there’s just going to be less learning.鈥�

That鈥檚 why our newsroom recently launched a new on Instagram () spotlighting a handful of important articles, case studies, data analyses and solutions snapshots that might have gotten lost in the noise. (You can also get these kind of daily highlights delivered straight to your inbox by signing up for our national newsletter.)听

From the new demands facing college students in this era of artificial intelligence to a leadership transition at America鈥檚 largest union, here are five stories you might have missed this week: 

1. Elementary Principals Are Getting a Crash Course in How Young Kids Learn Best

Young children need different conditions than older students to thrive. Some school leaders are adapting their practices to reflect that reality.

2. Princess Moss Elected NEA President With Votes From 50% of Assembly Members

The former music teacher, who previously served as the union’s vice president, narrowly avoided a run-off in July 5 election.

3. What Today鈥檚 College Students Need That Previous Generations Didn鈥檛

College degrees don鈥檛 guarantee good jobs anymore, so students must build resumes and AI skills in high school and college, experts say.

4. A Restored Detroit Rail Station Looks to the Future, Offering Training for Teens

Michigan Central Station, long a symbol of decline and decay, is now an innovation hub with workshops and cutting edge equipment for youth.

5. Q&A 鈥� 鈥楻ehumaning鈥� Education: Banning Screens Is Only Part of the Solution

鈥榃e don’t have to remove all tech,鈥� author Stephanie Malia Krauss says. 鈥榃e need to remove toxic tech鈥� and bring back play and adequate sleep.

But recently I have noticed something I never expected.

Many of my more thoughtful and honest students are becoming critics of the very technologies that shaped them. They are tired of the slop. Tired of content created by code. They say they are repelled by the prospect of an AI friend or romantic partner.

When it comes to the classroom, they willingly admit they prefer a lively class discussion to an online activity. They resent teachers who use AI to grade their papers. And most powerfully of all: They admit their use of technology is a hurdle to becoming the educated Americans they know they should become.

They speak almost like addicts.

They don鈥檛 want to be on their phones eight or nine hours a day. They don鈥檛 want to use AI to complete their assignments and short-circuit their ability to learn and grow. They know their attention span is stunted.

But in so many circumstances, they simply can鈥檛 resist. These observations may sound anecdotal. Let me assure you, they are not.

Over the past year, a series of highly publicized incidents have suggested the emergence of something larger: the first widespread cultural backlash by young Americans against the digital world that shaped them.

Multiple public speakers recently referenced the AI revolution now upon us鈥攁 at the University of Central Florida, a at Middle Tennessee State University, former at the University of Arizona. In every instance, young Americans either passionately booed or, in Schmidt鈥檚 case, the remarks.

A community college in Arizona to read the names of graduates, but the system quickly malfunctioned. When the college announced what had happened, the backlash was both raw and immediate.

These incidents may appear isolated or trivial.

They are not.

Together they suggest the emergence of something larger: the first widespread cultural backlash by young Americans against the digital world that shaped them. The generation that grew up on iPhones, spending much of every waking hour online, now seems to be awakening to the perils of a digital world neither they nor their parents fully understood.

And yet these young people are increasingly lending their voices to a growing chorus of educators, parents and policymakers who have begun to realize a painful truth: There is no quick technological fix for the crises consuming the modern American classroom.

, , emotional distress and a generation-long erosion in students鈥� ability to concentrate all demand a fundamental reassessment of the role screens now play in the educational lives of our children.

Every other day a prominent newspaper or publication now gives voice to this fundamental truth.

Whether it鈥檚 The New York Times explaining or prominent Substack columnists offering a American educators should take advantage of this moment by defending traditional instruction rooted in foundational human relationships.

A generation ago, young Americans had access to a diverse chorus of influential adult voices that tethered them to the mighty responsibilities and possibilities of adult life. Children lived with two parents, numerous siblings and often spent considerable time with grandparents. Life exposed young minds to a faith tradition with pastors and priests on Sundays, sports activities with coaches after school and maybe Boy Scout or Girl Scout leaders as well.

Many of these voices from ages past are silent today.

But that doesn鈥檛 mean our children don鈥檛 hear voices. They do, and they often come from people and digital spaces their parents never would have chosen for them.

This is why 鈥� especially in this era 鈥� the humanity of teachers and the personal vitality of our classrooms are essential. The voices of instruction our children hear should be the voices of teachers who know and care about their students 鈥� not Alexa, not Siri, not some anonymous digital interface designed to maximize engagement rather than human flourishing.

Eye contact. Conversation. Personal relationships. No code or product required.

The kids know this. The kids want this.

Shame on us if we fail to give it to them.

Your host in Osaka, Japan, slips on a and suddenly hears your words transformed into flawless Kansai Japanese. Even better, their reply in their native tongue comes through perfectly clear to you.

Has your kid ever used artificial intelligence to answer homework questions that their teacher used artificial intelligence to write?

It鈥檚 possible, according to a  from the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts that found a majority of teachers in the state are using generative AI for planning or in the classroom, but also express concern that students鈥� use of the technology could harm their learning.

Teachers see promise in artificial intelligence

The poll, based on more than 13,000 teacher responses from across the state, found that 59% of those who responded said they use AI for teaching tasks.

Teachers were most likely to say they used AI to prepare for class 鈥� 95% of teachers surveyed said they used it for instructional planning and preparation at least a few times a year, with more than half using it at least once a week.

Venecia Whyte-Foster, a middle school English teacher in Savannah-Chatham County, said she was an early adopter of the technology.

鈥淚 embraced it immediately as it came out,鈥� she said. 鈥淚鈥檓 like, 鈥極K, this is not going away. My kids are going to use it. How do I use it in my class effectively?鈥� 鈥�

Part of what she came up with involves personalized chatbots that turn classroom concepts into escape room-like games where students use what they鈥檝e learned to solve puzzles and progress through levels.

鈥淭hey have to ask a question directly toward the topic, and then the chatbot will give them more questions, give them information and then ask them questions, and until they鈥檙e able to answer those questions effectively, they cannot move on,鈥� she said. 鈥淎nd they love those escape rooms, they love to be the first to get out of the room.鈥�

The task the polled teachers were most hesitant to use AI for was grading student work, with 62% saying they never do that.

Of the teachers who use AI, nearly 90% said it had a positive impact on their classrooms, with majorities saying the technology helped save time, improve their lesson materials and increase student participation.

Teachers who do not use AI told state analysts they believe it invites students to become reliant on the technology, potentially damaging their critical thinking skills and encouraging them to cheat or become lazy. Teachers also expressed concerns about AI accuracy, data privacy and other ethical concerns.

University of Georgia associate professor Xiaoming Zhai directs the university鈥檚 AI4STEM Education Center, which focuses on using AI to advance STEM education.

Zhai said he understands teachers who don鈥檛 trust AI, but he still encourages them to keep an open mind.

鈥淩egardless of whether they鈥檙e using AI in their own profession, their students in the future will be using AI in their career,鈥� he said. 鈥淪o if they鈥檙e not able to use AI, how can they expect them to educate the future workforce to be able to use AI responsibly and ethically?鈥�

Zhai said teaching future educators how to effectively use AI will help them guide students toward the proper use.

鈥淚 think the key part is how can we guide a teacher to be responsible and ethically using AI so they can foresee any potential risk and challenge that the students might be facing when using the AI?鈥� he said.

Middle and high schoolers are also embracing AI, to teachers鈥� chagrin

Elementary school teachers told auditors that their students were the least likely to use AI to complete their work, but adoption of AI for school use grows as students age. A majority of high school teachers report their students using AI on assignments at least half of the time.

Teachers whose students used AI were more likely to say that the technology had a negative impact on their learning, with a majority of middle and high school teachers reporting that AI had a very negative or somewhat negative impact on their students鈥� learning.

More than half of the teachers surveyed said they required in-class work or writing as a means of managing student AI use. Half of the respondents said they made an effort to clearly define AI abuse and what constitutes cheating, and 43% said they use software or apps to check for AI use in student assignments.

Whyte-Foster said she teaches about AI hallucinations 鈥� the word for when AI spits out a confident-sounding but totally fabricated response 鈥� and why it鈥檚 important to double check everything.

鈥淲e discuss why it鈥檚 important that we understand that it is not something that we just go through, but that we have to use our minds, that we have to put things into place to make sure we are thinking for ourselves, that it鈥檚 giving us information so that we can use it in our thinking, as a part of our brainstorming,鈥� she said.

Despite that, Whyte-Foster said students sometimes try to pass along AI-generated work as their own. She said it鈥檚 usually easy to spot since she is familiar with her students鈥� writing abilities from their in-class work. When she gets an AI-produced assignment, she has a talk with the student about academic integrity and offers the chance to re-do the work for a reduced grade.

鈥淭hey鈥檒l tell you, yes, they鈥檇 prefer a 70 to a zero,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut if they get the 100 or the 90, I鈥檒l put it there, and then put the minus 30 there and just say, 鈥楬ey, look at this, you did it, you could have done it before. The only reason you have a 70 is because you didn鈥檛 follow the guideline in the first place. Next time, choose the right way.鈥� 鈥�

Guidance and training

About two-thirds of teachers reported that they had received guidance on AI use, while 70% reported that they had received training and 27% reported that they received neither training nor guidance.

Auditors noted that responses were inconsistent within districts, with a portion of teachers reporting they had received training or guidance and others reporting they had not. Auditors suggest that could indicate teachers were unaware of district resources or that guidance was provided to some teachers but not others. Teachers in districts with high poverty levels were more likely to say they had not received guidance or training.

The use of AI in K-12 education is not yet addressed in federal or state law, but the Georgia Department of Education and the Georgia Professional Standards Commission, the agency responsible for licensing teachers, have developed guidance.

In January 2025, the state Department of Education appointed an AI ethics and impact officer and released  best practices. In a statement, State School Superintendent Richard Woods said AI use should come with 鈥渟erious consideration of the ethical, instructional, and privacy implications.鈥�

鈥淲hat I never want to see is AI being used to replace the skill and expertise of our teachers, or our students鈥� ability to develop critical thinking skills,鈥� said Woods, a Republican who is running for re-election in November. 鈥淎I should always be a tool, never a replacement.鈥�

That experience stayed with me long after graduation. It taught me something that is becoming increasingly vital in today鈥檚 digital world: Confidence is not developed by having the perfect answer but by believing in authentic ideas. 

Many young students are losing confidence in their own ideas. It is undeniable my generation grew up behind screens, with videos and phones embedded in everyday life. As a 16-year-old high school student, I don鈥檛 consider artificial intelligence a futuristic invention but rather a simple extension of the world we already live in. That is why I believe many conversations about AI in schools are missing the bigger issue entirely. The real concern is not technology itself but what happens when student voices become overshadowed. 

Technology has not only changed the way students learn but also the way we communicate on a daily basis. Many young people have become highly skilled at digital tools, with FaceTime and Zoom becoming frequent parts of everyday life. It is a common joke that if our generation does not put their phones down, they will forget how to talk to someone on a date!聽There is immense truth behind that. As we become more accustomed to immediate responses, we are slowly losing the patience to sit with a thought.听

About 54% of students already use AI for schoolwork, a number continuing to rise. AI can certainly help students organize their thoughts. I even used it during the brainstorming process of this piece, but the important aspect is that my writing remained a reflection of my voice. With this expanding access to knowledge, an important question remains: Where does student voice fit in? If students begin relying on AI from the moment their education begins, they risk losing the discomfort that comes from developing confidence in their own ideas. That uncomfortable part matters. 

I have personally experienced how being in an uncomfortable position can lead the mind to function in ways AI cannot replace. It was the day of a long-awaited DECA business conference, and I put on my dress and blazer, a stark contrast to the comfortable clothes I wear at school. I had recited my speech until I knew it by heart, yet during the presentation, I felt the pressure set in and my thoughts begin to blur.听

For a moment it felt as though all my preparation disappeared, but after taking a moment to slow down, I looked back at my notes and continued. It was not the polished performance I had imagined, but by the end I had conveyed what I wanted to say. More importantly, the experience taught me something AI never could, which was how to recover in real time.

Through these experiences, I have seen how much students can grow when they are asked to use their own voices. Recognizing this, I am proud to lead a summer program in the Chicagoland area called First Voice Academy. 

Here, middle school students learn and practice public speaking in a low-stress, immersive environment. Designed to promote interpersonal connection, the program walks participants through the importance of communication and concludes with their delivering a speech on their own. Taught directly by high schoolers, the program gives younger students the opportunity to learn from peers who have faced many of the same obstacles.

I can envision a student struggling to present during a speech, but that is the key: The words are theirs. The goal is not to ignore AI, but to ensure younger generations have opportunities to develop confidence in their own ideas.听

Artificial intelligence can polish language perfectly and respond to a question in under a second, but what it cannot do is replace a student鈥檚 voice. Confidence is gained when students believe their own thoughts are worth sharing, even when they come out wrong the first time. Students who feel they have a voice at school are seven times more motivated to learn. 

A program like First Voice Academy allows for real world experience while in a learning environment. If similar programs can be expanded into schools, more students would build interpersonal skills at a crucial point in their lives.听

I think back to the moment I stepped up to give my graduation speech and how scared I was. All it took was to say the first word, and suddenly I felt connected with the audience. Student voice offers a perspective unlike any other, and simply needs the opportunity to be heard. Technology may help develop ideas, but true opportunity comes from nurturing one’s own voice.

New York City education officials are hitting pause on releasing comprehensive artificial intelligence guidelines after their draft policy from March sparked .

Officials initially said their final guidance would be released in June, but backed away from that timeline during a Wednesday City Council hearing focused on AI in schools. Instead, the policy guidance will be released sometime this summer, First Deputy Chancellor Danielle Giunta said.

Giunta said the 鈥渟hifting national conversation, which has really escalated over just the last couple of weeks alone鈥� was one reason for the delay, along with nearly 6,500 comments responding to the March draft. Officials have not released those responses but told City Council members they would do so.

Worries about AI 鈥� and education technology in schools more broadly 鈥� have increased in recent months. More than half of City Council members urging Mayor Zohran Mamdani and schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels to pause AI use in schools citing concerns about learning and mental health. A broader petition seeking a moratorium on generative AI use in city schools has received .

The Education Department鈥檚 draft policy used a that spelled out various uses of AI and their risk levels. Assessments and grading are not allowed, for instance, but brainstorming lesson plans gets a green light. Student AI use was largely left out, even though it鈥檚 one of the most pressing issues schools face. In response to the draft policy, parents and largely criticized the approach.

Samuels, who did not attend Wednesday鈥檚 hearing, that the Education Department鈥檚 draft policy 鈥渕issed the mark鈥� that AI 鈥渋s the most invasive technology that we鈥檝e seen.鈥� He suggested the final guidance would have stricter limits for the city鈥檚 youngest students.

Giunta said Wednesday that the city is considering different expectations based on age and grade level and thinking about how to prepare older students 鈥渇or a world in which AI is already present without allowing AI to replace their own thinking.鈥�

City Council members repeatedly pressed Education Department officials about the extent to which AI tools are already used in classrooms and indicated families should have a greater say over how their children are exposed to it.

鈥淭here are huge gaps in our understanding of how the technology is being deployed and when,鈥� said Manhattan council member Carmen De La Rosa, who chairs the technology committee. 鈥淲e do need the time to be able to wrap our arms around what is happening in our classrooms.鈥�

Education officials said they are working with superintendents and principals to develop a more comprehensive sense of what tools schools are already using.

The Education Department鈥檚 stance on AI has whipsawed in recent years. When ChatGPT gained widespread use, city officials . Three months later, they rescinded the ban.

Former schools Chancellor David Banks , saying 鈥淎I can revolutionize how we function as a school system鈥� and could be used for everything from college advising to assessing student work. But he never released a clear policy, leaving that task to Mamdani and Samuels to complete. Meanwhile, schools have been left to .

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at .

after laments the death of entry-level hiring, and according to the World Economic Forum, the they鈥檙e building will be out of date by the end of the decade. 

As both a mother of two teenagers and the head of one of the nation鈥檚 largest education , I鈥檓 asked a version of the very same question from both parents and policymakers: How can we ensure that today鈥檚 students are learning things that are actually going to matter?

I found part of the answer in an unexpected place: a high school theater.

My daughter recently performed in her school鈥檚 production of “Legally Blonde: The Musical.” She played Pilar, a scene-stealing member of Elle Woods鈥� sorority. After the show, she cried 鈥� not from exhaustion or stress but from pride. And not pride in the accomplishment, but the learning that came with it.

Of course, what she learned from that play won鈥檛 show up on a standardized test. Colleges won鈥檛 find it on her transcript, either. But like thousands of other theater kids, she鈥檚 building exactly the sort of skills that the labor market is demanding.

In the weeks leading up to the performance, she had to collaborate with a diverse cast, manage her time across competing priorities, take direction and feedback, recover from mistakes in real time and perform under pressure. She built confidence, resilience and the ability to communicate with clarity and presence. We used to call these 鈥渟oft鈥� skills. In the age of AI, they鈥檙e the hard currency of economic mobility. 

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that some kids who participated in the performing arts have landed themselves in positions of significant power and influence, including former Disney CEO and U.S. Supreme Court Justice .

As AI accelerates the automation of routine tasks, a suggests that the uniquely human capabilities are becoming even more valuable, not less. More often than not, these 鈥渄urable skills鈥� are cultivated in places we don鈥檛 traditionally count: theater productions, debate teams, student government, part-time jobs and community-based experiences. 

