ÉçÇøºÚÁÏ

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ÉçÇøºÚÁÏ Newsletter

Two of the nation’s largest school systems are drawing new boundaries around artificial intelligence.

New York City Public Schools has placed a on student-facing generative AI through eighth grade, while limiting high school use to approved programs and career pathways. Los Angeles has put in place its own on student use of generative AI on district devices.

These decisions will inevitably be described as AI bans. The debate will settle into familiar camps: Are schools protecting children from a powerful and poorly understood technology, or keeping them away from tools they will need later?

That is an important argument. But it is too small. The districts are not wrong to draw a line. A line is not a plan.

My state of Alabama offers a useful example of what a plan might look like.

Its new standards begin in kindergarten and weave AI through a broader progression of digital literacy rather than treating it as a disconnected topic. The state has also established a for students beginning with the graduating class of 2032.

The important thing is the sequence.

In the early years, that can mean simple questions. What is a digital tool? What information should students keep private? Can something on a screen be wrong?

As students grow, the questions can grow with them. Why does one video appear in your feed instead of another? What do apps collect? How do recommendation systems influence what you watch, buy and believe?

Then AI takes its place. How does it produce an answer? Why can it sound confident and still be wrong? When does it help learning, and when does it substitute for thinking we all need to do ourselves?

The emphasis shifts in high school. Alabama’s computer-science requirement gives students an explicit place to encounter the technologies they are likely to meet after graduation. New York’s own high-school policy points in a similar direction, allowing AI in approved programs and career pathways, including computer science.

None of this prevents AI from appearing in English, science, history or mathematics. It creates a foundation on which those uses can develop. By high school, protection is no longer enough. Students should begin learning to use these systems deliberately.

There is another important part of the Alabama approach.

The standards give classroom teachers and school leaders room to build their own AI literacy as well. Teachers in the early grades are not being told they must suddenly put general-purpose AI in front of children. They have space to learn what these systems can and cannot do and, as their own confidence and judgment develop, introduce AI incrementally and selectively, not as a substitute for learning but as a scaffold for it.

That is probably how much classroom AI adoption will happen anyway: teacher by teacher, lesson by lesson. Not through one top-down decision that AI is either allowed or banned.

New York’s action is explicitly a moratorium, not a permanent prohibition, and teachers there may continue using AI, though not for grading. Los Angeles is also using its pause to develop a longer-term approach.

A moratorium can create time. A framework can help schools decide what to do with it.

The sequence matters because AI represents a different relationship with technology.

For most of the computer age, school technology has been about conveyance. Students type, search, create, store and share work. The student was still expected to supply the thinking.

AI changes that relationship. It can interpret a question, summarize material, propose an answer, create an image, write software and now take action. The digital environment is moving from one that mostly carries our thoughts to one that increasingly participates in them.

Personal computers, the internet, search, smartphones, social media and now AI can look like separate waves. Underneath, they are the same thing: more computing power, more connection and more data, moving closer to daily life each time.

Children need to understand that environment even before we, as adults, decide they are ready to use its most powerful tools. That is different from putting a general-purpose chatbot in front of a third grader.

And school boundaries do not make AI disappear. Students with access at home will continue to encounter these tools, often with uneven levels of adult guidance. A developmental approach gives every student a common foundation for understanding them while giving the technology, and our understanding of its effects, time to settle.

The child we protect at 8 is the same person we need to prepare for work at 18 or 22.

After 40 years in enterprise technology, I sometimes tell the high school students I work with something more plainly: If you plan to make your living in an air-conditioned building, you are going to need command of these tools to compete with the people who have it.

That is shorthand, of course. AI will not belong only to office workers. Knowledge work is embedded in almost every occupation. A technician diagnoses problems. A nurse documents and interprets information. A contractor prepares estimates. A supervisor plans work and manages people. AI will touch those parts of the job, too.

The, then, is not simply knowing how to operate an AI product. It is knowing how to use these systems to extend your own capacity: to frame a problem, find and interpret information, generate options, judge what comes back and know what judgment should remain your own.

Most workers will not need to build AI systems. But they will increasingly work alongside people who have learned to use them well.

We waited too long to teach children how the social-media world worked. They entered it first, and adults tried to understand the consequences later.

With artificial intelligence, we can reverse the order: protect children where protection is warranted, progressively teach them how the digital world works, and eventually give them command of the tools that will help shape their livelihoods.

This time, we can teach the child before the technology does.

Did you use this article in your work?

We’d love to hear how ÉçÇøºÚÁÏ’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.