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. 

 

Make your voice heard on AI, the capital plan and class size!

April 13, 2026

1.     On Thursday April 16 at 4:00 PM, NYC parents, kids, teachers and advocates will be gathering in City Hall Park to call for a moratorium on the use of AI in the classroom until rigorous measures can be established to protect student privacy, their cognitive development, critical thinking, mental health and the environment – which DOE’s AI guidance doesn’t even pretend to provide. The latest polling reveals that 74% of K12 students say it is “very” or “somewhat” likely that AI “will make learning more difficult in the future.”  Increasingly, prominent voices are calling for a moratorium. We agree.

Please join us as we call on the Mayor to institute an AI pause ASAP. We also hope to be able to deliver our petition (please sign if you haven't already) along with a national letter calling for a moratorium to the Mayor's office!

Where: City Hall Park, in front of the fountain, entrance at Broadway and Park Place.

When: Thursday April 16 at 4 PM. Please RSVP here.

2.    Even as the DOE is rapidly expanding the use of AI regardless of the negative impact on students, they have released NO class size plan that has a chance of meeting the requirements in the law. This Wednesday April 15, the Panel for Educational Policy will be meeting in the Bronx at 6 PM to vote on the latest iteration of capital plan, which even the School Construction Authority admits does not provide enough space for schools to lower class size to mandated levels. In fact, the plan as currently written would pay for fewer than half of the seats that both the SCA and DOE have said are necessary to comply with the law, though they testified to the City Council last month that they are in the process of revising the plan to improve it. It makes NO sense to prematurely approve a capital plan that is supposedly in the process of being rewritten. Our updated analysis is here.

Please send an email to the PEP today! A sample message is below; but please edit it any way you like to add details about your child’s school or district. Thanks! Leonie

To: aalicea6@schools.nyc.gov; daltman5@schools.nyc.gov; saubin@schools.nyc.gov; abogad@schools.nyc.gov; jborelli@schools.nyc.gov; ccasaretti@schools.nyc.gov; mdienstag@schools.nyc.gov; afair3@schools.nyc.gov; gregfaulkner1@gmail.com; agarcia141@schools.nyc.gov; agiordano16@schools.nyc.gov; agreen57@schools.nyc.gov; fhannahjones@schools.nyc.gov; naveed@cs.columbia.edu; aho2791@schools.nyc.gov; rizquierdo2@schools.nyc.gov; yjimenez20@schools.nyc.gov; sodwin3@schools.nyc.gov; aong3@schools.nyc.gov; bparsons5@schools.nyc.gov; msapp@schools.nyc.gov; JCollins37@schools.nyc.gov

Dear PEP member:  Please vote no on the capital plan which the DOE and the SCA have both admitted does not create enough additional space to allow the city to comply with the class size law, or to provide all NYC students with the smaller classes they need and deserve. In fact, the plan as written would create fewer than half the number of school seats that the DOE and SCA say are necessary to meet the legal class size goals, and nearly half of the seats funded are unspecified as to district or grade level, in violation of Local Law 167, passed by the Council to require full transparency.

If this inadequate and opaque plan is to be approved prematurely, I urge you to insist that SCA and DOE officials explain in detail how it will be improved to meet the mandate in the law.

Sincerely,

[Your name, parent or teacher, and school]

My comments at the School Construction Board meeting and how you can help

 

UPDATE:  I followed up with a letter to the SCA board and President, making the same points as below.  On March 25, the General Counsel replied with this letter.. On April 8, two weeks after the board meeting, the SCA  announced they had finally appointed a third member to the board, Liz Bergin, former VP of SCA Capital Plan Management, meaning that the board had been without its legally required membership for 18 months. NYC Education Chair Rita Joseph had also written them a letter asking them about this.  

March 22, 2025

On Thursday morning, I spoke at the School Construction Authority board meeting, down in the bowels of Tweed, explaining how they have failed to fulfill their legal and ethical obligations to provide schools with the space necessary to comply with the class size law, and the requirements of the Public Authorities Law.

Seven people sat around a table, only two of them SCA board members, going over multi-million dollar contracts and appointments.  

After I spoke, Deputy Chancellor Dan Weisberg responded dismissively to my comments, while the other board member, Peter McCree, said nothing. Though the law requires three members at all times there have only been two since August 2023, when Lorraine Grillo resigned, as the NY Post reported back in September. [More on this here.] Nor did the President of the SCA, Nina Kubota say anything in response.   My comments in full are below. I sent them a copy of my comments afterwards but have so far received no reply.

On Wednesday night, the Panel for Educational Policy is scheduled to vote on the five-year capital plan, which funds less than half the 70,000 seats which the SCA says are necessary for schools to be able to comply with class size law. Moreover, fewer than half of those seats funded are even specified as to district, subdistrict or grade level, which violates at least two laws requiring SCA transparency. Finally, the SCA board itself has failed to adhere to basic governance requirements, established in the NY Public Authorities Law.