This raises an urgent question: If the skills that matter most for success in the world of work 鈥� and the world at large 鈥� are developed in unconventional ways, why do we continue to treat those experiences as peripheral?

The simple answer is that our education system is largely oriented around what is easiest to measure over what matters most. If we can鈥檛 measure it, we can鈥檛 evaluate it. And if we can鈥檛 evaluate it, why teach it? But when it comes to high school, what we measure is beginning to change.

In recent months, a growing number of states are changing high school graduation requirements and replacing traditional diplomas with 鈥�,鈥� designed to provide a broader understanding of what students have learned that more holistically captures the skills necessary for success in life. 

The Carnegie Foundation recently a new set of skills progressions designed to complement 鈥渄ecode鈥� the 鈥渟kills genome鈥� by transforming skills like collaboration and critical thinking into their component parts 鈥� a significant step toward developing new forms of assessment, curricula and ultimately teaching methods that bring 鈥渢heater鈥� skills to center stage.

As business leaders begin to question the value of longstanding skills-proxies 鈥� including even the college degree 鈥� they are signaling to young people that skills honed outside the academic context are not optional; they are essential. That includes designing hiring and interview processes that explicitly take human skills into account; assessing those skills as workers progress in their careers; and adopting training programs that focus on those skills alongside technical competencies.

 More and more businesses are recognizing that if the pace of technological advancement isn鈥檛 slowing down, the best way to keep up is to ensure that their employees have the resilience and agility to navigate a world of work defined by change.

And for parents, perhaps most importantly of all, it may mean recognizing that the path to opportunity is not always linear or confined to the classroom. It鈥檚 time to stop thinking of theater, sports and volunteering as ways of burnishing a resume for college. Those activities have always been the places where students learn to work together, navigate uncertainty and step up in scary situations. Reading and math will never stop being important, but without the skills to put academic accomplishments to work, too many of our young people will find those dire headlines starting to come true.

My daughter didn鈥檛 just perform in a musical. She practiced the very skills that will help her navigate a world where change is constant and careers are nonlinear. If we are serious about preparing young people for the future of work, we need to expand our definition of what counts as learning 鈥� and where it happens.

Appalled, Jessie turns around to find the twins鈥� discarded toys in the yard, looking worn and weary. 

鈥淲hat happened to you?鈥� Jessie asks them. 

鈥淭ech,鈥� the toys reply in unison. 

These toys explain to Jessie that, for years, technology has been 鈥渋nvading鈥� homes, capturing kids鈥� attention and effectively ending imaginative play. 

鈥淵our kid still plays?鈥� one asks. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 remember play.鈥�

Jessie is skeptical, so they prove it to her: The toys climb to the roof of the twins鈥� house and look across the neighborhood, where they can see the blue light from screens glowing back onto children鈥檚 faces through each window.

鈥淣o wonder she can鈥檛 make a friend,鈥� Jessie says, referring to Bonnie. 鈥淪he鈥檚 the only one out there still playing with toys.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

It鈥檚 the type of exchange that stays with you 鈥� perhaps because, when depicted in a fictional animation, it鈥檚 clear just how representative it is of our current reality. 

The latest film in Disney-Pixar鈥檚 multibillion-dollar Toy Story franchise, which was released on June 19 and pits traditional toys against digital technology, comes at exactly the right time, multiple child development and media experts said in interviews. Children, even in their early years, are awash in screens and devices, and their overwhelmed parents often don鈥檛 know how to go about establishing guardrails 鈥� or what those guardrails should even be. All of this comes as AI is emerging as a threat to children, now embedded in toys and being used to generate videos that are served to children on YouTube without any real quality checks. Meanwhile, a chorus of critics 鈥� from the to the of one of the largest teachers unions in the country 鈥� are adding their concerns to the conversation.听

鈥淚 think this is one of the most important issues of our time. I really do,鈥� said Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, a professor of psychology at Temple University and senior fellow at Brookings Institution who studies child development. 

鈥淲e are at this inflection point,鈥� she added, 鈥渨here we actually have a technology that has the capability, if used incorrectly, not just to captivate kids鈥� attention but lessen kids鈥� attention. It takes away human-to-human interaction by displacing time and their imaginations.鈥�

Indeed, 鈥淭oy Story 5鈥� addresses exactly that. Soon after Jessie learns what鈥檚 been happening to children all over the neighborhood, 8-year-old Bonnie gets a tablet of her own, a frog-shaped device called Lilypad. 

Lilypad instantly grabs hold of Bonnie鈥檚 attention. Bonnie 鈥� a child who had previously relished in the rich stories and scenes she鈥檇 created with her analog toys using just her imagination 鈥� becomes zoned out, using the device day and night. She forgets about her beloved toys and the worlds she had dreamed up for them. 

Bonnie鈥檚 parents bought her the device in hopes that it would help her make friends. After all, everyone else her age seemed to be using one. While Lilypad does help Bonnie connect with her peers through a group chat, she soon learns that鈥檚 not quite the same thing as finding a true friend. After getting invited to a sleepover that goes all wrong, Bonnie finds out that digital connection is no replacement for authentic human connection. The child becomes more and more despondent and detached as the film progresses, leading her toys 鈥� Jessie, Woody, Buzz and the rest of the gang 鈥� to take charge on her behalf. They want to oust Lilypad and also help Bonnie make a real friend. 

The movie portrays technology as a force that can come at the expense of human relationships, which is often what experts warn about when it comes to children and screens. 

鈥淲e see human displacement as a very real threat,鈥� said Michelle Culver, founder of the Rithm Project, a nonprofit working to reclaim and evolve human connection in the age of AI. So she loved that 鈥淭oy Story 5鈥� was, in many ways, 鈥渁 celebration of friendship.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Dana Suskind, a pediatric surgeon and author of the forthcoming book 鈥淗uman Raised: Nurturing Connection, Curiosity and Lifelong Learning in the Age of AI,鈥� felt the movie did a good job of demonstrating 鈥渉ow screen time can erode creativity and connection and lead to bullying.鈥�

鈥淓ven though the movie is about tech,鈥� Suskind said, 鈥渋t鈥檚 probably about something deeper that we鈥檙e all grappling with: the desire and the need for human connection, the important role the early years play in navigating human relationships and learning how to have relationships.鈥�

Suskind saw 鈥淭oy Story 5鈥� the day it came out. She went with two colleagues at the TMW Center for Early Learning and Public Health at the University of Chicago, including Liz Sablich, who brought her two young children along. 

Sablich鈥檚 7-year-old son Jack had some astute questions and observations about the film later that night, after taking some time to process what he鈥檇 seen, his mom said. One of the first things he said, Sablich recalled, was that Bonnie seemed 鈥渉ypnotized鈥� by her device 鈥� that was the word he used. 鈥淚t was like she worshipped it,鈥� Jack told his mother. 

Sablich agreed and explained that some technology is actually designed to do that. Jack wanted to know why. When she told him that, in some cases, the more a person uses the technology, the more money a company makes, he became visibly upset and said, 鈥淭hat鈥檚 not right. That鈥檚 not fair. They should care more about the people.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Jack was also perplexed that Bonnie kept her device in her bedroom, right next to her bed, at all times. (Jack is only permitted access to his tablet during travel, Sablich said.) He said he never wanted to use his tablet again and didn鈥檛 want his mom to use her phone. Sablich used that opportunity to explain how technology can work for and with us, too. For example, she was able to use her phone to arrange a play date for him the next day. 鈥淲e can use it in limited ways to make it easier to play with friends and do things in the real world,鈥� she told him. 

鈥淚 was pleasantly surprised by how straightforward I thought the message of the film was and that it sparked such an important conversation,鈥� Sablich said. 

That鈥檚 exactly the type of dialogue experts are hoping the film will prompt. 

鈥淲e have to get this in the national conversation,鈥� said Hirsh-Pasek. 鈥淭he group that鈥檚 being left out of the national conversation is little kids, the 0 to 10 crowd.鈥�

The film is giving families and young children an opportunity to 鈥減ause and reflect,鈥� said Sunny Xun Liu, director of research at the Stanford Social Media Lab 鈥� and to ask some important questions.

鈥淲hat are our values as a society for technology, especially for such young children?鈥� Liu said. 鈥淲hat values should we hold together as a community and a culture about technology and screens? It gives us opportunities to think about this topic as families, communities and a society together.鈥�

That Disney, a powerhouse media brand trusted by millions of American families, opted to tackle this topic at all was 鈥渂old,鈥� Suskind said. Michael Levine, an early learning expert with more than two decades in the field of children鈥檚 media, called it 鈥済utsy.鈥�

鈥淭he fact they鈥檝e responded to the cultural moment 鈥� is really smart and, I think, brave,鈥� he said. 鈥淗ats off.鈥�

Culver, at the Rithm Project, was impressed by how much 鈥渄imension鈥� the movie had on the topic of technology, showing that, in addition to the harm devices can do, they can also help bring people together when used appropriately. 

鈥淭here鈥檚 always the opportunity for good,鈥� Suskind noted. 鈥淚t鈥檚 whether or not we make the design choices that actually allow it. I think Disney tried to show that.鈥�

College grads are facing a tough job market, with headlines almost daily declaring their prospects or or call their a

High school students entering college need to think ahead and build work experience and skills as soon as they can, experts say. College is still key to long-term success. Just not on its own. 

It鈥檚 now what some experts refer to as 鈥渃ollege and鈥�: and an internship; and training in at least Artificial Intelligence basics; and a career credential; and some project or passion that demonstrates a student can use the skills learned in class in the real world.

鈥淒urable鈥� or 鈥渟oft鈥� skills such as teamwork, reasoning and collaboration are also considered a must in the workplace.听聽

 鈥淲e’ve seen a transition into employers wanting a little bit more quantifiable evidence that students actually have skills,鈥� said Scott Fleming, executive director of the State Council of Higher Education of Virginia. 

鈥淓mployers who are looking at first hires out of college鈥� they want to see that they already have work experience,鈥� Fleming told a . 鈥淭he degree is important. But did you also get work integrating the learning, or an internship, project based learning, undergraduate research, something else as part of that education enterprise? That, to an employer, signals as well that you have developed those skills along the way.鈥�

AI which is automating tasks, is also disrupting the job market, experts noted, on top of the increasing demand from employers for more evidence than just a college degree that graduates have the skills they want.

Jeff Strohl, director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, said he doesn鈥檛 envy students trying to chart a path toward a career with all the shifting demands of employers and the impact of AI on the economy.

鈥淚n the 1980s, you just got a BA, the employer would train you and everything would be nice,鈥� Strohl said. 鈥淣ow much more of that workforce preparation falls on the student.鈥�

He still urges students to go to college, saying higher education degrees offers the best chance at long-term success. But he and several other career experts and researchers have a few key pieces of advice for young people as they prepare for a career:

• Learn how to use AI as a tool, not be replaced by it. 
• Build resumes while in high school and college with jobs and internships. Internships are scarce, but students still need to seek them out to build skills, contacts and references. 
• College majors can matter a lot, though AI is slashing the value of some once-certain degrees.
• Expect to be nimble and adapt as the job market changes.
• Consider how well a college provides AI training or work experiences when choosing a school.
• Find ways to show mastery of 鈥渟oft鈥� or 鈥渄urable鈥� skills through jobs, projects or new tests that are emerging that can certify mastery of them.

鈥淒on’t get anxious,鈥� Strohl said. 鈥淏ut be purposeful and deliberate鈥� Engage, engage. Be deliberate. Don’t let stuff happen to you.鈥澛�

The data on today鈥檚 job market is bleak, with college graduates finding fewer jobs to launch careers, and many having to take jobs below what their degree would usually allow. The unemployment rate for recent college graduates was 5.7% in the first quarter of 2026, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently reported, the highest rate since the pandemic.听

A separate study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found the advantage a college degree has in finding a job over just a high school diploma 鈥� independent of the pandemic and AI. College graduates, researchers found, are now having to search for jobs longer than high school graduates do.

Between 1976 and 2000, high school graduates had to look for a job for 11 weeks before finding one, while college graduates found jobs faster, in just eight weeks. Today, high school graduates are still taking 11 weeks to find a job, but college graduates are now job hunting for 12 weeks.

鈥淭hat鈥� gap is now in favor of high school graduates,鈥� said researcher Bar谋艧 Kaymak.听

It鈥檚 not clear how much the recent growth of Career Technical Education programs in high schools has affected the difference between high school and college graduates. Though students who earn career credentials in high school can have better job prospects after graduating and could draw some students away from college, the value of credentials varies greatly, and national data hasn鈥檛 shown enough students shifting to CTE to affect the trend.

The New York report also highlighted a larger problem: More than 40% of recent graduates were underemployed 鈥� doing jobs that don鈥檛 require a degree.听

Underemployment is both costly to graduates and hard to overcome. A by the Strada Education Foundation and Burning Glass Institute found that underemployment gives graduates a 鈥渉eavy financial cost.鈥� Though college graduates earn 25% more than just having a high school diploma, even in jobs that don鈥檛 require a degree, that鈥檚 much less than the 88% more they would earn if they found a job that matched their degree.

鈥淭his leaves underemployed graduates on weaker financial footing as they start their careers, especially those with substantial student loan debt,鈥� the report stated.

It鈥檚 also hard to recover if the first job out of college isn’t a good one. Strada reported that 73% of graduates who started out underemployed after college remained underemployed 10 years later.

Strada identified a few keys to improving odds of finding a good job, with the most important being picking the right major and having job experience before graduating. An internship or job, Strada found, reduces the risk of underemployment more than 49%.

Even STEM degrees, once thought of as a guarantee of success, aren鈥檛 created equal. Strada found that computer science, engineering or mathematics majors were much better off than those in fields like biology.

Degrees in nursing, engineering, architecture and math-intensive business fields such as accounting and finance had the best chances of avoiding underemployment.

A by the Center for an Urban Future offered a snapshot of what underemployment can look like by analyzing how graduates of the City University of New York system fared after leaving school:

That report found that:

• Job postings for applicants with little experience have fallen 37% since 2022
• Internship opportunities for college students are also down 37% since the pandemic.听
• Ten percent of CUNY graduates were working in retail or food service five years after graduation, rising to 13% for graduates of CUNY鈥檚 community colleges.听聽
• Surveys show that just 12% of CUNY graduates had a paid internship during college.听

鈥淚n this challenging hiring environment, CUNY鈥檚 mostly low-income students will struggle to gain access to well-paying jobs unless CUNY develops far stronger connections with employers,鈥� the report stated. 

Merrill Pond, executive vice president of the Partnership for New York City, a leading business organization, also called out a need for more work-based learning.

鈥淚f students are not given the opportunity to put something on their resume that will make them stand out or start to develop that network, they鈥檙e often going to be at a disadvantage,鈥� Pond said as the report was released.  

Though CUNY was praised for progress in connecting students to work, including through partnerships with several nonprofits that train and mentor students and help them find internships, the report found  efforts are still falling short.

Lauren Andersen, CUNY鈥檚 vice chancellor for career engagement and industry partnerships, said some of the report鈥檚 findings were 鈥渟obering.鈥澛�

She said the university鈥檚 own data shows 22% of students have paid internships, data it just started tracking in the 2023-24 school year. The university also started a new effort, CUNY Beyond, in 2025 to improve career advising and make faculty more aware of how they can help students connect to jobs.

Students are three times more likely to have a job at graduation if they do a paid internship, Andersen said, and twice as likely to have an internship or job if they meet with a career advisor.

Many students come to college without family connections to business or clear ideas of how to seek jobs.

鈥淐UNY has to take on the role, and higher education institutions have to take on the role, of building those relationships for their students, and that’s something that we’re not necessarily historically set up to do,鈥� she said.

Western Governor鈥檚 University is another school that has made a deliberate effort to connect students to jobs. It鈥檚 also joining a push by some high schools and nonprofits to evaluate and rate students on their soft skills to validate those skills to employers.

Students need to be able to show employers what they have learned and how they can succeed at work, Western Governors President Scott Pulsipher said at the same panel as Fleming. Colleges need to help them do that, as well as help them try out jobs to see if they like them and find out which skills they might need to do them. 

鈥淓very rising high school graduate should be more intentional about developing their vocational identity 鈥� meaning, how do they see themselves contributing to the world?鈥� Pulsipher said. 鈥淚t feels to me like they defer this too long.鈥�

The emergence of AI has created new complications for young people. Changes are happening so fast, it鈥檚 hard to plan what the job market might look like in a few years.

Georgetown鈥檚 Strohl said new high school graduates might be better off in four years than today鈥檚 college graduates.

鈥淭he shocks that we’re seeing to the labor market today, and are clearly impacting recent college grads鈥� will be better understood,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he education system鈥� will have had a chance to figure out some strategies of response, and actually, to what degree is AI going to be a problem. 鈥�

He also cautioned AI might not be as big a disruption as some fear. Automation had the 鈥渟ame kind of hype that we鈥檙e hearing about AI,鈥� but worries 40 million jobs would be replaced by machines turned into eight million jobs at most just adapted to work with automation, not replaced by it.

Harvard鈥檚 McKittrick urged students entering college not to be caught up in the 鈥渘oise鈥� of a changing job market, with some firms hiring few people, but others hiring many. Along with working jobs while in college to build a resume, she said students need to learn to use AI.

