A pause on AI, until we get it right
We are asking the district to pause student access to generative AI tools until there is a clear policy, informed parental consent, teacher training, and real safeguards in place. This is not anti-technology. It is asking the district to decide deliberately before, not after, putting a powerful new tool in every child's hands.
Why now
Generative AI became available to students through their district Chromebooks, which the administration has said was "an intentional district decision." At families' urging, the district has agreed to block Google's Gemini for grades K through 7. That is a welcome first step, and we appreciate it.
But a block on a few well-known chat sites is not the same as a considered policy. Generative AI is now woven through the everyday tools students already use, and access tends to leak back in through other doors. The lesson is not to play technical whack-a-mole; it is that the district needs a clear, durable policy, made with the community, rather than reacting site by site. A moratorium gives everyone the time to build that policy properly.
This is aligned with a growing call
We are not out on our own. A national coalition of organizations and experts has called for a pause on generative AI in PreK-12 schools (Fairplay's coalition letter), and New York's own teachers' union has urged limits on student-facing AI for younger students. School communities elsewhere have passed moratorium resolutions and petitions (a sample petition). New Paltz asking for the same puts us in step with the field, and with the state's own caution.
Why teachers should want this too
This is where families and teachers are natural allies. When generative AI is a click away on a school device, a student can have it draft, summarize, or simply complete an assignment, at school or at home. That quietly erodes the one thing a teacher most needs: an honest signal of what a student actually knows and can do. A pause is not a vote against teachers; it protects their ability to teach and assess with confidence, and to decide together, as professionals, where these tools genuinely help and where they do not. We want our teachers in this conversation, and on this side of it.
They had to think critically, even just for a small time, to put those words on the page.
As a former high school social studies teacher, I know of many students who would cobble together sentences on a page that spoke with minimal accuracy about a given topic. While I was disappointed that they didn't complete a writing assignment properly, using facts and research and citations, I was proud in some small way that they gave an effort. They attempted something, even if they would fail. They had to think critically, even just for a small time, to put those words on the page. These days, AI makes that effort too much of a mountain to climb. Instead they can type random key words and a five paragraph essay will be spit out. Using AI to create what you are supposed to learn on your own diminishes these young minds.
A New Paltz parent, and a former high school teacher
What we're asking for
- A pause on student access to generic generative AI tools on district devices and accounts, until a policy exists.
- A real policy, developed with teachers, parents, and the Board, on where and how AI may be used, by grade.
- Informed parental consent for any tool the vendor restricts by age (for example, tools rated 13 and up).
- Teacher training and clear classroom guidance before any classroom use.
- Transparency about which tools are enabled, for which grades, and how access is actually controlled.