Why "AI Ban" is the Wrong Term for New York's Efforts to Safeguard Cognition
In September 2026, the following headlines were used to introduce news reports about technology use in New York schools:
'NYC Announces AI Ban for Children in Schools' - bbc.co.uk (link)
'Nation's Largest School District Bans AI in the Classroom' - cnn.com (link)
'New York City Bans AI in Elementary and Middle Schools' - The New York Times (link)
To be clear, the news reports all provided nuanced and accurate reporting on the position taken by the New York City Department of Education (link). The first line of the CNN report specifies,
"New York City is banning the use of generative AI for public school students from 2K through 8th grade, part of a larger move to restrict classroom technology in the nation's largest school district."
The situation in New York illustrates the need for something that transcends AI or edtech. This is the need for precise vocabulary when talking about technology in schools.
Referring to the New York City Department of Education policy as a 'ban on AI' is technically inaccurate. Machine learning, a branch of AI, powers everything from search engine autocompletes to spam filters and accessibility tools.
The suggestion of a 'ban on AI' also misrepresents what the district is trying to achieve. The policy is a moratorium, aimed at ensuring human connections, relationship building and cognitive skills develop in young children while research on the impact of AI use is carried out. (Source: NYC Office of the Mayor). As stated by the NYC Schools website, the policy does not apply to assistive technology and associated screen time. However, as we will see, even use of the term 'screen time' and associated actions can be problematic.
The precise aims of the NYC AI Strategy
The 'What Families Need to Know' section of the NYC Schools website states the position of the NYC Department of education, stating,
"For the 2026-27 school year, New York City Public Schools (NYCPS) is implementing a moratorium on student-facing generative artificial intelligence (AI) in grades 2K - 8, with limited use in high schools, and screen time restrictions depending on grade."
Specifically, the actions of New York City can be summarised as,
1) Specific target (Generative AI Moratorium). The one-year pause in grades 2K to 8th grade applies specifically to student facing generative AI. It prohibits tools that act as artificial co-writers or conversational surrogates for young children.
2) Predictive and non-generative technology preserved. Non-generative digital tools, traditional educational software, search engines and administrative tools are still permitted and supported.
3) Supporting teacher use of AI. Educators are encouraged to use AI for administrative efficiency, lesson planning and creation of materials, providing safety requirements are met.
4) Separate provision for high-school. High-schoolers are not under a moratorium. They engage in structured AI literacy modules that focus on algorithmic bias, data privacy, ethics and critical verification using vetted tools.
5) Providing exemption for assistive technologies. Crucially, the policy makes exemptions for assistive technologies used by students with disabilities and who require translation tools, as well as for hands on computer science programs.
Lessons from the OECD Report on Sweden
The need for precise definitions of terminology when discussion technology in education are not confined to New York City.
The OECD publication, 'Education in Sweden, A Diagnostic Review with Analysis of PISA 2022 Results' (link) offers thorough and insights about the implications of the 2022 PISA results in relation to use of technology in Swedish schools.
One of the most interesting and important conclusions of the report was that it is difficult to draw conclusions about the impact of technology due to the variance in training provided to staff and ways that the same technology is used in schools. The report stated,
"Despite a growing body of rigorous research on the use of digital technologies in schools, generalisable evidence concerning their impact on students' educational development is limited, given the highly context-dependent and diverse use of digital resources in schools."
This observation recognises that use of digital technology varies between schools, districts, regions and countries. Even in a school with a developed digital strategy, different teachers will use the same technology to different effect. Terms like 'artificial intelligence', 'screentime' and 'digital devices' mean different things depending on who you speak to. Children playing an educational game and children using a laptop to program a robot to complete a task are both engaged in screentime, but with different results and developing different aspects of cognition.
Focusing on needs before technology
When we think about technology provision or use of technology in schools, the discussion often moves quickly towards the technology itself: apps, devices, artificial intelligence. This can lead quickly to the kind of confusion that broadly defined terms like 'screen time' and 'AI'. While someone with a view of 'screentime' as being passive consumption might advocate less of this in school, someone else who has seen children engaged in robotics or media creation would have a different perspective.
To avoid becoming trapped by different interpretations of terms relating to technology and the technology that children should or should not use, we can reframe the discussion on the needs of the child.
Above all, children need to be safe, happy and healthy. Save the Children (link), UNICEF (link) and the University of Exeter (link) have all published reports describing how children are spending less time playing outside than ever. These three organisations also detailed the positive impacts for children on outdoor play. As the UNICEF report stated,
"A growing body of research shows that children have better physical, mental and emotional health, and even improved learning, when they play outdoors."
In my last blog post about the nature and value of play, I covered how play itself is important for healthy growth and combatting anxiety and depression, even into adolescence. I reported on the findings of Dr. Stuart Brown, of the National Institute of Play, who studied the effects of play deprivation and stated, "The opposite of play is not work, it is depression."
Play and time outdoors are important, and that children are arguably not getting enough of these things. In terms of what schools need to provide, there is a strong case for a curriculum that involves opportunities for practical activities, communication, play and exploration into adolescent years. This is particularly the case following the findings above.
On this basis, we can therefore ask the question, 'does technology facilitate these, or other fundamental needs?', instead of asking which technology children need to use. Technology such as robotics equipment, digital measuring equipment, cameras and electronics equipment provide opportunities for play, exploration and discussion in the same ways that practical equipment provides opportunities for these things in maths and science. Screen-based game design can provide children with the same opportunities, which is why the term 'screentime' can be so misleading.
What of AI and technology literacy? Are these fundamental needs in the 21st century, and if so, how do we address them?
Teaching children to understand and use technology safely is both part of safeguarding them and giving them access to information and expression in the modern digital world. These needs exist alongside other needs, such as the development of cognitive skills that jurisdictions like New York City and Norway are legislating to protect.
To determine whether approaches like the New York City moratorium on AI for 2K - 8th grade, and heavily restricted provision into 9th are justified, We need to establish the exact levels and descriptors for AI literacy and digital literacy that children need. This needs-based determination will ensure that any approach or technology availability or restriction is grounded and justified.
Conclusion: Precise language avoids polarisation
The CNN headline, 'Nation's Largest School District Bans AI in the Classroom' is a lot more impactful than 'Nation's Largest School District Imposes Moratorium on student-facing AI in the Classroom from 2K to 8th grade'. And to be fair to the three highly-respected, reputable news sources above, an aspect of AI has been banned in New York classrooms, with the reader needing to read the whole article to find out how.
However, discussion of the approach taken by New York City raises important points.
The first is the need to focus on needs over technology. This avoids schools being led by the perceived power of any particular technology platform. What are the priorities of a school? What do the children most need in the time they spend there during the day? Have these needs been appropriately considered and updated in a digital world?
Secondly, we need to avoid false dichotomies and polarised points of view. Playing outside is important, and screen-based activities can be enjoyable and relaxing. Screen-based activities can facilitate research, inclusion, collaboration and creativity in the classroom. Analogue, paper-based reading and writing are also fundamental ways of learning and expression.
If we can approach children's educational experience and use of technology from a considered point of view, based on pedagogy and developmental needs then technology becomes what it was meant to be, a purposeful tool in the service of learning.
Comments