鈥淲hat we’re hearing from employers is that they do want young people with AI skills,鈥� McKittrick said. 鈥淭hey might not exactly know what those skills are, but they want people who are kind of comfortable using the technology. Young people should be thinking about, 鈥楧oes the college have an AI literacy strategy?鈥� 鈥�  

Others said it will be key to also develop 鈥渟oft鈥� or 鈥渄urable鈥� skills such as critical thinking and ingenuity to put AI to best use.听

鈥淎I still needs the humans to say, 鈥楨ven as I’m using it, how should I be using it?鈥� 鈥� said Pulsipher of Western Governors University. 鈥淎re the outcomes that it’s providing me useful and relevant to what we’re trying to do?鈥�

Laura Ullrich, Director of Economic Research in North America of the job search website Indeed, is telling her three sons to find jobs while in school to explore what they want to do, while also making sure to build soft skills that are becoming more important in job applications.

鈥淚 think a few years ago, you would have seen very few computer science majors feel the need to call out that they were a good writer or maybe had more critical thinking skills, or had taken a bunch of philosophy classes,鈥� Ulrich said. 鈥淏ut today鈥� young job seekers are thinking about this quite differently.鈥�

Principals, superintendents and other school leaders are being subjected to sleek demos from presenters who know all the right buzzwords. Salespeople are showcasing technologies and hinting that, should administrators choose not to buy their product, students will be left behind. That the digital divide will grow 鈥� on their watch. 

This intense pressure will cause some school leaders to sign agreements that will not serve their students well. While most mistakes won鈥檛 rise to the level of prominent school districts supporting a failed startup, some administrators will nonetheless let anxiety rule the day. They will spend money on tried-and-true methods that could do more good than the shiny new thing. 

What can prevent this? Asking the right questions. 

I have spent years on both sides of the table. As a teacher, I used both good and bad ed tech, so I have seen what actually works in the classroom. As an employee of an ed tech startup I designed technologies that were sold to schools, so I know when promises are inflated to help the bottom line. As a professor of educational technologies and leader of the University of Southern California鈥檚 Center for Generative AI and Society, I study these technologies to know what works 鈥� and what doesn鈥檛 鈥� when it comes to AI鈥檚 influence on education.

That is why, with the support from my colleagues, I have written a titled “Beyond the Salespitch: A Practical Guide to Questioning EdTech Vendors.” Below are some key questions every school leader must consider before signing on the dotted line and committing limited resources to AI-powered ed tech.

Does the Tool Really Help Teachers in the Classroom?

• What specific cognitive skills does the product aim to develop (e.g., argument construction, data interpretation, metacognitive reflection)?
  
• How does it supplement learning rather than replace it? Ask for a step-by-step walk-through showing where student input is required and how feedback loops are built in.
  
• What evidence exists that students improve on the targeted skills? Request pilot study results, raw performance data or an independent evaluation report 鈥� nothing less rigorous will do. 
  
  

Does One Size Really Fit All?

• Which student populations were included in testing the product? Look for data on age, language proficiency, special education status and socioeconomic background. Biased data means biased performance.
  
• How does the system adapt to individual students’ profiles? Ask for a live demo of the personalization engine that shows adjustments based on prior performance and teacher input. 
  
• What safeguards are there for students who might become over-reliant on the tool? Ask how the product detects and flags excessive automation, prompting teacher intervention.

Who Owns the Content?

• Where is student data stored and processed? Identify the physical location of servers (domestic versus overseas) and any third-party processors involved. Ask how data breaches are handled and communicated.
  
• Who owns the text or media students generate using the tool? Ideally, the contract must state that all user-created content remains the property of the school district. Otherwise, your school becomes another content generator for a company. 

• Will our data be used to train future versions of the AI? If yes, require an opt-out clause and a clear explanation of how opting out affects service quality.听
  
• What happens if protected information (FERPA/HIPAA) is entered by mistake? Insist on a documented protocol for immediate deletion and breach notification. Consider clauses that allow you to exit agreements when large enough mistakes occur. 

Are Students Protected From Bias and Misinformation?

• What filters prevent misinformation or harmful content from reaching children? Get access to a live example of the system handling ambiguous queries that could lead to falsehoods. Stress-test it!
  
• Who is responsible when the AI produces inappropriate output? The contract should assign liability to the vendor for any harm caused by the tool鈥檚 autonomous decisions.

Can You Walk Away From the Contract?

• What are the cancellation terms? Look for a no-penalty opt-out clause that allows the district to discontinue use if outcomes aren鈥檛 met. 
  
• Is there an outcomes-based pricing model? Vendors that are willing to tie fees to measurable learning gains demonstrate confidence in their product.
  
• What support and training are included? Clarify the depth of professional development, response time for technical issues and availability of on-site experts.  

While AI has the potential to be a powerful tutor, a strong assistant and an equalizer in under-resourced classrooms, it can do so only if educators adopt tools with full information. School administrators should demand transparency, evidence and ethical safeguards from the companies that build them. 

District leaders should take these questions back to their board, curriculum team and legal counsel. Let them, not the slickness of a demo, drive the conversation. This can turn AI from a tempting shortcut into a responsible ally in education.

In the study, , two unnamed school districts carved out dedicated time for hundreds of elementary school students to work with a well-known AI reading tutor, either during class time or after school. Researchers followed about 350 students across two randomized controlled trials. All of the students were expected to log on for at least two 30-minute sessions a week.

They found that of the students assigned to work independently with the AI, just over 60% in the first district and 53% in the second ever logged on to the platform 鈥� at all.

Among all students, average weekly usage came to just over two minutes in District A and just over five minutes in District B.

Those who did log on averaged 13.2 minutes a week in District A and 25.8 minutes in District B, using the tutoring for just four to five weeks on average in an 鈥渋ntervention window鈥� that ran from 14 to 31 weeks.

For Carly Robinson, the paper鈥檚 lead author and research director for the , the gap between access and use isn鈥檛 a shock. “As we’re talking about bringing AI tools into the classroom, the challenge isn’t just building good AI tools,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t’s getting students to use them and engage with them effectively.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

That’s going to take 鈥渋ntentional design鈥� that appeals to both students and their teachers, who must choose whether to offer access.

鈥淗aving these tools available, even if they’re really good, doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to get used if they’re not being embedded into kids’ learning experiences,鈥� Robinson said in an interview.

But she was careful to note that the study didn鈥檛 draw conclusions about AI鈥檚 effectiveness, or the degree to which students were interested or uninterested in the bot, saying many factors could be at play. 鈥淭his is not necessarily the students not engaging,鈥� she said. In the two districts, the AI platform 鈥渨as likely one of many tools available to teachers.鈥�

For the study, researchers randomly assigned a group of students to work on the platform alongside a few classmates and a human tutor whose job was to support their engagement and motivation and to troubleshoot any problems students might encounter. In District B, the tutors were actually middle-school students who 鈥渉ad a free intervention block in their school day.鈥� A typical session included a short check-in, 15 minutes on the platform and a few minutes of reflection.

Pairing students with a tutor worked, Robinson said 鈥� to a point. Usage increased by roughly one minute a week in District A and 4.4 minutes in District B. The number of stories students completed each week jumped 71% in District A and 80% in District B. 

What the human pairing didn’t do was move the needle on reading scores: Neither district saw a statistically significant improvement in end-of-year reading achievement. But Robinson said the study wasn鈥檛 primarily focused on that. Rather it was looking at the overall impact of adding a human into the equation, someone who provides 鈥渁ccountability, motivation and relationship building.鈥�

Wednesday鈥檚 findings mirror recent ones from Khan Academy founder Sal Khan, who that the rollout of his in 2023 was 鈥渁 non-event鈥� for many students. 鈥淭hey just didn鈥檛 use it much.鈥�

Khan said AI tutoring doesn鈥檛 necessarily make students motivated to learn, or to fill in gaps in their knowledge needed to ask questions.

The new data also raise an uncomfortable question for educators: Among students who used the platform on their own, those who logged on tended to be higher-achieving and less likely to receive special education services. So the students who stood to benefit most from extra reading practice were among the least likely to get it. 

Robinson said she sees that as a red flag for anyone considering AI tutoring as a quick fix for underserved students: 鈥淚 think it should give us pause about treating AI tutoring as an equity solution.”

Alex Sarlin, founder of the newsletter and a veteran industry watcher, said the new study 鈥渟hines a light on several of the most persistent challenges in ed tech implementation: low usage rates that don鈥檛 meet dosage recommendations, differential technology usage based on prior student achievement, leading to lower usage among the neediest students, and a faulty assumption that students will jump into new tools without structured guidance.鈥澛�

The researchers鈥� approach showcases a promising direction, he said, 鈥渁s it is increasingly clear that providing access to tooling is not nearly enough to drive usage, let alone outcomes.鈥�

Amanda Bickerstaff, co-founder and CEO of , which provides AI literacy training to teachers, said results like these aren鈥檛 all that surprising, given what we know about these tools.

All GenAI chatbots, she said, can make mistakes, lack important context about students and how they learn best, and can provide biased outputs. Her group has recommended keeping these tools out of the hands of students through second grade, 鈥渁nd only with significant human oversight and AI literacy training鈥� for students in grades three through five.

鈥淎t this stage, there has been little evidence that GenAI chatbot tutors meaningfully impact learning outcomes for students,鈥� she said, 鈥渙r that they are developmentally appropriate for students in elementary schools.鈥�

Robinson, the study鈥檚 lead author, said she sees the usage findings as part of a larger pattern playing out as schools adopt AI tools more broadly. Schools, she said, should consider offering students 鈥渄ifferent iterations of these things based on what they actually need 鈥� and that’s probably a more likely pathway to scale than just saying, ‘Let’s give everyone an AI tutor.’ 鈥�  

Historically, personalized instruction has depended almost entirely on human teachers, with the teacher-student relationship central to the experience. But advances in technology 鈥� most recently in AI 鈥� have changed this dynamic, Robinson and her colleagues write. Now, personalized instruction exists on what they term 鈥渁 spectrum of relational intensity,鈥� from a consistent one-on-one human tutor to a computer platform that students navigate alone. 

AI tutors may approximate human interactions, Robinson said, but students may still benefit from the care and companionship that humans provide. Logging on and sticking with something that might prove to be difficult, she said, is easier with a human in the mix. 鈥淭here is just this component of accountability that a human can provide, where it’s so easy to look away or check out of something when it gets hard when you’re dealing with a screen.鈥�

A researcher at , a nonprofit focused on human connection in the age of AI, Lee asked: Why not?

In a word, the girl said: Instagram.

鈥淚f you try to dance at prom, you’re going to look stupid at some point,鈥� Lee recalled her saying. Eventually someone will pull out a phone and you鈥檒l end up on someone鈥檚 feed, seen by 鈥渢he entire school鈥� with mortifying results. Better just to play it safe. 

鈥淓verybody just goes to prom to look cute,鈥� the girl explained, 鈥渢ake a picture for the 鈥榞ram, eat and leave.鈥�

For Lee, who has spent years studying human belonging, that exchange unlocked an important, if unspoken, part of why AI holds such appeal. 鈥淲e’ve created this set of conditions where young people don’t feel like they have permission to be their real, unfiltered selves,鈥� she said in an interview. So they turn to AI, which is programmed to affirm them at every step.

from Lee and her colleagues offer this insight among others, painting a detailed portrait of how young people use AI and why. They surveyed 2,383 people ages 13 to 24 across the U.S. and found that for nearly half of them, AI has already reshaped their relationships in ways that are largely flying under the radar of parents, teachers and policymakers.

Among the findings:

• Just 15% of young people are in relationships with 鈥減ersonified AI鈥� characters 鈥� but for about 45%, AI is already reshaping their real-life relationships;
• 53% of young people say they set clear boundaries with AI, using it alongside 鈥� not instead of 鈥� human support;
• 61% say parents rarely or never talk to them about AI, and 53% say the same about teachers;
• Youth from low-income households are three times less likely as others to engage with AI, but they report greater feeling: 21% feel lonely often or all the time, compared to 6% of high-income youth; 57% feel like a burden to others, compared to 42%; and only 34% feel a strong sense of belonging at school, compared to 62%.

For the study, researchers sorted respondents into four broad clusters. About 28% rarely or never use AI, often out of ethical reasons or just disinterest. The largest group, 39%, uses AI primarily as a practical tool. They turn to chatbots such as Claude, ChatGPT and Google鈥檚 Gemini for homework and research, while keeping clear boundaries between AI and their emotional lives. 

Another 18% use AI for personal and relational support, such as venting about a tough day, seeking relationship advice and processing emotions. And 15% engage with AI characters and personas in more intimate, companion-like ways.

Within the four groups, researchers found nine variations that challenge the conventional wisdom around AI use. For instance, among those who use AI for emotional support were two very different groups. Rithm calls them 鈥淪ocial Processors鈥� and 鈥淧rivate Processors.鈥� While they may look similar from the outside 鈥� both say they have lots of friends and use AI to work through their emotions 鈥� surveys found that the Social Processors use AI as just one tool among many. The Private Processors, by contrast, use it as a substitute for real human interactions because they feel they can’t bring problems to those around them.

That data point could hold the key to understanding problematic AI use, Lee and her colleagues said, challenging the idea that lonely teens with small social circles are most at risk of unhealthy AI dependence. The data suggest something else altogether, said Kashyap Rajesh, a rising junior at Cornell University who consulted on the report.

鈥淭he driver of risky AI use is not necessarily isolation,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t’s feeling like a burden [to others] 鈥� and that came through in the research.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

The number of friends a young person has, the size of their social circle, how busy they are, whether they鈥檝e got family nearby and even their feelings of loneliness barely predict whether they鈥檒l fall into dependent AI use, he said. 鈥淲hat actually predicts it is specific feelings: Feeling like a burden to others, feeling like you can’t be your real self, feeling like there’s no one to turn to.鈥�

Julia Freeland Fisher, a researcher at the Clayton Christensen Institute who advised on the study, said that finding should help start a different kind of conversation around AI. 鈥淏urdening one another is building reciprocity, which is how we maintain the social contract, how we maintain social cohesion,鈥� she said. That young people are increasingly bypassing this step should be alarming, she said.

鈥淎I companions wouldn’t be nearly so disruptive to human connection if we had a sturdier social fabric,鈥� said Fisher. 鈥淚t’s the weakness of our social fabric that makes these [findings] so worrisome, not necessarily the technology itself.鈥�

鈥業t just keeps feeling easier than the alternative鈥�

For Lee, the finding on being a burden reframes so much of our understanding about young people鈥檚 relationship to AI. Virtually every survey respondent reported a specific 鈥渞elational rupture鈥� or crisis that made them turn to the technology. 

One young woman’s first question to a chatbot was, “I didn’t get asked to Homecoming 鈥� am I unlovable?” Another: “I got into a huge fight with my best friend, and I don’t want to tell anybody else because I don’t want them to take sides, so I needed to ask AI.”

“Story after story after story,” Lee recalled, “of a very singular, acute, discrete moment when they really had a moment of need and needed somewhere to put it.”

Rajesh, the Cornell student, said the data reveal a steady shift in which perhaps millions of young people are quietly moving from letting AI help with homework to asking it to mediate their emotional lives.

鈥淭hey start off using it to help them write an essay, or help them prepare for their interview, or to study for an exam,鈥� he said. 鈥淎nd they’re like, ‘OK, damn, this is really good, this is really helpful.’ And eventually their interactions escalate.鈥�

The drift happens gradually, he said. AI helps draft an email or respond to a text. Next it鈥檚 helping to navigate a social situation. Before long it鈥檚 processing a breakup.

Rajesh, who鈥檚 studying information science and AI policy, said his own AI use crept up on him: He went from studying with Claude to creating personalized AI study guides to wondering if even attending class mattered. 

鈥淚 found that how many times I go to class and how actively I’m paying attention in class is actually not the biggest indicator of my understanding of the content or exam performance,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t’s actually just how much time I spend with Claude dissecting the lecture slides and building study guides that work for me.鈥�

The report notes that because even productivity-focused platforms like ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude are engineered to interact with warmth and reassurance, what starts out as homework help or playful experimentation can evolve into a substitute for human interaction.

What adults get wrong

Alongside the findings on AI use, researchers found that how adults talk about AI is also potentially problematic: Their conversations are almost always about academic integrity 鈥� cheating, plagiarism, source citation 鈥� and rarely about relationships.

Rajesh said adults should be asking directly whether young people are using AI to process emotions, to rehearse hard conversations and to get support when they鈥檙e struggling. 鈥淭hose are questions that signal to a young person that the adult knows this dimension exists and isn’t going to freak out about it 鈥� which is, I think, the prerequisite for any honest conversation happening at all.鈥�

Michelle Culver, the Rithm Project鈥檚 founder and a co-author of the report, said young people tell researchers that when the topic is AI use, they’re 鈥渘avigating it alone.鈥� She suggested that adults approach the topic with 鈥渃uriosity鈥� rather than 鈥渏udgment or shaming.鈥� That could help both sides gain insight into each others鈥� struggles in the face of a technology that鈥檚 constantly challenging their reality.

In the same way that educators are worried that young people aren’t engaging in the 鈥減roductive struggle鈥� of learning academic content, Culver said, 鈥淲e similarly worry that young people might offload the relational work to AI and become ill-equipped to handle the very messy human friction of real relationships.鈥�

With many students and educators already using widely available artificial intelligence tools, state lawmakers and school districts are playing catch-up on AI policies.

In Maryland, for example, AI usage policies for K-12 schools are 鈥渁ll over the map,鈥� Democratic state Sen. Katie Fry Hester said.

In some school districts, she said, AI use is encouraged, while in others it is restricted, or 鈥斅燼 worst-case scenario for Hester 鈥� there is little to no policy guidance at all.

鈥淲hat we heard repeatedly is that the teachers were feeling like they had to navigate artificial intelligence entirely on their own,鈥� Hester said.

