Pause Generative AI in Our Schools Until It's Proven Safe

As concerned Norwalk, CT parents, educators, students, and community members, we are writing to respectfully request that Norwalk Public Schools (NPS) implement a temporary moratorium on generative AI use in our schools.

This moratorium would pause new contracts for products or curricula that use large language models (LLMs), and temporarily suspend current use of student-facing AI apps, including Google Gemini, which has been deemed "high risk" for children by Common Sense Media. A moratorium would give the NPS governing board the time and space to conduct a thorough assessment of existing research on these tools in educational settings, carefully weighing the risks against the potential benefits. The safety and wellbeing of Norwalk students deserves that level of care and attention.

We acknowledge that progress has been made recently and that the District plans to shut off Gemini in all student-facing technology, in all grade levels, starting in the 2026-27 academic year.  We appreciate this effort and it is reassuring to know that members of NPS leadership recognize the potential dangers of AI in its current forms.  However, we do not feel this is sufficient to protect students, especially considering that teachers will still have plentiful access to AI tools.

There is a growing body of scientific research raising serious questions about AI use in schools. Studies suggest it may undermine the learning process and the human relationship between teachers and students. Researchers have linked AI use to increased cheating, and potential reductions in students' cognition, critical thinking, memory, motivation, persistence, and creativity. Concerns have also been raised about connections to depression and psychosis in young people. New studies are emerging regularly, and the picture is still developing. Notably, the only major meta-analysis to show a positive correlation between AI use and learning was recently retracted by its publisher, leaving the evidentiary case for AI in classrooms on uncertain footing.  It even begs the question, should teachers have as much access to it given that it can contribute to their "cognitive offloading" as well?

Respected institutions have taken notice. The Brookings Institution conducted an exhaustive yearlong review of AI in education and concluded that "the risks of utilizing generative AI in children's education overshadow its benefits." The National Education Policy Center has called for school leaders to pause adoption of AI applications while policymakers develop appropriate legislation. The RAND Corporation's report on AI in K-12 education found no measurable teaching and learning gains from AI use. A coalition of hundreds of researchers, educators, and medical professionals published an open letter calling for a five-year moratorium on AI in schools. These are not fringe voices, they represent some of the most credible institutions in American education and public policy.

We also want to acknowledge the real concerns many parents have about the commercial nature of AI products, including questions about student data privacy, algorithmic bias, environmental impact, and the spread of misinformation. Schools have a responsibility to consider the sincere concerns of families -- including those with ethical or religious objections -- when introducing new technology into the classroom.

Preparing students for the future has always meant giving them strong foundations -- the ability to think critically, communicate clearly, and solve problems independently. There is no evidence that exposing children to generative AI tools in elementary or secondary school builds those foundations. What the evidence does suggest is that we may be trading long-term cognitive development for short-term technological familiarity. That is not preparation. A moratorium is not a step away from the future. It is a commitment to making sure our students arrive there ready. 

As an example, we understand that it was decided recently that starting in 3rd grade, students would be given four teacher-led lessons per academic year about what AI is, how it works, what it is used for, etc.  This was presented as a positive change and an example of how NPS is limiting its use of AI in the district.  We feel that even these lessons are unneccessary.  Given the rate at which this technology changes, the likelihood that anything a child learns about AI in elementary or even middle school today is relevant to their futures is extremely low.  Those four lessons per year would be better spent reading paper books or writing by hand creatively, practicing the all-important "analog" skills that are being downplayed too much in today's educational settings.

Norwalk has an opportunity to model the kind of deliberate, student-centered leadership that other districts across the country will look to. We hope you will take it.

Signed,
Schools Beyond Screens, Norwalk & Other Concerned Parents, Educators, Students, and Community Members