Last night at the PEP, we defeated another AI product, this time for Prek to 2nd graders

April 30, 2026

Last night was an eye-opening evening at the Panel for Educational Policy.  After gathering outside for a short rally led by the indomitable teacher-activist Martina Meijer,  we entered the school building to join other parents as the meeting began at 6 PM.

Though thankfully, the proposal for the AI high school was scrapped before the meeting,  because of parent pushback, along with several controversial plans to relocate, close and truncate a number of Manhattan schools, there were still plenty of parents eager to speak, as well as many students who were there to advocate for expanding the Lower Manhattan Community Middle School through 12^th grade,  now that space in their building will be available since the AI High school will not be taking up room in 26 Broadway.

Attendees also spoke out against the budget, the capital plan, and of course AI.  I urged the  the panelists to vote against the capital plan, which would provide less than half the space necessary than the School Construction Authority itself has admitted for the DOE to comply with the class size law.

The SCA itself testified last month that  they are in the process of revising the plan to make it better able to allow for smaller classes, so that any vote to approve it now was clearly premature.  Many others in the audience as well as the panelists themselves pointed out other critical deficiencies with the plan, as well as the general incompetence of the SCA, given the excessive costs and delays in their completion of projects, as well as their chronic lack of responsiveness to community input. 

Yet the capital plan passed easily anyway, as it has every year – showing yet again how inadequate Mayoral control is as a system in requiring real accountability from our governmental agencies.

However, the numerous comments of parents against the rush to install AI in our classrooms seemed to have an effect, particularly as one of the contracts on the agenda for an AI program called Age of Learning, designed for students in grades PreK to 2^nd grade, was voted down. 

 

This rejection was despite the fact that three different representatives of the company including its owner were there to speak  in its defense, though their presence seemed to annoy the panel members more than impress them.   

 

Several of the panel members themselves spoke against the expansion of AI, including the two student members and Manhattan parent member Naveed Hasan.  Debra Altman, the Staten Island parent member, said that the main problem in our schools was less AI than excessive screen time, and that the PEP should  pass a resolution similar to the one recently passed by the Los Angeles school board, that would limit computer use in schools and potentially allow parents to opt out.  That would be terrific.  

  

I want to thank all the parents and teachers who came out in support of a moratorium, and spoke so eloquently and clearly on the dangers that AI pose to their children. The video of the meeting is here; many of the comments are illuminating a.  I especially want to point out the dynamite speech of Rev. LaTicia Thompson of CEC 8 at 1:51, who  said   “Until we have system-wide STEAM programs,  AI is a ‘NO’. Until every child can have recess outside in a state-of-the-art yard, AI is a ‘NO’. And until we really leave no child left behind, AI is a ‘NO’.'

 

Please also remember to purchase a ticket to our dinner on May 19,  honoring Diane Ravitch, if you want us to be able to keep advocating on the need to lower class size, protect student privacy and/or keep AI out of our schools!

 

thanks Leonie  

 

_____

 

 

Comments on the Capital Plan:

 

My name is Leonie Haimson, and I’m the executive director of Class Size Matters. 

I urge you to vote no on the capital plan, which according to SCA officials funds fewer than half the seats necessary to provide enough space to allow schools to comply with the class size law.  The SCA also testified to the City Council last month that the current plan is now being revised to better align with the law, and although I do not know if this is true, it does show that any vote now to approve it is premature.  

Moreover, of those new school seats that are funded, more than half have no sites, and nearly 40% are unspecified as to district or grade level.  This lack of transparency violates not just the class size law, but also Local Law 167, passed by the City Council in 2018. 

Approving such an inherently flawed capital plan also flies in the face of a resolution passed by the PEP School Utilization Committee on March 18, over a month ago, which calls on the DOE to produce a real class size reduction plan, that would describe where the 495 schools will receive additional space that DOE says are too overcrowded at their current enrollment to lower class size to mandated levels and to amend the capital plan accordingly. 

These 495 schools enroll nearly half of all non-D 75 students.  Yet the DOE has blocked this resolution from coming to a vote of the full PEP.  One has to doubt their commitment to lowering class size to the levels that all kids need and deserve, and are their right under the law. 

Thank you for your time.

_____

 

Comments on the Contracts:

 

My name is Leonie Haimson,  and I am also the co-chair of the Parent Coalition for Student privacy, a member of the Chancellor’s Privacy Working group, and a member of the AI Working Group.  Even though we were promised to have input on the AI guidance several times, we were denied that opportunity, and the guidance is deeply flawed.

 

I along with many other parents continue to have serious concerns about the expansion of AI in our schools.  Many AI products have been pushed on schools in the last few weeks, including Google Gemini, which prompts kids to ask for its help with writing or drawing pictures when they log into their Chromebooks.  Teachers are receiving emails from the vendors using their DOE email addresses, promoting their AI products.

 

Moreover, tonight a contract for the Age of Learning is to be voted on, described as providing a “personalized learning” journey for kids in grades PreK to 2nd grade,  to teach them math and ELA with videos, games etc..  While it claims that “this contract contains no AI products; an optional feature includes the ability to use AI to generate recommendations based on de-identified student assessments.”  I don’t know how a product can make personalized recommendations to students without the vendor knowing their identity.  And kids that young shouldn’t be on devices at all.