Hester said square one for lawmakers is AI literacy, which was the aim of new legislation that she sponsored and that was signed into law in May. It requires an AI coordinator in each school system, a statewide AI professional development for teachers and AI literacy to be a component of career readiness and computer science standards for K-12 students. It also requires the state Department of Education to provide certain guidance on AI.

Many other states have also been trying to create AI policies for schools. Lawmakers filed more than 134 bills across 31 states this year related to AI in education, focusing on data privacy, usage restriction in the classroom, literacy and training, according to MultiState, a government relations firm.

A survey by the Center for Democracy & Technology showed that (85%) reported using AI in their classroom during the 2024-25 school year, while 86% of students said they鈥檇 used AI for either personal or school-related reasons. But only about half of teachers and students reported that they received some training or information about AI from someone at their school, and few received training or information on risks of AI use.

A turning point for schools came with the rollout of ChatGPT in 2022, said Noelle Ellerson Ng, chief advocacy and governance officer for the School Superintendents Association. 鈥淎I was something that could not be gatekept,鈥� said Ellerson Ng. 鈥淚t was in the classroom the minute students were able to access it.鈥�

Her association does not take positions on state AI bills or policies. But she said districts are trying to avoid knee-jerk, reactive policies such as New York City鈥檚 brief 2022 ban of ChatGPT because of fears about cheating.

Some states have made progress in laying the groundwork for AI policy in K-12.

Ohio has set a July 1 deadline for every school district, community school and STEM school to adopt an AI use policy. The state鈥檚 model policy recommends that districts address student and staff uses, privacy, ethical use, teacher-specific uses, vendor agreements, third-party AI tools and student assessments.

A new signed in March requires local school districts and charter schools to devise local policies for AI usage in K-12 schools, requires state standards for AI literacy and education training and ensures that no AI 鈥渞eplaces or eliminates a human teacher.鈥�

enacted last month requires AI tools to be age-appropriate and requires teachers to review anything AI produces before using it in the classroom. It also allows parents to opt their children out of using AI tools. The law also directs the state education department to develop AI guidance and requires local school boards to set policies before the 2027-28 school year.

Yet even as schools are being sold on AI products by numerous vendors, there鈥檚 a growing skepticism about AI in classrooms. It follows a similar backlash about social media and digital technology鈥檚 academic and mental health effects on students, which has led to more states and districts putting in place bans and rethinking their reliance on laptops.

In the Center for Democracy & Technology survey, half of students said using AI in class made them feel less connected to their teachers, and 70% of teachers said they were concerned that students鈥� use of AI was preventing them from learning important skills.

Schools need to weigh the benefits of adopting AI tools in the classroom against their effect on student privacy, mental health and social skills, said Sue Thotz, director of outreach for Common Sense Media, a nonprofit advocacy group focused on technology and its effect on children and families.

Schools, Thotz said, may be the 鈥渙nly mandated safe space鈥� where students can learn to use and access emerging technology. But she and other education experts believe districts need to increase scrutiny of products.

Globally, the market for AI products in K-12 schools was worth around $391.2 million in 2024, and could rise to more than $9 billion by 2034, , a market research company. That includes AI products for tutoring, personalized learning, automated grading, lesson planning and administrative tasks.

鈥淲hen I talk about AI literacy, it鈥檚 not how to use AI. It鈥檚 understanding how AI is built,鈥� said Thotz. 鈥淲hy is it being created? Who鈥檚 profiting off of this?鈥�

鈥楪iving a tool to children鈥�

New York Assemblymember Robert Carroll said he uses artificial intelligence in his own work and sees its value. As someone who struggled with dyslexia as a child, he also thinks technology can help students with disabilities.

But he also wants to keep AI out of most K-8 classroom instruction. Students should learn basic subject matter first 鈥� in conjunction with critical thinking 鈥� and then later use the tools that can assist them, he said.

Carroll, a Democrat, has that would prohibit the use of most AI in K-8 classrooms, with exceptions for diagnostic testing and support for students with disabilities.

鈥淚t is imperative that all children gain strong foundational skills, especially in literacy and numeracy, and it seems that AI is uniquely positioned to possibly undermine that,鈥� he said. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a difference between giving a tool to adults and giving a tool to children who have yet to master skills.鈥�

Rather than full bans, most bills seeking to restrict AI have opted to focus on age restrictions, parental opt-outs, oversight and bans on using AI to replace teachers.

This year, Florida鈥檚 would have included a statewide restriction on student access to AI instructional tools before sixth grade, with exceptions for use supervised by school personnel, English-learner translation support and disability accommodations. It overwhelmingly passed the Senate 37-1, but died in the House.

A adds computer science to the required public school curriculum, including AI and emerging technologies. Connecticut lawmakers in 2025 failed to pass aiming to stop AI from 鈥渞eplacing鈥� public school educators.

Sophia Romee, the general manager of the GenAI Studio, an initiative studying how students and educators use generative AI at the College Board, the nonprofit that administers the Advanced Placement curriculum and SAT tests for high schools, said she is concerned that only that allow students to use generative AI have a formal policy governing its use.

The College Board鈥檚 research, Romee said, shows many students are worried about becoming too reliant on AI, and that adults need to give clearer guidance about where using AI tools for brainstorming, revising and tutoring crosses the ethical line into cheating.

鈥淪tudents are far more self-aware about AI鈥檚 risks than headlines suggest.鈥�

Like aviation in 1905

Jason Coley, director of the Center for Academic Innovation at Maria College in Albany, New York, said the policy debate needs to move beyond whether schools are 鈥渇or鈥� or 鈥渁gainst鈥� the use of AI.

鈥淭he better question is what kinds of AI use are supervised, age appropriate, transparent, and tied to real learning,鈥� Coley said. Schools need guardrails around privacy, student data, bias, teacher training and equity of access, he said, but also permission to 鈥渆xperiment responsibly.鈥�

Ellerson Ng, of the School Superintendents Association, said superintendents see AI as part of a larger umbrella of disruptive technologies in schools that has evolved from calculators to laptops to cellphones. The lesson, she said, is that overreactive policy rarely works. She also said schools should not cover AI in a separate policy, but as part of a broader technology policy.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 have a calculator policy. Why would I have an AI policy?鈥� she said, describing how some district leaders think about the issue. 鈥淚 have a technology policy.鈥�

With past technologies such as cellphones and laptops, adults could often control when students had access, Ellerson Ng said. With AI apps and platforms, many students accessed the tools before teachers, principals or state officials were even aware of them.

That makes bans difficult, she said. Schools can block tools on school-owned devices and networks, but 鈥測ou鈥檙e only one personal device away from social media and AI being in your schools.鈥�

Justin Reich, an associate professor of digital media at MIT, said that uncertainty around AI should make policymakers cautious about declaring best practices too soon.

Reich said states are trying to regulate classroom AI at a moment when the field is still so unstable that 鈥渨riting a guide for AI in 2026 is like writing a guide for aviation in 1905鈥� before airlines, airports or even commercial flight.

鈥淚f you were to take any of the AI literacy documents, AI readiness documents, even the moratorium documents, and put them against a checklist,鈥� said Reich, 鈥渢here would be a lot of boxes in the 鈥榳e鈥檙e making this up鈥� column and not a lot in the 鈥榳e have evidence鈥� column.鈥�

State lawmakers and school districts should be honest that they don鈥檛 know what they鈥檙e doing, are relying on limited expert information and that policy is subject to change with new information, Reich said.

鈥淟awmakers will need to be honest that what they propose now could be completely outdated in two years.鈥�

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

For many schools, it鈥檚 a race to keep up. Others are leading the pack. And some are unsure what to do with it.

Artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly prominent role in Hawai驶i education, from the recent opening of the state鈥檚 first AI-focused charter school to the development of new coursework teaching students how to navigate rapidly changing technology. Teachers are also coming face-to-face with new technology, whether it鈥檚 using AI avatars to test students鈥� grasp of Mandarin Chinese vocabulary or confronting kids who are submitting assignments written by ChatGPT.

But there鈥檚 wide variation in how much teachers and students are willing to engage with the new technology. Civil Beat spoke with nearly two dozen educators, administrators and students across the state about their experiences with AI in schools and what they expect the future to look like.

A few years ago, the focus of AI in education was preventing students from cheating, said Michael Latham, president of Punahou School. Since then, he said, administrators and teachers at the O驶ahu private school have pivoted to teaching students how to use new tools responsibly, rather than banning them altogether. 

鈥淲e wanted our students to become really thoughtful and critical users,鈥� Latham said, 鈥渢o be able to understand these tools, but do so really with eyes wide open, aware of what some of the challenges would be.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Public schools are piloting their own technology, including MagicSchool, a platform with AI tools like image generators and chatbots that teachers can tailor to their own lessons, said Winston Sakurai, educational administrative services director in the Department of Education鈥檚 Office of Curriculum and Instructional Design.  

While teachers receive training on how to use these platforms, Sakurai acknowledges that some are faster to embrace technology than others. It鈥檚 important for schools to find a balance between innovating with AI and meeting teachers where they鈥檙e at, he said. 

鈥淲e want people to embrace it,鈥� Sakurai said, 鈥渂ut we cannot afford to burn people out with the adoption of it.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Students also have varying levels of enthusiasm for the new technology. Some are emerging as statewide experts in the field, with one Punahou student developing resources to help teachers incorporate AI into their lessons. Others are more skeptical of the technology after they鈥檝e seen their classmates cheat on assignments or receive incorrect information from AI chatbots.  

鈥淚 think personally, AI is a useful and dangerous tool,鈥� said Charwin Irebaria, a junior at McKinley High School. 鈥淧eople should be cautious about what they try to get out of AI, because it can really affect our future.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

McKinley High School

In Cynthia Reves鈥� McKinley High School classroom, an assortment of items litter students鈥� desks: a bear-shaped pencil case, neon highlighters, a manila folder stuffed with papers. 

Laptops and iPads are conspicuously absent from students鈥� workspaces. Teens place their cellphones in mint green containers minutes after the bell rings and leave their devices there for the remainder of class. 

Like many teachers, Reves is questioning if her students are using AI on their assignments 鈥� and whether it鈥檚 appropriate for them to do so. In the past year, she鈥檚 tried to eliminate some of the uncertainty by doubling down on paper and pencil assignments and reducing students鈥� use of laptops and cellphones in her class. 

鈥淲hat is dishonest use of AI?鈥� Reves said. 鈥淭hat implies there鈥檚 an honest use of AI. What is that?鈥� 

On a Friday morning in May, Reves ran her students through a series of short writing exercises to prepare them for their upcoming Advanced Placement English Language and Composition exam. Although the test would be online, Reves tasked her students with annotating passages and writing thesis statements by hand. 

鈥淚t feels like this huge tension,鈥� Reves said. 鈥淚 feel like I鈥檓 walking backwards, and yet there鈥檚 this AI thing that鈥檚 pulling forward.鈥�

Reves went to school in the 1980s, when students used typewriters to complete assignments and Macintosh computers were the newest technology. Reves has constantly adapted to change in her 30 years in education, from teaching remotely to managing cellphones in class, but she鈥檚 worried about how the latest AI tools could impact students鈥� learning. 

In the past, Reves said, she could quickly identify when a student didn鈥檛 write a paper on their own. Just by plugging the opening sentences of a paper into Google, she said, she could tell when students found a copy of a similar assignment online and claimed it as their own. 

Now, Reves doubts herself. While she occasionally questions if students have written an essay on their own, they鈥檒l deny using AI 鈥� and there鈥檚 no way to prove it, Reves said. Many AI detection tools have proven unreliable. 

Reves now confines most of her writing assignments to the classroom, rather than assigning essays as homework. If students want to finish a writing assignment during study hall, she said, she requires their teacher to sign off on the paper at the end of the period, affirming that the student completed the work on their own. 

But Reves also knows she can鈥檛 avoid AI forever. At the end of a recent English class, she assigned her students homework requiring them to read a short passage and answer questions. Once they completed the assignment, she said, they could run the writing prompts through AI to see how their answers compared to what the chatbot suggested.  

She wouldn鈥檛 have offered this option in August, Reves said. But her students have developed stronger writing skills and judgment throughout the year, and she believes they can now evaluate the AI responses鈥� critically.  

鈥淚 trust you,鈥� Reves told her students.  

Mid-Pacific Institute 

Leslie Gleim鈥檚 preschool students at Mid-Pacific Institute are confident they can outsmart ChatGPT.

On a recent Wednesday morning, Gleim led a small group of 5-year-olds in a lively conversation about the observations they made on a recent field trip to Ho驶omaluhia Botanical Garden. She encouraged students to use their imagination to describe the clouds and explain how they came to life during their visit.  

鈥淚t was the happiest cloud!鈥� one boy said. Another student speculated some of the clouds looked sad because the class hadn鈥檛 visited the garden for a few weeks. 

As the children chimed in, ChatGPT transcribed the discussion word for word on Gleim鈥檚 phone. Later, Gleim asked it to summarize the themes that emerged during the students鈥� conversation and compared the notes against her own observations.

The AI tool didn鈥檛 go unnoticed by the kids. 

鈥淲e seem smarter than Chat,鈥� one student, Knox, said as Gleim checked the AI transcription on her phone. 

鈥淎re you?鈥� she asked. The group of kids erupted into cheers and enthusiastic nods. 

A few minutes later, Knox and his classmates put their theory to the test. One by one, they spoke into Gleim鈥檚 phone, asking ChatGPT abstract questions about their field trip to the garden and the personalities they gave the clouds during their discussion. 

After every question, Gleim asked her students to evaluate ChatGPT鈥檚 answers. Students were skeptical of the responses the AI generated 鈥� and Gleim was proud. 

鈥淵ou guys won!鈥� she said as students gave ChatGPT鈥檚 answers a resounding thumbs-down.

Using ChatGPT to record and transcribe her discussions with students has significantly saved her time over the past year, Gleim said. It also increases the stakes for students. When students know ChatGPT is listening to their conversation, she said, they鈥檙e more intentional with their words. 

But Gleim doesn鈥檛 want kids to think AI is the source of all answers. When she uses ChatGPT in front of her students, she said, she鈥檚 not afraid to point out its mistakes, using phrases like, 鈥淐hat didn鈥檛 get it.鈥�&苍产蝉辫; 

鈥淚t鈥檚 not the gospel, but a tool,鈥� she said. 

Hawai驶i Technology Academy

Two years ago, Kingston Collman came to a sombering realization: AI was coming for his dream job.

Collman, a recent graduate from Hawai驶i Technology Academy鈥檚 Waipahu campus, spent his early years of high school studying game development and planned to pursue a career in computer science. But as AI became more advanced, he realized projects taking him a year and a half to complete could be completed in minutes by new technology. 

鈥淚 was like, freshman year, AI is going to take over,鈥� the 18-year-old said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 want to study for six years ahead and then be jobless.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Collman pivoted to using AI to pursue his passion of producing social media content. For his end-of-year project, Collman developed an AI assistant to expedite the process of creating videos for social media. The assistant can generate scripts, suggest a list of video shots and assist with creating social media posts in a matter of minutes 鈥� a process that previously took him over an hour, Collman said.

The goal is to increase content creators鈥� efficiency, not to remove humans from social media altogether, Collman said, adding that viewers still want to see authentic content. 

It鈥檚 hard to tell what the future will look like for social media creators, however, and he鈥檚 worried more content could become AI-generated. Already, AI slop 鈥� low-quality videos created with AI 鈥� are becoming聽聽on YouTube and other online platforms.听

鈥淵ou don鈥檛 know what鈥檚 real or not,鈥� he said, 鈥渨hich is very dangerous.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Some of Collman鈥檚 peers are equally skeptical of AI and how it could dominate fields traditionally untouched by technology. 

Adriana Hunt, another recent graduate from Hawai驶i Technology Academy, is still reconciling how she can use AI to promote her artwork without compromising her creativity. For her end-of-year project, the 18-year-old asked ChatGPT to analyze her TikTok and Instagram art accounts and provide feedback on what types of posts were most likely to grow her online following. 

ChatGPT offered her advice she previously hadn鈥檛 considered, Hunt said, like adding more hashtags to her social media posts or posting more about her process of creating drawings. 

Hunt draws the line at using AI to create new art.  

When one of her teachers suggested using AI to generate ideas for her art or assist with her drawings, Hunt immediately rejected the idea. She uses art as a way to express herself and challenge her creativity 鈥� something that can鈥檛 be replicated by a few keystrokes on the computer, Hunt said. She鈥檚 also worried that relying on AI to generate art could set impossibly high standards.听

鈥淚t鈥檚 never going to go away, because it鈥檚 now so woven into the fabric of everything,鈥� Hunt said. 鈥淏ut we can learn how to rely on it less.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

K奴lia Academy

In James Morice鈥檚 data science class, sixth graders throw out phrases like 鈥渂imodal distributions鈥� and 鈥渞ight-skewed graphs鈥� with ease. 

At K奴lia Academy, a charter school in Kalihi, data science and coding are just as important to the curriculum as English and math. K奴lia is Hawai驶i鈥檚  middle and high school, opening in 2024 with ambitious plans to develop a seven-year program specializing in data science and coding.  

Before students can pursue careers in AI engineering and technology, Morice said, they have to learn the basics. 

On a recent Thursday morning, sixth graders at K奴lia were working together to examine graphs and input formulas in Google Sheets that could help them analyze a large dataset on the maximum speeds of roller coasters across the country.    