I urge you to send this message to the Panel members before the vote – deadline Tuesday night March 25, 2025. First, you can check if your child attends one of the 500 schools that do not have space for smaller classes, according to the DOE’s own estimates. Then send them the email; and put the name of your school into the subject line and edit it any way you like. Instructions and a template are posted here. Please copy me at info@classsizematters.org

More on what the DOE and SCA should be doing but are not to make space for smaller classes was detailed in our NYC Council budget testimony on March 13.

thanks Leonie

Comments at the School Construction Authority Board meeting 3/20/25

Hi, my name is Leonie Haimson and I am the executive director of Class Size Matters.

While Cora Liu of the SCA testified  at the preliminary budget hearing last week that 70,000 more school seats would be needed to comply with the class size law, passed by the State Legislature in June of 2022, there are only about 33,000 seats funded in the five-year capital plan, and fewer than 20,000 are expected to be completed by September 2028,  the deadline in law. 

According to the DOE, there are nearly 500 schools without the space currently lower class sizes to the mandated levels that enroll nearly half of all students, but no apparent plan on how they will be provided with the space to comply.

·       Moreover, nearly half of all the new seats that are funded in the five-year plan are still unspecified as to district, subdistrict or grade level.  Under no previous administration has the SCA capital plan refused to specify where schools by district and grade level. Not only is this lack of transparency unfortunate, given the need to accelerate school construction to meet the timeline in the class size law, but it also appears to violate two laws.

·       First, the state class size law itself requires DOE to submit an “annual capital plan for school construction and leasing to show how many classrooms will be added in each year and in which schools and districts to achieve the class size targets.”

·       Second, the lack of transparency also violates Local Law 167, passed by the Council in 2018, requiring the SCA to explain where seats are needed by district, subdistrict and grade level, as well as the demographic data and methodology used to make these projections.  Yet Instead of becoming more transparent after this law was passed, the capital plan became even more opaque.

·       We also have ongoing concerns with the School Construction Authority’s lax governance. As reported in the NY Post in September, the SCA Board has been comprised of only two members since August 2023, though three members are required at all times by the state law that established the SCA in 1998: “The authority shall be governed by and its powers shall be exercised by a board of trustees consisting of three members….Each appointed member shall continue in office until a successor has been appointed and qualifies.”  

·       According to the latest annual report of the NYState Authorities Budget Office, the SCA Board also lacks a Governance Committee, a Finance Committee, as well as official policies for salary and compensation, time and attendance. Nor does it have a Whistleblower Protection policy. According to this NYS Authorities Budget Office, all of these are required by the NYS Public Authorities Law.

We urge you to reform the Board’s structure  and policies according to the requirements in the law, and to revamp the capital plan, so that it clearly shows where and when school seats will be created to allow the city to meet the Sept. 2028 deadline in the class size  law.

Thank you for listening;  I will email you a copy of these comments and hope for a point by point response.

More evidence in the just-released Mayor's Management Report that DOE has no real class size plan

 

The just-released Mayor's Management Report has some questionable claims and troubling data regarding class size and school overcrowding, especially given the need for the administration to be implementing an actual plan to lower class size in accordance with the class size law, passed in June 2022.  (See our updated FAQ on this issue.) 

The MMR asserts that "Overall, average class sizes remained constant from Fiscal 2023 to Fiscal 2024 in grades 6 through 12 and increased slightly in grades kindergarten through 5."  Yet according to the DOE's own June 2024 class size report, average class sizes increased significantly last year in all grades but high school:

 

In the MMR, officials also state that they have no target figure for average class sizes, either for this year or next- which they should if they had a plan to comply with the class size law, as it requires a four-year phase-in of smaller classes in all grades.

Regarding the need to create more school seats -- critical to be able to reduce overcrowding and lower class size -- the MMR says DOE "target" is to have 10,222 more school seats in FY 25.  

Yet the data in the capital plan reveals that the number of new seats to open next year will likely be far less – only about 6,000 - with continuing declines thereafter.  Instead of ramping up construction of new schools after the class size plan was passed, Adams cut the budget for new capacity in the capital plan by over $2 billion.  [The SCA recently added another $2 billion to new capacity in the new five-year plan, in accordance with a state budget mandate, but haven't revealed where those schools will be sited and seem in no hurry to build them.]

 

It  is also strange that according to the MMR, they have no "desired direction" in creating new school seats, either upwards or down.  This is especially bizarre, as there was no progress in relieving school overcrowding last year according to the report - with the percentage of overcrowded elementary, middle and high schools remaining the same, respectively at 34%, 17%, and 29%.  The percentage of elementary and middle school students enrolled in overcrowded schools actually increased to 35%.

The DOE has estimated that they will need to hire 10,000 to 12,000 more K12 teachers to comply with the law within four years.  And yet the data in the MMR shows there has been a decline in the total number of teachers since FY 20 of more than 3,000.  What the decline would be if  the concurrent increase in the number of 3K and PreK teachers over that period would be is unclear, but our analysis of headcount data posted on the City Council website shows a sharp reduction in the teaching force of over over 4,000 full-time K12 teachers between FY 2019 and FY 2023.  Again, in the MMR, there is no "Desired Direction" up or down in the future for the total number of teachers on staff.

 

All this goes to further reaffirm our conviction that even now, more than two years after the class size law was passed, the DOE has no real class size plan - as we pointed out in a letter to the State Education Department in June 2024, urging them to require DOE to create such a plan and take affirmative, accelerated action to comply.