鈥淲hat does every case represent?鈥� Morice asked the class. 鈥淲hat are the attributes you see?鈥�

The goal is to give students the expertise they need to understand how AI works so they can go on to develop new tools. 

Students still receive plenty of opportunities to work with new technology at K奴lia Academy, executive director Andy Gokce said. In English classes, Gokce said, students work with ChatGPT to receive feedback on their essays under the guidance of their teachers. Others have learned how to train AI models to distinguish between venomous and non-venomous snakes.

But Gokce doesn鈥檛 want his students to simply consume AI 鈥� he expects them to go on to lead the field and develop new technology as engineers or cybersecurity experts.听

鈥淲e want them to know, inside and out, how it actually works,鈥� Gokce said.  

Wai膩kea Intermediate School

Can students beat AI? 

It鈥檚 a challenge sixth graders were eager to tackle in Tyler Kojima鈥檚 world history class at Wai膩kea Intermediate School on the Big Island. 

On a recent Tuesday afternoon, Kojima tasked his students with defending a historical invention of their choice to an AI chatbot. He had programmed the chatbot to be skeptical of students鈥� inventions, which ranged from the Mesopotamian wheel to the woodblock printing technique. 

Kojima鈥檚 students could hold a conversation with the chatbot to convince it of the value of their invention, but they had to prove their point in eight messages or fewer. 

鈥淵ou鈥檙e not trying to throw in the towel,鈥� Kojima told his students. 鈥淵ou鈥檙e trying to beat it.鈥�

For the next 30 minutes, students furiously typed on their laptops as they responded to detailed questions from the chatbots. 

鈥淗ow do you know it鈥檚 more comfortable?鈥� the chatbot challenged one student who was trying to sell it on the value of a new camel saddle. 

鈥淲hy should we trust ordinary citizens to make important decisions about our city?鈥� it said in response to a pitch about Athenian democracy. 

It鈥檚 natural for people to be resistant to new innovations and change, Kojima told his sixth graders. When AI emerged a few years ago, he said, many adults were skeptical of the new technology 鈥� and so were his students.听聽

At the start of the year, Kojima said, many students believed AI was taboo. Most sixth graders don鈥檛 seem to use AI in their personal lives, Kojima said, and were wary about using it for the first time. 

Kojima is hoping to change students鈥� perceptions by introducing AI tools like chatbots and image generators that can make abstract topics in world history feel more concrete and exciting. He said he鈥檚 also careful to set clear limitations on how students can use the technology, instructing the chatbots not to give students immediate answers during class activities and occasionally rejecting the feedback kids receive on their essays from AI writing tools.  

鈥淭his tool is not going away,鈥� Kojima recalled telling his students. 鈥淚t鈥檚 up to you guys to know how to use it responsibly.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Civil Beat鈥檚 education reporting is supported by a grant from Chamberlin Family Philanthropy.

鈥淲e’re in the middle of an industrial revolution that’s bigger than the dot.com revolution, and the world is not prepared for it,鈥� Weingarten told 社区黑料. 鈥淎nd our country鈥檚 leaders have a laissez-faire attitude about it. So I feel a huge responsibility to try and get it right.鈥澛�

Weingarten has proposed reshaping how U.S. public schools navigate AI in particular and technology more broadly, saying our kids are experiencing a crisis of attention and well-being 鈥� and that teachers are getting precious little guidance on how to help young people navigate these challenges.

Her proposal: Trim tech use, especially for younger kids, and teach all students how to think critically, communicate, collaborate and persist.鈥淥ne of the worst things we’ve done in education was to call collaboration and communication 鈥榮oft skills,鈥欌�� she said, 鈥渂ecause applied learning, problem solving, communication, collaboration, persistence 鈥� all of these 鈥� are the skills that any young adult is going to need in an AI world. In fact, these are the skills that are going to be much more competitive in an AI world.鈥�

In a May 27 at the National Press Club in Washington, she proposed a near-ban on computer screens for students through second grade, including for assessments. She proposed banning student-facing AI in elementary schools, arguing that young children need to build foundational skills without algorithmic shortcuts. 

And she said that young people should not have access to 鈥�social companion鈥� chatbots that simulate human relationships until age 16.

The speech makes Weingarten and AFT, the second-largest teachers union in the nation, new and potentially powerful supporters of a growing parent-powered movement to trim technology from U.S. classrooms, even as the union pushes to train thousands of teachers on how AI works. 

Weingarten proposed that schools redesign their offerings so that 鈥渁ctive learning, including project-based, experiential and career-connected learning,鈥� is the norm across all grade levels. She decried 鈥渄rill-and-kill” rote instruction, saying that in an age when any fact is retrievable with a single prompt, the ability to apply knowledge, think critically, communicate and collaborate matters far more than memorization.

鈥淭o really prepare young people for complex challenges, our true goal is to have students who can work together and problem solve,鈥� she said.

Weingarten noted that 31 states have now adopted some form of phone ban, and that several countries that were early adopters of education technology are pulling back. Sweden, she said, has returned to printed textbooks. Estonia, where research linked higher screen time in young children to weaker language skills, is calling for more human-to-human interaction. And Italy is re-emphasizing handwriting and traditional instruction.

Weingarten also called for establishing a rigorous new national safety and privacy standard for AI products sold to schools and creating an independently funded research consortium to study tech鈥檚 effects on children. And she proposed a new tax on Big Tech companies鈥� earnings to offset the environmental and societal costs of AI-driven disruption, including workers 鈥渂eing displaced by AI.鈥�

In an interview Monday, Weingarten said AFT’s own $23 million AI academy, launched last year in New York City to help teachers understand and shape how AI enters their classrooms, exists in part to provide crucial guidance on how to understand the technology. Over the next five years, the National Academy for AI Instruction is expected to provide hands-on workshops for 400,000 educators, or one in 10 U.S. teachers, effectively reaching the more than 7.2 million students they teach. 

She said the institute鈥檚 mission and her new stance on tech aren鈥檛 incompatible.

鈥淭he AI Institute is really about teachers teaching teachers, and how the tech companies are not in control,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t is a people-first, safety-first focus.鈥�

When she announced the academy in July, Weingarten said teachers face 鈥渉uge challenges,鈥� including navigating AI wisely, ethically and safely. 鈥淭he question was whether we would be chasing it 鈥� or whether we would be trying to harness it.鈥�

Nearly a year later, she said the institute now serves a crucial role in the absence of guidance from the Trump administration, which last week issued a U.S. Surgeon General鈥檚 urging families and schools to reduce children鈥檚 screen time. It suggested that schools limit school computers to computer labs, invest in physical textbooks and 鈥減rioritize pen-and-paper curricula, hands-on activities and social activities for all grade levels.鈥�

In a media appearance last week, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said schools 鈥渘eed to embrace A.I., and to use it .鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Weingarten said it鈥檚 鈥渃razy鈥� that the U.S. Surgeon General鈥檚 office is offering more detailed recommendations than the Education Department. 

鈥淲hen you actually have two-thirds of teachers in the United States having no idea how to use AI in schools, and when you have one-third saying there’s no formal guidance, and then you have the Education Secretary saying they should use it 鈥榓ppropriately,鈥� I mean, this is part of the problem,鈥� she said. 

U.S. Education Department Press Secretary Savannah Newhouse said McMahon 鈥渉as highlighted the many types of schools that are successfully and responsibly integrating AI in the classroom to help our nation鈥檚 students meet the challenges of today.鈥�

Weingarten also took a swipe at Melania Trump鈥檚 recent tech-and-education event, in which the First Lady the White House alongside a humanoid robot to highlight the potential benefits of robots replacing teachers. The stunt, Weingarten said, 鈥渟poke volumes. So did the responses from teachers wondering how a robot was going to build trust with students or know when someone was having a bad day. There鈥檚 no algorithm for that. Students need their teachers 鈥� real human beings, not robots and not chatbots.鈥�

Newhouse didn鈥檛 address Weingarten鈥檚 allegations about the administration鈥檚 leadership on AI, instead criticizing union priorities more broadly: 鈥淚f there鈥檚 finally going to be an honest conversation about the damage done to American students, it should begin with the teachers unions鈥� enthusiastic support for a federal bureaucracy that has spent over $3 trillion only to watch student outcomes decline, along with their relentless push to keep schools shuttered during COVID,鈥� Newhouse said. 

鈥楰ids are getting burned鈥�

The effort to curb tech in schools comes on the heels of a similar one, led in large part by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, to limit cellphone use in schools.

Weingarten on Monday said she has steeped herself in research on educational technology and artificial intelligence. But it wasn鈥檛 until she spoke to Haidt last summer about young people鈥檚 worsening that she knew she had to draw a line. 

鈥淲hat really drove me was the issues around attention,鈥� she said. 

Haidt, author of the best-selling 2024 book The Anxious Generation, has said short-form videos and other social media tools have decimated our kids鈥� ability to pay attention in school, resulting in fewer books read, poorer basic skills and worsening mental health. A more recent book, The Digital Delusion, by the educational neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath, argues that basic classroom technology has had a similar effect on skills.

In her speech, much of Weingarten鈥檚 criticism centered around increasingly widespread fears that our society is losing its way when it comes to young people鈥檚 technology use. She noted that more than half of 11-year-olds already carry smartphones, a figure that climbs to 95% among teenagers. Four in 10 teens report being online almost constantly, she said. 鈥淭he pace of this tech revolution has been blisteringly fast, and kids are getting burned.鈥�

She pointed to Haidt’s research linking heavy smartphone and social media use to rising rates of social isolation, anxiety and depression among young people, with academic consequences as well from the rollout of classroom technology. Scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which had been climbing steadily, have in many cases worsened after widespread digital adoption. Weingarten acknowledged that correlation is not causation, but said the pattern, appearing consistently across states, grade levels and subjects, deserves serious attention.

She also pointed to research showing that 88% of teachers in a survey reported that their students’ attention spans were shrinking, which she attributed in part to the instant-rewards of online platforms such as TikTok and YouTube. Cognitive scientist work, she said, suggests students are not incapable of focusing, but are increasingly unwilling to do so when schoolwork feels dull by comparison to their online lives.

But she cautioned that she鈥檚 not anti-tech.

鈥淚鈥檓 not calling for an AI ban or a Chromebook bonfire,鈥� she said. 鈥淲hat I am calling for is getting the balance right to harness the benefits of technology while mitigating the harms. I鈥檓 wary of the dangers of AI, but it is here to stay. We need enforceable guardrails and help to cushion the disruption to people鈥檚 lives.鈥� 

Alex Kotran, the founder and CEO of , said Weingarten is 鈥渞ight where it counts鈥� about limiting AI for younger students but giving teachers access to the tools. 鈥淚t’s about getting the balance right,鈥� he said. 鈥淎nd I really don’t talk to anybody that believes that we shouldn’t have some sort of balance.鈥�

Kotran said he鈥檇 recently spoken at an National Education Association meeting and saw that, like AFT, they鈥檙e focused on understanding AI. 鈥淭here’s this almost-meme, ‘Oh, the unions are getting in the way of AI transformation, AI readiness,’ and I really disagree with that fundamentally. The unions have a very sophisticated understanding of what really matters here.鈥�

Weingarten鈥檚 push to give teachers a better understanding of AI makes sense as well, he said. 鈥淲hen teachers feel like they are the main characters of the story of AI transformation, their willingness to really lean in and learn, it’s a lot more. You see a lot more buy-in.鈥�

More broadly, Kotran said, supporting active learning, project-based and career-connected learning is 鈥渨hat all the smartest people in the field,鈥� including CEOs and labor economists, are recommending. 鈥淲hat everybody’s basically saying is that the skills that matter now are people who can just get shit done, who can work independently and proactively on projects, who can create and build. And so it’s really, really important to hear a union actually naming that.鈥�

On Monday, Weingarten said parents are leading the way on this issue 鈥� and that schools risk being caught between parents who opt their children out of classroom technology and those who want to keep it. 鈥淗ow does a teacher in kindergarten work in a classroom where half the kids opt out of screens and half the kids are on screens?鈥�

The University of California at San Diego recently shook both higher education and K-12 when it a startling reality: Many incoming freshmen could not perform basic middle school math. 

The university was commendably specific about the causes: the COVID-19 pandemic and its educational disruptions, elimination of standardized testing, grade inflation and expanded admissions from under-resourced high schools. Together, these forces produced a class increasingly unprepared for quantitative rigor.

But here鈥檚 the paradox: These students looked highly successful on paper. Ninety-four percent had taken advanced math courses like calculus or statistics. They averaged a 3.7 grade-point average. One in four had a 4.0. 

So where did America’s K-12 school systems go wrong?

There isn鈥檛 a simple answer. But I would suggest a fundamental, largely unacknowledged problem driving these outcomes:

America’s schools are terrible at catching kids up.

A 2023 of nearly 3 million students across seven states found that those who started out behind academically rarely caught up. Students in the 25th percentile in third grade tended to remain in the bottom third through eighth grade and into high school. Low-income students, and Black and Hispanic kids,  barely moved at all. When the national ed nonprofit TNTP 28,000 schools nationwide, only 5% helped the average student catch up to grade level.

Kids who are behind stay behind. Kids who are far behind stay far behind. Call it the Catch-up Crisis.  

Why are schools so bad at catching kids up?

Because teachers are being asked to do the impossible.

In a classroom of 25 to 30 students, teachers must determine who is on grade level, who is behind (and why), how to modify instruction for each struggling child and how to extend learning for advanced students 鈥� all while delivering grade-level content.

Diagnostic exams, designed to give educators information on how students are progressing, are infrequent and often test different subject matter than what is used in the classroom. Intervention programs designed to catch kids up are purchased but poorly implemented. Students needing intensive help are sometimes segregated into programs with low expectations and weak outcomes.

In short, teachers rarely have the effective tools they need.

And in the absence of solutions, another practice creeps in: grade inflation (as evidenced by the incoming class at UC San Diego).

It鈥檚 hard to tell parents their child is behind. It鈥檚 harder still when the school cannot explain how it will help them catch up. So .

But when teachers have a roadmap for acceleration, honesty becomes possible. Poor grades become temporary markers on a path to growth, not permanent labels to be hidden.

There is reason for hope. TNTP’s study 1,400 schools where students consistently learned more than a year鈥檚 worth of material annually, enabling those who started behind to reach grade level. 

In other words, the Catch-up Crisis is reversible. But first. we need a bold, shared goal: that students who fall behind grade level will catch up to 鈥� or exceed 鈥� grade-level standards within two school years, and without fail by high school graduation.

Call it 鈥淥n Track in 2.”

Governors and state education commissioners should adopt this goal publicly and report each year on how many students are behind, how many are catching up and how many are on track to do so.

Of course, setting the goal is easier than achieving it.  Doing that will mean tackling three big gaps for teachers: limited real-time insight into student learning, little evidence-based guidance on how to address specific learning gaps and minimal job-embedded coaching.

Before artificial intelligence, solving these at scale was nearly impossible. Students generate enormous amounts of work daily 鈥� assignments, quizzes, writing, projects. No human can analyze all of it for 25 students every day. But AI can surface patterns quickly and provide teachers with usable, digestible insights.

More profoundly, AI can help generate evidence-informed strategies for specific challenges.

Imagine a fifth grader who is struggling with fractions. His teacher knows he earned a C- on the last test but doesn鈥檛 know why or what to do to help. AI can analyze the student鈥檚 work in real time and discovers he tends to invert numerators and denominators; it draws on data from thousands of similar children to see what worked best to help those with the same misconceptions and recommends content for a 15-minute tutoring block for the teacher to review and revise.  

Of course, the teacher should always make the final call. But now she has a playbook to use as a starting point.

The same applies to feedback for teachers. High-quality coaching is rare because it is time-intensive and expensive, and the quality can vary without intensive oversight and training of coaches by the district. AI-supported , used responsibly, could provide timely, standards-aligned feedback on recorded lessons, supplementing human coaching rather than replacing it.

This is not science fiction. In the Bronx, Superintendents Cristine Vaughan and Harry Sherman have launched pilots designed to catch kids up in math using AI. They are partnering with organizations such as , and that provide smart and safe AI tools for teachers that assess students in real time,聽 identify what鈥檚 holding them back and recommend instruction that helps them get over the hump where they鈥檙e struggling. The pilots also include high-quality professional coaching for the teaching staff. Schools using these types of programs are seeing and increased student engagement.

These efforts are not yet the answer. And no technology should enter classrooms without strict vetting to ensure data privacy and security and to avoid adding to the problem with excessive screen time for students.  But they show the potential of smart and safe technology to give teachers new tools to catch kids up.

The evidence that the Catch-up Crisis is solvable is all around. It鈥檚 up to the adults who make and implement education policy to remove the barriers that are preventing America’s students from excelling.

Correction: The essay mischaracterized how many incoming freshmen at UC San Diego could not do middle school math. The correct number is 12.5%. Also, the name of one of the Bronx superintendents was misspelled. It’s Cristine Vaughan.

That era produced real gains, particularly in its early years. But over the past decade-plus, national academic progress has slowed, a trend that began before the pandemic and worsened afterward. 

The show that reading and math achievement remains below pre-pandemic levels nationally. Researchers and educators point to several overlapping challenges: rising student mental health needs, chronic absenteeism, widening opportunity gaps and the growing demands placed on schools both inside and outside the classroom.

To meet this moment, another incremental adjustment to the old reform playbook will not be enough. A new education revolution is needed, one that prepares students for a world shaped by artificial intelligence and puts their voices at the center.

AI offers the possibility of something truly transformative for students and educators, but only if it is approached differently than past waves of education technology.

Properly used, AI can help students research complex topics, test ideas and accelerate learning in ways that were previously impossible. It gives young people greater independence to create, question and problem-solve.

For teachers, AI can reduce routine administrative work and create more time for engaging, rigorous and deeply human learning experiences. Most importantly, it makes individualized learning more achievable at scale, particularly for students living in poverty, English learners and children with disabilities.

But education has been here before.

Schools once believed that putting a laptop in every student鈥檚 hands would transform learning. Devices alone, however, did not change instruction or improve outcomes.

The difference now is not access. It is adaptability. AI has the potential to reshape how individual students learn, but realizing that potential will require far more than adopting new software.

In the United States, education is deeply local. That creates room for innovation, but it also creates fragmentation. As schools begin adopting AI, districts across the country are developing different approaches, frameworks and expectations, often with little coordination or shared direction.

At a moment when the country should respond as it did to Sputnik 鈥� with a national call to action 鈥� there is a risk of disjointed efforts while other countries move forward with greater urgency and coherence.

AI will not replace human relationships or judgment, but it will reshape many aspects of work and learning. What is increasingly clear is that people who understand how to use this technology effectively will have a significant advantage over those who do not. 

That makes AI literacy essential. If every child deserves a fair shot at the American dream, then every student in every community must have the opportunity to develop these skills.

So where should that work begin?

Right now, many of the frameworks guiding AI in education are being written by adults: policymakers, technologists, researchers and commentators. Many are thoughtful. But most are still missing something critical:

The voices of students.

Today鈥檚 young people are digital natives in a world designed by digital immigrants, already navigating these tools with greater fluency than the adults around them.

Students will inherit the consequences of the decisions being made now. Shouldn鈥檛 they have a say in how AI shapes their education and future?

This summer, AASA, The School Superintendents Association, and Day of AI, a nonprofit initiative born out of MIT, are launching a that will bring together 50 school leaders representing every state to explore the future of AI in education.

Superintendents will participate in learning experiences on emerging AI innovations, breakthroughs,and the implications for schools alongside MIT experts, including , director of MIT RAISE and one of Time magazine鈥檚 100 most influential people in AI.

But the school leaders will not come alone. Each will bring two students from their state.

Those students will participate in a parallel convening at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, where they will serve as 鈥渟tudent senators鈥� and work with Kennedy Institute staff to draft a National AI Policy for the responsible, productive and ethical use of artificial intelligence in public schools.

The student-developed policy will be shared with AASA鈥檚 nationwide network of more than 10,000 district leaders, giving students an opportunity to influence real-world conversations, decisions and guidelines on how AI is used in classrooms across the country.

Thirty years ago, education reform gained momentum when leaders across political and ideological lines rallied around the belief that schools could better prepare students for the future.

Today, education faces another inflection point.

If students are expected to live and work in an AI-driven future, they should help shape how that future is designed.

The next revolution in education should not be led by policymakers and pundits, but by students themselves.

The middle schoolers at Philly鈥檚 Marian Anderson Neighborhood Academy have a lot of questions about artificial intelligence.

They want to know how the government is using AI and what impact the technology has on the environment. They鈥檙e curious about how it鈥檚 being used for creativity, and whether it will be with us forever 鈥� or if it鈥檚 an economic bubble waiting to burst.

The sixth through eighth graders have been researching these topics and grappling with how it makes them feel about themselves, their education, and the world around them. On Friday, they presented their findings to their parents, teachers, and some state and local officials in their school cafeteria. Overall, they said there鈥檚 a lot they still don鈥檛 know.

Sixth grader Azizah Simmons said she鈥檚 weighed the pros and cons and she鈥檚 pretty confident that AI鈥檚 overall effect on our society is negative. If used correctly, Simmons said language models like ChatGPT could help kids her age improve their writing. More often than not, she said students use it to cheat on homework or cut corners on writing assignments.

But it鈥檚 the ubiquity of the technology that worries her most.

鈥淵ou can鈥檛 really escape AI,鈥� Simmons said.

Conversations about AI have permeated every aspect of education since the arrival of models like ChatGPT. Familiar debates about cheating have given way to Marketing pitches from companies promising 鈥渢ransformative鈥� AI tools are now . In Philly, educators are working with students to build their own curriculum to and that can be embedded deep in the internal code.

And students say they feel like they have as much knowledge 鈥� or sometimes more 鈥� than the adults in their lives.

Sixth graders Thomas Mapp and Tyshaan Anderson鈥檚 research project focused on how video game designers use AI for level design, character creation, and visuals. Outside of school, they鈥檝e been using AI to help them code games in Roblox and edit videos.

Anderson said he thinks the technology has helped kids like him experiment with creative fields like game design without needing to know the ins and outs of specific coding languages.

Marian Anderson Principal Nicole Patterson said she鈥檚 been inspired by her students鈥� civic inquiries and has learned a lot from them.

Patterson said she sees her school as a trailblazer in leading challenging conversations about AI. But she cautioned that 鈥渢his is unfinished work.鈥� She said students will continue their research and keep talking about these issues.

Marian Anderson computer science and technology teacher Trey Smith said the goal of Friday鈥檚 event was to help students and parents discuss how AI is now part of society, culture, politics, and everyday life, not just about how AI works.

鈥淲e鈥檙e all still trying to figure this out together,鈥� Smith said. 鈥淔or students to be in dialogue, not just with themselves and each other and me, but also with their families and with legislators and with school district officials and professors 鈥� I think it鈥檚 so important for them to learn together.鈥�

That learning process can be tricky. Simmons said she ends up using AI involuntarily because search engines like Google now frontload AI overviews. That makes it difficult for young users to differentiate between what is a primary source link and what is AI generated.

鈥淵ou use it without meaning to. It鈥檚 everywhere implanted in our lives,鈥� Simmons said.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at .

Yet just freely letting students use AI to generate ideas, explain difficult concepts and produce/revise writing 鈥� upon which learning depends and . 

So I have been attempting the 鈥渢hird option鈥� recommended by both the and the : teaching AI literacy.

This year my 10^th and 11^th grade English students used AI itself as a text to advance their critical thinking skills. We still read novels and short stories, still engaged in discussions and wrote essays, but AI was now a regular part of our work together.

As we read, we examined how large language models鈥� recycled novel 鈥渁nalyses鈥� mis-read and oversimplified complex literature, producing distillations that often lacked nuance compared with the creative, discursive yet defensible readings that the students themselves generated. They learned to discern actual analysis from simplistic summaries, and to suspect the allure of AI鈥檚 instant 鈥渃orrect answers.鈥�

As we engaged in literary discussions, we sometimes invited chatbots into the conversation; many students described these interactions as 鈥渂izarre鈥� and 鈥渄isjointed,鈥� adequate for reviewing plot but too circular or directionless for genuinely provocative dialogue. ChatGPT鈥檚 sycophancy in particular tended to kill the necessary tension for true debate. One student 鈥渟tarted purposely saying dumb things just to see how GPT would still find a way to say `great idea.鈥� It just felt so fake.鈥�

As we wrote, we compared LLM-generated essays with human-generated ones, teasing out how AI鈥檚 鈥渟ophisticated-sounding鈥� yet 鈥済eneric鈥� prose differed from the 鈥渕essier鈥� but ultimately, in the students鈥� judgment, more engaging language they themselves created. In a world where everyone has access to LLMs, these students were discovering the value of developing genuine voice. I hope at least some emerged thinking ChatGPT was best reserved for inter-office memos and letters to one鈥檚 utility company.

As we researched, we studied how AI search summaries 鈥� which users are now 鈥� don鈥檛 actually represent internet searches, but instead reflect word proximity within a static corpus of text, a corpus lacking access to paywalled scholarly research and therefore drawing disproportionately on unregulated chat forums. 

Students examined whether LLMs accurately reported their sources and to what extent AI drew from ideologically extreme sites. They saw how wording a query 鈥� e.g., 鈥渋s abortion safe鈥� vs. 鈥渋s abortion murder鈥� 鈥� could lead to politically-slanted results based on what the AI thought they wanted to see, and how sources often said something very different than AI summaries claimed they did. 

As we took and organized notes, students compared their manual note-taking process to the output of AI note-taking tools, learning how what we choose to include or exclude in summarizing notes, how we use emphasis and phrasing 鈥� did Africa under colonialism 鈥渇uel worldwide industrial production鈥� or were African resources and peoples 鈥渆xploited for the benefit of Western industrial profit鈥� 鈥� create and propagate different narratives.

These narratives do not ; 鈥渨hat is ranked at the top鈥� of AI searches 鈥渋s ultimately influenced by the priorities of LLMs鈥� shareholders,鈥� so we studied studying the politics of AI magnates like Sam Altman and Peter Thiel, learning how Gemini鈥檚 responses to political questions, and studying algorithmic bias (e.g., image generation requests for 鈥渄octor鈥� returning mainly white males), all helped my students re-think their understanding that AI tools were neutral and simply utilitarian.

When we studied AI, we simultaneously studied neurological research about how humans, unlike LLMs, don鈥檛 just rely on pattern recognition, but also make intuitive leaps, and used Edward De Bono鈥檚 activities as practice. Students did something else that AI couldn鈥檛: related classroom content to personal experiences. 

One multilingual student recalled attending a business meeting with her father where he faltered, because he 鈥淸knew] that someone who has the ability to speak English better [me] sat right next to him… 鈥業t makes me want to depend on you鈥� he told me, 鈥榳hen I鈥檓 totally capable of doing so by myself.鈥� He did much better after I left.鈥� The student then made the leap to consider how, even if AI help is readily available, perhaps we gain something by refusing to rely on it.

When I abandoned AI bans, I instituted AI audits. Students had to demonstrate their thoughtful, detailed evaluation of each AI tool they used, including knowledge of how it operated, what they felt they gained and lost by using it, how they verified accuracy of information, and how they had not relinquished their own thinking. The students didn鈥檛 necessarily conclude 鈥淎I is always bad,鈥� but they did see that using it always requires vigilance. Best of all, they didn鈥檛 have to take my moralizing word for any of this; they discovered it for themselves. 

Yes, I had to teach fewer novels in order to make room for AI literacy, but ultimately my job is not to teach novels; it鈥檚 to teach students. Their insights 鈥� how Grammarly鈥檚 鈥渃orrecting鈥� language altered integral parts of people鈥檚 unique voices, how personal evolution often comes from struggle and discomfort, how our desire for ease can hold us back from achieving our potential, how dangerous it is to invest authority in words just because they emerge from a machine 鈥� were equally valuable as any takeaway they gleaned from novels. And this time I knew those takeaways were theirs, not ChatGPT鈥檚.

I teach an affluent population, but are with more economically and linguistically diverse learners. To be sure, my experience was often fraught. Some of my less-confident students never stopped considering LLMs鈥� 鈥渃lear鈥� and 鈥渨ell organized鈥� writing superior to their own, and still hesitated to trust their own readings of literature over 鈥渢he answers鈥� ChatGPT offered. 

I struggle with asking students to critically evaluate AI while their own linguistic and analytic skills are still developing, but I also know I cannot create the conditions that allow teenagers to become master writers and thinkers before they are exposed to AI; they will soon arrive at my classroom having been using it since childhood. 

Post-pandemic suggests that, when teaching anything, we cannot wait for students operating well-below grade level to 鈥渃atch up鈥� before introducing higher order thinking skills; we have to figure out how to teach both simultaneously.   

That requires creativity, and creativity is what makes humans superior to AI, which can only regurgitate already-created ideas. Teachers excel at creativity; every day we come up with new ways to meet the ever-changing needs of our students, and right now AI literacy is one of those needs. 

that this training is crucial for keeping AI users 鈥� a population swiftly becoming synonymous with 鈥渉umans beings鈥� 鈥� from engaging in 鈥渃ognitive surrender, marked by passive trust and uncritical evaluation of external information,鈥� as opposed to 鈥渃ognitive offloading, which involves strategic delegation of cognition during deliberation鈥� when using AI.

about AI rendering English classes obsolete forget that the humanities are about studying what is human about us 鈥� including both our criticality and our adaptability.

Note: This is an abridged, non-scholarly version of a peer-reviewed article slated for publication in Issue 115.6 of NCTE鈥檚 .

Dacia Toll, co-CEO of and co-founder of , joins Michael Horn and Diane Tavenner to share how Coursemojo is using artificial intelligence to support students and teachers in English Language Arts. The conversation dives into how Coursemojo functions in real classrooms and the very human process it took to build the product itself.

Toll explains how she and her team started with the core curriculum 鈥� high quality instructional materials that build knowledge and vocabulary over time 鈥� in schools, then focused on how to ask students the right questions to gauge their understanding, give them the right feedback and then ask the right next question. They then figured out how to surface those insights for teachers in actionable ways. 

Listen below to hear about the professional development Coursemojo offers teachers and how AI makes it much easier to rapidly incorporate feedback and update the product, but, of course, with limitations.

Listen to the episode below. A full transcript follows.

Diane Tavenner: Hey, Michael.

Michael Horn: Hey, Diane. Good to see you and continue to crank on, uh, these, uh, AI tools that are starting to change what learning looks like in schools with you today.

Diane Tavenner: Today is gonna be a really fun one. I鈥檓 very excited to dive in with our guests today, but before we do that, this is our second time making this ask of our listeners, a second time in like seven seasons. And we never really thought this was important or quite frankly even thought about it, but it turns out it would be super helpful if you all could rate or review Class Disrupted wherever you鈥檙e listening to the podcast. And of course, please subscribe to it, and, and we鈥檝e never asked you to do this because this is very much like a labor of love for us, but, but it turns out it kind of matters.

A little bit.

Michael Horn: Yeah, it鈥檚 absolutely true, Diane. And so a good way for other listeners to find out about it. And we of course get tons of private feedback from listeners, so we know you鈥檙e all out there. But, you know, if you can rate it, review it, subscribe it, you鈥檒l help other people figure out as well what鈥檚 going on here. And while, as you said, this is a passion project for us, we do want it to matter and change the broader dialogue so people are having these conversations. And it turns out those, 5 stars, subscribe, beep, whatever it is. Those are a big deal, right, Diane?

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, they are. And then the last thing we鈥檒l say about this is please keep telling us privately the things that we鈥檙e asking you to now say publicly, which is like what you like, who we should talk to, what鈥檚 working. We really do love the feedback and try to incorporate it every chance we get. And so please keep that, keep that coming.

Michael Horn: Keep it coming indeed. This is going to be a fun episode today though. It鈥檚 a friend of both of ours who, deep admiration for Dacia Toll, is our guest today. She鈥檚 a lifelong educator, school builder. She鈥檚 known for her work, obviously in 1999, founding principal of Amistad Academy in New Haven, Connecticut, dedicated to closing that achievement gap and then went on to found, of course, Achievement First. A network of many, I think 40-plus charter schools in the country, recognized nationwide as one of the highest performing school systems and so forth. And then in 2021, Dacia left Achievement First and soon after launched this company called Coursemojo, which we鈥檙e gonna get to talk about today. We鈥檙e gonna break it down.

It鈥檚 an AI-powered teaching assistant, but we鈥檙e gonna actually say what that in fact means, 鈥榗ause it has very, very cool specific use cases that I think people are gonna enjoy learning about. And Dacia, thank you so much for being here. We鈥檙e thrilled to have you.

Dacia Toll: Very happy to be here with both of you guys.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, super happy. I will say that over the years I have learned so much from Dacia on so many fronts. And so I鈥檓 really grateful to be here with you.

Dacia Toll: Right back at you, Diane.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. Yeah.

Michael Horn: Well, I was gonna say, this is fun, right? We鈥檝e all known each other and Dacia, you and Diane, you have something in common, which is you founded a school, then a CMO, and left a few years back and now both of you running edtech companies. We may come back to that. I should say you both raised venture funding. Like, there鈥檚 a lot of interesting things here. Listeners, of course, have a sense for why Diane made her job move, in my parlance. But why, why did you make yours? Like, what鈥檚 the founding story behind Coursemojo and the problem you were trying to solve by founding it?

Teaching, Outcomes, and Challenges

Dacia Toll: Yeah, so as you pointed out, I鈥檝e been at this for a while now. I鈥檝e spent a lot of time in my happy place, which is classrooms. Trying to figure out how to create the student experiences and the student outcomes, short-term, long-term, that we all want. And I do think we had a fair amount of, our students had a lot of success by at least the traditional measures. And then importantly, we always anchored in college graduation and launched into a career as part of what we were very focused on. But, it was hard. Like everything, you know, to really get a great teacher in every classroom with high-quality instructional materials and a strong classroom culture and relationships amongst kids and teachers and family and community connections. And then, I got inspired by Diane and tried to pull off project-based learning and expeditions and personal goals.

And sort of double down on, I don鈥檛 know, I don鈥檛 like calling them soft skills, but like the whole package, both as a parent, I now have teenage boys and as an educator.

Michael Horn: I always remember seeing your kid in the school, whereas you were making that transformation. It was so much fun to watch.

Dacia Toll: Yeah. Yeah. So yes, my own kids went to Achievement First schools. And so it鈥檚 just, it鈥檚 all very personal and I, I both believe as much as I did in the, in the possibility of success, but if we鈥檙e honest about it, it took so many things to line up to be successful. And I just, especially when AI emerged on the scene, I thought, wow, this, I鈥檝e been frankly for most of that time an edtech skeptic. I think there have been lots of promises and it鈥檚 sort of overpromise, underdelivering is I think the pattern if you鈥檙e honest about most edtech. And AI felt different. Like we refer to it internally, I know others do as well as an electricity.

And you still have to build the light bulb or the power screwdriver or, you know, the tools that will leverage that electricity, but you are fundamentally working with something different now. And I found that inspiring. And so how, the problem we are focused on, it does feel like it鈥檚 been a lifelong effort, is, uh, reading achievement. Like, as you guys know, the NAEP scores in 8th grade are at the lowest level in 30 years. It does really feel like too many kids are falling off a cliff when it comes to basics of reading and writing. We could debate whether we think that鈥檚 still gonna matter in an AI-powered future. I do. And so it, and it feels really urgent.

And so we are, we have two big north star goals. We are trying to improve reading achievement. Specifically, we focus at the middle school level, although we鈥檙e now expanding to grades 3 through 10 next year. And then second, on teacher efficacy leading to teacher retention. Like we want more great people to stay in this profession. I think a lot of AI tools are trying to save teachers鈥� time. We certainly do that too, but we think we are in this profession because we wanna serve kids well, and that what will motivate you is if you feel like I鈥檓 doing a really good job at this thing that I care a lot about.

Michael Horn: So let鈥檚 dig in then, and just Coursemojo, obviously that tool, as you were saying, that you built using the electricity of AI to help solve that reading problem and boost teacher effectiveness. How do you describe what it does today in middle schools? What is Coursemojo?

Dacia Toll: So, there鈥檚 a student-facing side and a teacher-facing side. On the st鈥� well, let me just say, take one quick step back before I dive in. You guys have been having so many fascinating conversations. Thank you for that. and people should like and subscribe and rate.

Michael Horn: Thank you.

Dacia Toll: Favorably, but what I, you know, I think it鈥檚 Bob Hughes and others who鈥檝e talked about like multiple levels of AI in schools or models or paradigms. There, there is the one that I think is happening the most, which is finding efficiencies in small ways for teachers, whether that鈥檚 grading or on the operational side. And I鈥檓, again, that鈥檚 great, but it鈥檚 sort of at the margins. And supplemental or not actually touching students at all. Then there鈥檚 this second model, which is more transformational when it comes to the teaching and learning experience. I think that鈥檚 at the moment where Coursemojo sits. And then there鈥檚 the third model, which is the AI-native schools. And I did listen to your episode with John Danner, and that I think is so.

AI鈥檚 Impact on Future Schools

Dacia Toll: And my personal belief as somebody who spent a lot of time in schools is that some people will want to and be able to make a leap to an AI-native school that鈥檚 an entirely different design, including in the, the goals that it鈥檚 trying to achieve with young people. But I think a lot of folks are gonna, hopefully make this transition into the model 2, work where it is meaningfully, it鈥檚 transformative in terms of what the experience is like, but it鈥檚 not a different universe. It鈥檚 like you鈥檙e still in schools, you鈥檙e still trying to do the core jobs, many of which I think are still important, although we could have that conversation if you wanted. So we鈥檙e going into the ELA classroom as it current 鈥� mostly as it currently exists, where you, especially in middle school, generally have content expert teachers who are trying to help kids improve their critical thinking about text and their writing skills, discourse, collaboration among students. And we start with the high-quality instructional materials. As you all know, it鈥檚 been one of the, I think, most positive steps forward to really have a quality curriculum that鈥檚 anchored in building knowledge, vocabulary, and reading skill over time. But that鈥檚 another one of those things that we all believe in, but is hard to execute effectively. And as a result, we have not universally seen the gains that we all believe we could. So we start there.

The first thing our team does is identify the hardest thinking part of every lesson. Which we know from the national research on these core curricula is often the part that gets a little watered down or skipped. Teachers run out of time, or frankly, they鈥檙e worried about the diversity of learners that exist. I think there鈥檚 on average a 5-grade-level span in a typical middle school classroom right now, so you can understand why teachers are anxious about giving the rigor of the text and task. So we identify the hardest thinking part of the lesson. Then for that part, not the entire thing, but for that 25-minute chunk. That鈥檚 where, for the kids, as a student said to me, it鈥檚 like the handout is talking to me. So it鈥檚 the same rich, wonderful text we鈥檙e already trying to read.

Adaptive Learning for Collaboration

Dacia Toll: It鈥檚 the same analysis questions we鈥檙e already supposed to be grappling with, but now kids are in partners or small groups, and we can come back to why that鈥檚 important to us, but they鈥檙e talking and then typing, and Mojo is like a learning buddy in that context. And what happens is Mojo figures out what the kid knows or doesn鈥檛 know about in response to that question, and then affirms, gives a little moment of metacognition if they need it, if they鈥檙e, if they鈥檙e struggling at like an insight, and then gives them the next just right question. And we could get back to why all three of those steps I think are important, but that鈥檚 something we worked on over time to make sure, we鈥檙e not trying to replace the teacher, but we鈥檙e trying to, as our great teachers have said, I can鈥檛 be in 27 places at once. So how can we get as close as possible in what a good teacher would do when a kid鈥檚 struggling, with a rich, meaningful question. So the kids are working. Meanwhile, the teacher has a live dashboard that shows every student鈥檚 level of understanding for every question. And so every class is wonderfully different, but In general, 85% of kids are humming with their partner and with Mojo, but the teacher knows right away the 15% of kids who are struggling for whatever reason, could be motivational, could be comprehension, and directs their effort and then sort of tees up for them what鈥檚 the gap between what the student鈥檚 current response and the criteria for success for that question. And so the teacher can, does, go around the room, conference one-on-one or with the entire small group, and push them forward as well. So we don鈥檛 think the AI鈥檚 gonna get every kid exactly where they need to be for deep understanding.

And in fact, we very meaningfully want the teacher to be focused strategically on what they can uniquely do well. So that happens for about 12 to 15 minutes that the kids are working on these close, generally close read questions, could be writing, and then the teacher goes over to, pushes a button and Mojo tees up the two biggest misconceptions in the class right now, and a suggested discussion question. So the teacher reviews them. We always want the teacher to make the choice about what鈥檚 the best use of time. Then the teacher pauses the class and facilitates a class discussion, not about every single question, but about the thing that is most holding kids back, often cuts across questions. And what we found is, I think it鈥檚 85% of kids say they鈥檙e more likely to participate in class after having worked with Mojo. So on both the student side, they鈥檙e encouraged to participate. And then on the teacher鈥檚 side, they鈥檙e more confident because they kind of know what to go after.

And I think this just hits on another point. There are AI-powered learning experiences that are silent solo.

Diane Tavenner: Tons of them.

Dacia Toll: We, for a whole bunch of reasons, we鈥檙e talking about core Tier 1 instruction. We want it to be as beautiful as what these curriculum materials and teacher vision calls for, with more discourse, not less. And then again, there鈥檚 a lot we don鈥檛 know about the future for these young people, but we know we鈥檙e going to need our human skills more than ever. So that ability to work together, both in a full group setting and a partner setting, is really important. Anyway, and then finally it does end with an exit ticket, which is kids do independently, often writing. What鈥檚 different now is kids get, in every phase of this, kids get multiple rounds of feedback and then they revise their thinking and they revise their writing to make it better. And we know that also, like, if you don鈥檛, I think about all the grading I did over the years and like, you just grade and the kids don鈥檛.

You have to revise.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Dacia Toll: So that鈥檚 inherent. And then there鈥檚 celebrations throughout. And Mojo also can make, it pulls exemplary student work, highlights kids who should be shouted out. So that鈥檚 the long whirlwind tour as to what it looks like.

Diane Tavenner: It鈥檚 awesome. Thank you for making it so concrete.

Michael Horn: Yes.

Reimagining Teaching with AI

Diane Tavenner: Literally taking us into a classroom about, and you know, anyone who鈥檚 been in a classroom, an English language arts classroom, what I taught certainly, like what you鈥檙e describing is what I aspired to do as a teacher, right? But I had to use my whiteboard or in the old days, my chalkboard. And I would, what I would call bumblebee around the classroom. Like you鈥檙e just trying to like bumblebee around so the kids are supposedly doing what they鈥檙e doing, but you鈥檙e not giving any feedback. You don鈥檛 actually know if they鈥檙e getting it or not, you know, like and so, it is making, well, in my words, it鈥檚 making the mere mortal be able to be the sort of superhuman teacher that we all want and imagine. And it鈥檚 just like my partner in doing that, right? I can be everywhere all at once and, and I, you know, have this brain working next to me and whatnot. What I know is that well, What I know from you in our previous conversations, and this is where I鈥檇 love to dig in and get a little bit nerdy right now, is I don鈥檛鈥� Michael and I keep pressing people to say like, what do you mean when you say by AI? You know, AI, because I think most people think that鈥檚 like, you know, logging into ChatGPT or Claude or Gemini and just asking a question. And you have gone through an extraordinary amount of work with AI to enable everything you just described. So will you take us sort of under the hood a little bit?

Talk about the type of work your team had to do to train the AI and get it to do the things you鈥檙e talking about and for you to feel good about it.

Dacia Toll: Yeah. This is something I both think AI is a game-changing electricity and I鈥檓 sort of frequently disappointed from a pedagogical perspective, even with the general large language models in terms of how well they evaluate student responses and how poorly generally they do at coming up with the next just right question. They鈥檙e so wired to give away the answer that it really is not the best pedagogical experience at this point. But what we do is, so first we start with the text and the questions, but then that鈥檚 nowhere near enough. It鈥檚 about how the AI, what the AI uses to evaluate the student response. And what they鈥檙e using is not just the knowledge of the unit and the unique text complexity and the lesson objectives for the day, but rather we have programmed in question-specific criteria. So they know if you鈥檙e analyzing this beautiful Langston Hughes poem and you鈥檙e answering this question that you need to鈥� it鈥檚 maybe a vocabulary and context question鈥� you need to know both what the word means and you need to know what it means in the context of this beautiful extended metaphor. and there鈥檚 not one right answer.

This is what鈥檚 complicated about the criteria of success, but there is a universe of good answers. There is a universe of typical kid confused answers, and that can be constantly refined. Like as kids teach us new insights into, you know, something like poetry, we can upgrade and do in real time. But so they鈥檙e criteria-specific questions, criteria, I鈥檓 sorry, question-specific criteria for success, which to my knowledge, I don鈥檛 know that anybody else is doing. Because it takes a lot of work on the front end.

Michael Horn: Now, I was gonna say, like, you have to go deep into these texts, right? I mean, just describe a little bit of that creation process also.

Dacia Toll: Yeah. And then there鈥檚 a whole other reading framework, but we can get to that. So yes, initially it required some of the best teachers we know on staff to do that kind of level of intellectual prep that you would do. Basically, what constitutes an exemplary answer? What are the transferable criteria of that great answer? So originally we human-powered it. Now we have so many examples of excellent human-powered criteria and have trained an AI authoring platform, which is internal-facing only, to give us a good rough draft. But we are still having humans do a gut check basically on, on鈥� we could talk about what that looks like, but there are multiple steps. It鈥檚 like dominoes that the AI agent will tee up different things, and we still want those excellent teachers to go through and check.

Complexity of Reading Challenges

Dacia Toll: But so that鈥檚 what鈥檚 happening on the question-specific criteria. The other thing that we found is essential, which is why I really do believe for at least a long time, the specialized products are gonna outperform the general, like thin-layer products. And so we are very clearly geeking out on reading. It鈥檚, as we know, reading is not math, and it鈥檚 not as simple. Like when a kid is struggling to understand a poem and to identify the central idea, it鈥檚 rarely that the problem is the skill of identifying the central idea. It鈥檚 almost always that there鈥檚 something else about the way that text complexity that is getting in the way, or it could be a fluency issue or background knowledge or a vocabulary issue, and we sometimes wanna say, oh, it鈥檚 a main idea problem, which then leads people to go outside the curriculum and do a bunch of main idea practice, which we know does not work. So like there are a set of ways in which we now have a whole reading framework that we鈥檝e developed with, the good folks from Anet, Whitney Weldon, a whole bunch of reading experts, and it sort of honors the complexity of reading.

So Mojo鈥檚 looking at the criteria-specific success, it鈥檚 looking at the reading framework, and it鈥檚 trying to figure out what does this kid likely not understand about this? And that鈥檚 where there鈥檚 now this light bulb step that gives them like a little hint, and then it asks them the next just right question. And that is actually pulled from a bank of suggestions that is also, was initially human-authored, is now AI-authored specific to that question. So that鈥檚 not even tuning or training. It鈥檚 that the AI in real time is consulting with a set of resources and trying to pull the exact right instructional move for that kid. Would it be helpful to give an example or

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, well, because these have been created by expert teachers, vetted by expert teachers.And so like, I think the thing I want to, and Michael helped me here with the language, but like, there鈥檚 a lot of people, I would say the majority of people who are doing AI products are literally just putting like a wrapper around the language model right.

Michael Horn: With a bunch of instructions of guardrails around the context window.

Dacia Toll: It鈥檚 like prompt engineering, maybe.

Michael Horn: Yeah, not the training you just described.

Diane Tavenner: No, they haven鈥檛 literally taken expert professionals to work hand in hand with the AI to then produce this new experience, if you will, that brings the best of both of those. And so please do give us an example. I think it鈥檚 super helpful.

Dacia Toll: Well, I was in a classroom last week in Colorado, and the kids were analyzing a poem, and the question from the curriculum was, what role do lines 6 and 7 play in this poem? And these 7th graders were like, I really have almost no idea. So to the best of their ability, They are, they sort of, most of them tried to say what was going on in lines 6 and 7. And so what Mojo does is like, OK, affirm, first of all, good job, you know, in your own words explaining what鈥檚 happening in lines 6 and 7. But then the light bulb step comes. This question is actually asking you about the author鈥檚 craft and an intentional choice the author made to include these lines. Follow-up question: how would this poem be different without lines 6 and 7? That is like a 鈥� both the kid is like, oh, I didn鈥檛 even understand that this was about a choice the author was making, like author鈥檚 craft, and then I did 鈥� now I鈥檓 like guided into a process of actually trying to figure this out. And then if they struggle with that, Moja will say, well, what happens before and what happens after, you know, there鈥檚 like a set of additional questions that come out that what new teachers have told us, it鈥檚 one of the greatest compliments, is they do the Mojo activity before the kids so that they understand how to ask a scaffolded question without totally draining the rigor out of the thinking work that鈥檚 required, or how to give bite-sized feedback.

So that鈥檚 what we鈥檙e trying to do.

Diane Tavenner: Dacia, let鈥檚 stay here for a minute, as like a lifelong English language arts teacher. I wonder if I know some people will hear this and be like, who the heck cares if that author, like what their purpose was in those two lines? Like why, why are kids even learning this? Can鈥檛 we just teach them to read? So let鈥檚 spend a minute on how that transfers into the world and why that is so important and how, yeah, let鈥檚 start there. And then yeah.

Dacia Toll: Well, there鈥檚 so many layers to your question. And I鈥檇 love for you as a lifelong ELA teacher to offer your own point of view as well. But I think first we have the question, do kids in this new future still need to learn to read and write? And my, my strong conviction is yes, they do. Like, we鈥檙e going to be processing lots of information, but as we all know, there鈥檚 no firm line between listening, reading, and writing. It鈥檚 all the same cognitive process with each of them reinforcing the other. So learning to read is also a way in which, even if we believe AI is going to talk to us in the future, I think there鈥檚 still like the vocabulary and the, and the sort of way sentences get put together to effectively or ineffectively convey meaning. So that鈥檚 one. It鈥檚 like we could talk more about that. But I also think, I actually do believe we should be letting kids write more advanced pieces using AI.

That鈥檚 a whole separate other question. But if they haven鈥檛 learned to write themselves, I think that is a very dangerous place to start.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Dacia Tol: So, that鈥檚 one. Second, it鈥檚 really just critical thinking.

Diane Tavenner: Well, that鈥檚 where I鈥檓 going. Like everyone鈥檚 talking about cognitive offloading and the lack of critical thinking and what you just literally put your finger on that activity is, oh. I can question or get curious about what an author鈥檚 intention was and why they did something. And that applies to every article. It applies to the 鈥�

Michael Horn: Well, it applies to the AI reading output you鈥檙e getting, right?

Diane Tavenner: Literally. Like, that is 鈥�

Dacia Toll: It applies to art. I mean, it applies to human interactions. Like, why is this person doing or saying what they鈥檙e doing in the way they are doing or saying it? And what does that reveal about them, their purpose? The message they鈥檙e trying to convey. Yeah, I think, I mean, just to, in defense of productive struggle, the brain, that鈥檚 the way we learn. Like if we don鈥檛 attend and focus and think and productively struggle, now there鈥檚 a zone in which that鈥檚 productive versus unproductive. But, and that鈥檚 part of what I think AI can help us get more kids like in their zone. But you have to, you have to remember. And forget and recall.

And these are the ways that the neural pathways get formed in our brain.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. And I think your ability to like bring this into the classroom every day where it鈥檚 like, let鈥檚 just imagine now these young people every day in their class, they鈥檙e just doing this type of work over and over and over and over again. It is a muscle. You have to work it out. You have to build it. You have to practice it. You know, it will go away if you don鈥檛 use it. And as much as we鈥檝e aspired for classrooms to look like this all day, every day, they, they for the most part don鈥檛 and haven鈥檛.

And I鈥檓 not putting blame on anyone because it鈥檚 just so hard to do. And I think that鈥檚 why you call AI electricity, because it actually enables that, right?

Balancing Curriculum and Students

Dacia Toll: Well, I think so. Again, part of what we鈥檙e doing is going into the. Part of what you asked again, what set me on the journey, one teacher said to me, she said, am I supposed to teach the rigor of the curriculum or the kids in front of me? And the answer is both, but back to the whole thing being a little hard. Yeah. Like, she鈥檚 not wrong that bridging that, much less bridging that for 26 wonderfully unique individuals is very hard. And I think what too often we see happening in classrooms is the teacher, one of two things happens. Either they are so worried about kids struggling, and they鈥檙e not wrong, left to their own devices with that question, I watched it. A lot of kids out of the gate didn鈥檛 know what to do with that question. And so, the teacher holds it for the whole class and they ask the question and maybe, maybe 3 kids answer and then they move on.

And then the next question, same thing. And frankly, intellectual engagement is optional. For the other 24 kids in the room. And some of them are probably paying attention. Some of them, this is middle school, may not be or they鈥檙e going in and out of attention. The other option is I give it to them on a handout and kids are set to struggle and they put down the best answer they can. They put down the literal comprehension of those lines of poetry and then they move on.

Diane Tavenner: Yep.

Dacia Toll: The difference now is every kid is answering every single question. And intellectually grappling with it, and they鈥檙e getting real-time feedback that allows them to revise their thinking and their writing, and they get closer to encoding success before they move on. Cognitively, that鈥檚 a very different experience. Yeah.

Michael Horn: Yeah. I was gonna say the headline I鈥檓 taking away from this, right, is everyone鈥檚 worried right now about AI and cognitive offloading. You actually have used it to do the exact opposite, which is to make sure no one escapes this cognitive work and struggle, which is a significantly different use of use case of AI, but it鈥檚 significantly different use case of the classroom in a lot of average schools across the country right now. It leads into the question I have, which I鈥檓 just curious, like, is it hard for schools to figure out how to use Coursemojo? What does that on-ramp look like? Do they think of it as AI? Do they think of it as like an engaging digital learning activity? Are you, are you getting caught up in the backlash against edtech and the overpromising and underdelivering? Like, how is that all playing out?

Dacia Toll: Yeah. I personally lead a lot of teacher PD. I just love doing it and I learn a lot from it and it鈥檚 kind of fun to show up and we have a phenomenal partnership with Jackson, Mississippi and I was their leading teacher PD and they鈥檙e so nice. Like teachers are so nice. They come in, they, but the truth is they鈥檙e looking at me like, who is this lady? And it didn鈥檛 help that all they were told is like, come and learn about a new AI tool aligned to the curriculum. Like, That does not inspire confidence in the vast majority of teachers. And one of the things that鈥檚 wonderful is they actually have a significant number of experienced teachers. So it was actually teachers who had been teaching for a while and they start out a little side-eyed, like they鈥檙e nice, but they鈥檙e like, eh, skeptical.

And the first thing we do, like within the first 15 minutes of the PD, is they become students in a Mojo-powered classroom. And it鈥檚 often a text because it鈥檚 a curriculum that they鈥檝e taught. And we start normally with, you know, we give, serve up a very challenging one. I remember in this case it was historical fiction about westward expansion, and they were like, 鈥淥oh, the kids really struggled with this one.鈥� And 5th grade. And then the teachers get into it and they realize how delightful it is. I mean, one thing I do really want to emphasize is we care a lot about joy and you should love reading. This should not be, yes, it鈥檚 cognitive and you have to productively struggle. But we are often like Mojo and the, and the way it鈥檚 organized, we鈥檙e taking delight in the text and the insights and the combination of affirmation.

And then when you get a partially correct or fully correct answer, Mojo has like just little emojis, like hundreds of them that sort of like your message the same way it would on social media or texting. And the kids love that. Like, oh, I got the little man on the surfboard or the muscle. And, and then if you get a 3 out of 3 on your writing after multiple rounds of revision, you get different gifts. And I saw a llama on a surfboard yesterday. And like, it鈥檚 the digital sticker. Like, we don鈥檛 overly gamify. They鈥檒l never be playing Asteroid Blasters or whatever in reading class, but We believe in recognizing quality thinking and quality work, you know, the same way a great teacher does that praise.

And we make it easy for teachers to celebrate kids too. That鈥檚 even more meaningful. But the point is the teachers start out in this skeptical place and then they experience it and they experience the delight of my ability to identify who needs help and make my way over to them or facilitate the class discussion. And the other thing I would say is because they have this live dashboard teachers have told us they鈥檙e more comfortable letting kids work together in partners in small groups. Which I also think is something that I鈥檓 anxious about is there鈥檚 not enough of in classes in this, especially in this AI future. And because now they have, as a teacher said to me, eyes everywhere. They know immediately if that group in the back that鈥檚 gotten good at looking like they鈥檙e working is not actually working. So that鈥檚 important.

Improving Instructional Effectiveness

Dacia Toll: I think in terms of what鈥檚 hard, we also have the pleasure of working in New York City, and I was walking classrooms there with some coaches, and we were identifying that some of the small group work could be more effective. They were just happy it was happening, but they want鈥� with it, it could be more effective, and that the full class discussion could also be more effective. Those are things they said their work鈥� I mean, New York City has seen great gains with New York City Reads. But that鈥檚 the thing, that鈥檚 what they鈥檙e working on already. Like that鈥檚 the same way we鈥檙e all trying to improve effective instruction. Yeah. And I think the feeling was in the moment Mojo is nudging those behaviors to be enabling and nudging, but that there still is a level of teacher training and expertise that has to run alongside. So we鈥檙e asking ourselves, how could we support that even more in the context of the product with suggestions and sort of additional insight in real time.

But that鈥檚 really the hard part. I would say logging in is smooth and easy because of all single sign-ins. The dashboard is clear and intuitive. It鈥檚 colors that direct you where you need to go. So that鈥檚 not the hard part. It鈥檚 teaching and helping. We鈥檙e giving an alley-oop, but the teacher still has to execute some of those, those effectiveness moves.

Diane Tavenner: Dacia, along those lines, I think about this often, and I don鈥檛 want to give you heart palpitations because it gives me heart palpitations, but if you were back leading a network of schools again, like we, we used to, and I know neither of us, that鈥檚 not our chapter of life right now, but if you were there at this moment, what other opportunities besides this one, because clearly this is a need and you鈥檙e passionate about, like what else are you seeing in the world that you would be hopping on and wanting to bring into your schools and your network? What鈥檚 the sort of low-hanging fruit that you鈥檇 be going after?

Dacia Toll: Yeah, well, I think those are two different questions. Low-hanging fruit versus, I mean, what you inspired me to do, Diane, oh my gosh, more than a decade ago, was to create a whole new school model. And I do think back to this model 1, model 2, model 3. I mean, we鈥檙e all finding incredible efficiencies just by using AI and finance, the operations that there鈥檚 so many ways in which we should be doing that. And I am for saving teachers鈥� time. I鈥檓 most interested in the space I鈥檓 in, which is like, how do we improve the core teaching and learning? And I think those have to be in some level student-facing because, yeah. And I know there鈥檚 been some resistance to that and it has to be safe and, and pedagogically strong, but I would be trying to create a new model as well.

AI-Powered Learning Transformation

Dacia Toll: And I think that I don鈥檛 think it, you take it, you know, what we did inspired by you was first one school and then three schools. But I have the pleasure of being a part of a CIPRI fellowship, and they asked us to redesign, you know, to design a school, if we could, or a school model based on what we know now. And I do think the emphasis鈥� I still believe knowledge matters. I still believe core skills matter. And the emphasis has shifted for me, like entrepreneurship, creativity, the human connection skills, leadership, judgment, ethics. And I think because we can potentially have the AI-powered learning experiences be so much more effective, I think that opens up more time for, I know a personal favorite of yours, project-based learning. I think there鈥檚 a way for AI to be embedded coaches in projects so that we, they were always so darn hard to pull off. But I think what鈥檚 exciting to me about this chapter, and the first thing we鈥檙e always talking to district leaders about and they鈥檙e talking to each other about is, Start with what鈥檚 your vision? What are your goals? What鈥檚 your vision? What are your values? And now increasingly AI can power a lot of that.

Now it takes this kind of specific design the way we鈥檝e done it. I don鈥檛 mean to imply like you can go to ChatGPT and it will run your school for you. Like that is not how it鈥檚 gonna work. But if you decide we鈥檙e committed to project-based learning based on a knowledge graph, that can be powered now. And I鈥檓 hopeful that there鈥檒l be more and more products that are trying to bring more and more of these experiences to life.

Michael Horn: Let me ask one last question. And Diane, I want you to answer this as well. So it鈥檚 a question for both of you. You didn鈥檛 wanna give yourself PTSD on running a network again. But, but, you know, we鈥檝e talked about it, like you both founded schools, you both founded charter networks, you both had distinctive philosophies, enjoyed success. You both left, founded edtech companies. I鈥檓 just, I鈥檇 love to hear one reflection that you both have from being on the other side, if you will, on the edtech company side, or a company that provides to schools. You can view it either way.

One reflection that your school network founder self would have been surprised by at the time. Both of you, I鈥檇 love to hear your reflections.

Dacia Toll: Do you want to go first, Diane?

Diane Tavenner: I鈥檓 thinking, I鈥檓 thinking.

Dacia Toll: I will just say. There鈥檚 so many things, but what I was, it took a while for me to build new muscles, frankly, because initially what, what, particularly when you were running a system that got into a certain size, like as you said, we were 41 schools when I left, you had to set these big multi-year priorities and goals and you had to go after them in a sustained focus kind of way. And it was a lot about. Keeping this large organization aligned around the pursuit of those goals and cascading communication and systems to support this. And this is fast and iterative and responsive. And if we had tried to write a 2-year product roadmap, it would鈥檝e been so painfully wrong. And so we start with vision and values. I鈥檓 not saying you don鈥檛 start with vision and values.

But then part of why I鈥檓 spending so much time in schools right now is watching and listening to kids and teachers and both what鈥檚 causing them friction in the moment and what their aspirations are. Like, what are they trying to get done they can鈥檛 get done? And then that literally dictates our product roadmap in the most wonderful way. And it鈥檚 really a code鈥� we consider our school partners co-designers with us. Like it is that we鈥檙e running design input sessions with them about next future-facing things. Like it is fun and then the tech is just moving so fast.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Dacia Toll: So like our ability to now have an agent that takes the do, all the work from today and creates your do now for you the next day in all of these things, like this is now that鈥檚 so different than it was 4 months ago.

Michael Horn: Wow.

Diane Tavenner: Wow. Yeah. That, that totally resonates with me, sort of the misalignment between how quickly well-run schools and systems can run and how fast you know, actually I should say how slowly that moves, even though you think it鈥檚 moving so fast as a school or network leader. And then this outside world is just going at a different rate and pace. And the co-building obviously resonates. I think what I think we鈥檙e in this moment in time right now where it鈥檚 really, I appreciate school and network leaders who are trying to think about streamlining and focusing and only partnering with so many people and not having a million platforms and how does it all integrate and whatnot. And I think the truth is that鈥檚 just not the reality yet. I think we should be striving to get there, but if we don鈥檛 kind of open ourselves up to what Dacia鈥檚 doing in this one little space and what other people鈥� how do we actually ever pull together a model that has the best in class of everything versus just sort of this one generic, not good at anything approach? And so there鈥檚 a real tension there I鈥檓 feeling.

And on the tech founder side now, I鈥檓 like, how do I collaborate with, how do I build a community on our side that makes it more thoughtful and doable for the schools? And then on the school side, I would invite them to think about how do we, you know, sort of work more expansively right now while we collectively, you know, bring into the, our space all the possibility and then move to, I think, more coherent and elegant models over time. I鈥檓 not sure that was a-

Michael Horn: No it鈥檚 one of the hypotheses when we started Entangled Ventures back in 2015 or whatever it was, that and this was higher ed, but it was similar, which is like, you know, Arizona State University is getting pitches from like how many hundreds of companies every single day. They throw up their hands and they鈥檙e like, I won鈥檛 say the name of a textbook publisher, but we鈥檒l go with them. We know every product is sort of mediocre, but like they鈥檝e got everything. It鈥檚 just simpler. Right. And how do you bring forth a portfolio of, of best in class to an organization to simplify procurement and all that messiness?

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: But also give them confidence that they鈥檙e getting the best.

Dacia Toll: Well, I would say two things on that front. I don鈥檛 envy the tsunami of pitches that land in, I mean, I, it鈥檚 bad for me that the amount of AI-powered marketing now that lands in my inbox. And so this is, I think, a huge issue. And the more that others can step in and help school leaders make sense of all the different use cases, and again, what鈥檚 aligned to their vision and values. And then we haven鈥檛 talked yet about outcomes, but the North Star for us, as somebody who鈥檚 focused on ELA achievement, is, is ELA achievement improving? And we have actually a number of outcomes-based contracts aligned to that, which I know can be scary.

Michael Horn: So you鈥檝e put your money, but you鈥檝e put your money where your mouth is.

Dacia Toll: Yes.

Michael Horn: Yeah.

ELA Improvement with Mojo

Dacia Toll: And, and it鈥檚, and we have seen, thankfully, huge improvements. I mean, as somebody who spent my entire life trying to improve ELA achievement and, and actually somewhat and successfully improving, it was always like 3 percentage points a year as reflected on the imperfect but consequential state tests. And we鈥檝e seen across multiple partners, 6, 8, 10 percentage points on state tests in a single year. And, that鈥檚 not normal when it comes to鈥� and, I think on some level, maybe it鈥檚 not surprising because we鈥檙e getting every kid to do the cognitive thinking. Those results are based on using Mojo 2 to 3 times per week. And, in general, we have much higher uptake and usage because it鈥檚 a core tier 1 because it鈥檚 everything else. But, I think it鈥檚 only Amira and Coursemojo on the reading side that have multiple independent efficacy studies. So, that鈥檚 not even just us, that鈥檚 ESSA Tier 2 research studies now that show that.

And I think people say, maybe this is why Diane and I, coming from the seats we were in, they said sometimes ed tech folks like, it鈥檚 too soon to evaluate impact. And I鈥檓 like, I just鈥� kids are spending an entire year of their life in one of the most consequential classes of ELA, and we鈥檙e saying we can鈥檛 evaluate impact? Like, yes, the product is very different at the end of the year, thanks to all the feedback we鈥檝e gotten along the way, but we still had this precious time with kids. Did it or did it not improve the core thing we鈥檙e trying to go after together? So, yeah.

Michael Horn: No, I think that鈥檚 very well said. All right.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: Let鈥檚 wrap the conversation. We could clearly talk to you for a long time, but we鈥檝e got one more segment before we do that.

Michael Horn: And before we let you go, Dacia, the fun segment we always have is something we鈥檝e been reading, watching, listening to.

We try to get outside of education, but as Diane and I often note, we fail probably about half the time. So we鈥檒l let you go wherever, wherever you go on this.

Dacia Toll: I am reading and thinking and listening to a lot of education-focused stuff. I would say one quick on the work thing, Lenny鈥檚 podcast has taught a tremendous amount about鈥� I, as somebody who was making a transition into product and tech, I feel like it鈥檚 my weekly tutorial. But I also, we mentioned my teenage boys, so I try to spend some of that time with them and they鈥檙e getting me into anime. And so I just finished Death Note.

Michael Horn: That I didn鈥檛 have that on my checklist for you. OK.

Dacia Toll: No. Well, I, I have never watched anime before, but if it鈥檚 an opportunity for me to hang out with teenagers and then and you know, they鈥檙e pretty great stories of like heroes and even more, they鈥檙e kind of into the anti-hero, which then leads to a whole bunch of good conversations.

Diane Tavenner: That鈥檚 awesome. I love that. Anything that I can connect with my kiddos on is definitely something I will do. In this particular case today, I鈥檓 going to recommend a documentary film which is nominated for an Oscar, and this was my husband鈥檚 pitch to me, which was, I will say, not very compelling, which is there鈥檚 this new film out and it鈥檚 about death, and I really want to watch it. And then I think you鈥檒l like it because apparently you also laugh at it. And I was like, wow, that鈥檚 not compelling at all. But it turns out that Come See Me in the Good Light is actually an extraordinary film.

Diane Tavenner: And it is the relationship of two poets who have these really interesting backstories and, and one of them is diagnosed with cancer. And I think he was wrong. I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 about death. I think it鈥檚 about living and it鈥檚 a really beautiful film for this moment in time. So I recommend it.

Michael Horn: I was gonna say it sounded like a Shelly Kagan Yale, sort of course, the way you started to pitch it and then you changed that up on us. But I鈥檓 going to go a totally different direction because you鈥檙e outpacing me at the moment, Diane. But as I said in our last episode, it鈥檚 America鈥檚 250th. And I鈥檓 going to give my brother a shameless plug on this one. I know we both read a lot on, you know, outside of our day jobs, but this one鈥檚 a little bit more personal because it鈥檚 my brother, Jonathan Horn. He鈥檚 been writing This Week in American History for the Free Press. It鈥檚 a weekly column, comes out on Wednesdays. It鈥檚 a fresh look at history that 

I鈥檝e really enjoyed.

He names events happening around the country to commemorate, celebrate the 250th, including an event in Dorchester near me, which has helped us plan some outings with my kids, which has been super fun. But it was actually his piece on Thomas Jefferson a few weeks back that I highly recommend to all of our friends for its bigger messages and perspectives on the state of our union then, but also the state of our union now. And so highly recommend.

And I鈥檒l just say, Dacia, huge thank you again. This was a fantastic conversation. We鈥檙e lucky you鈥檙e working on this. And for all of you, our listeners, keep the feedback coming both publicly and privately, and we鈥檒l see you next time on Class Disrupted.

This episode is sponsored by LearnerStudio.