Students have the right: 

• to be taught by proven methods: Students have the right to modes and methods of learning that have been proven effective before their introduction in the classroom: learning that is play-based, embodied, experiential, and social. They have the right to experience failure, difficulty, and struggle. They have the right to not serve as a guinea pig, beta tester, or model trainer for digital programs that are not independently reviewed. 
• to have their attention protected: Students have the right to a learning environment that fosters deep thinking, attention, and focus. Research shows lower on-task attention and tendency to skim text when reading on screens versus paper text. Even for our youngest learners who are not reading yet, using screens to deliver text has a negative effect on attention. Students deserve a learning environment rich in paper-based text which most optimally protects their brain development and ability to maintain attention and focus. 
• to learn from books and on paper: Students have the right to read whole books over the course of their education–in elementary, middle and high school. They have the right to regularly read and write on paper. School districts claim to rely on data to inform instructional decisions. For decades, research has indicated that students comprehend and retain more when they are reading on paper rather than on screens. The impact of writing notes and information down by hand (rather than typing notes on a computer or using speech-to-text technology) has also been proven to improve memory and retention of information. The efficacy of analog modes of learning is supported by the data. 
• to exist in screen-free zones: They have the right to screen-free periods, including recess, PE, lunch, and “brain breaks,” as well as a return to asynchronous learning on remote days. Students also have the right to be shielded from online content of a sexual or violent nature and to a learning environment free from advertising and data tracking. Students may not be treated as customers or laborers inside their classrooms.
• to a curriculum focused on learning, not computerized assessment: Mandates for digital screeners on the city level and computerized state testing have created a “wag the dog” effect where schools use readiness for testing as a justification for over-reliance on screens in the classroom; this is despite the fact that children in our city are not taught to type. However, testing on computers or tablets, especially for our youngest learners, does not accurately assess their knowledge or skills and forces schools to spend precious time away from crucial skill building. The results of these tests often reflect a student's ability to navigate digital environments rather than their level of academic knowledge. Screen use also fosters distraction.
• to evidence-based learning: Neuroscientist and educator Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath has documented that despite more than fifteen years of implementation and widespread use, there remains a limited body of independent, high-quality research demonstrating meaningful educational benefits associated with even the most commonly used ed tech products like i-Ready, including an absence of randomized controlled trials and a lack of high-tier peer-reviewed studies establishing significant improvements in student learning outcomes attributable to the platform. Horvath’s review found that studies commonly cited in support of i-Ready were conducted in partnership with the platform’s developer and lacked independent peer review, raising concerns regarding transparency, objectivity, and evidentiary standards;
• to an education free from algorithmic bias: educational researchers have long recognized that no single standardized assessment can fully capture a student’s knowledge, creativity, critical thinking, growth, talents, lived experiences, or academic potential; a substantial body of educational research has documented that standardized assessments have historically reflected and perpetuated systemic inequities affecting Black, Latino/a/e/x, Indigenous, multilingual, immigrant, students with disabilities, and low-income students, often measuring disparities in opportunity and access rather than innate ability or potential. Algorithmic educational technologies and digital instructional systems risk encoding and amplifying existing racial and socioeconomic inequities.
• and instead to receive a culturally responsive and sustaining education: Students have a right to an asset-based, not deficit-based, education; the Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Education (CRSE), which is  at the heart of the new Portrait of a Graduate framework,  calls for student-centered learning environments that affirm racial, cultural, and linguistic identities; elevate historically marginalized voices; support rigorous and independent learning; develop students’ critical consciousness. 
• to privacy, informed consent, and protection of intellectual property: Students have a right to be fully informed of vendor data practices in terms they can understand. They have the right to protect their personal and biometric information (health records, SSN, immigration status, voice, etc.) from being packaged, sold, or leaked by vendors by withholding consent, and the right to access and review their own educational records, including materials and assessments owned by EdTech companies. They have the right to defend output from theft and misuse. Student work cannot be fed to LLMs without consent, nor can students be compelled to use AI. In New York City, students are compelled to do both: HMH has converted itself into an AI platform that also provides curriculum. iReady is being sued for making false claims regarding its efficacy as well as for selling student data to third parties. 
• to the protection of their physical and mental health: Students have the right to the protection of physical and mental health by limiting exposure to screen-based technologies that may cause or worsen eye health (i.e. myopia or near-sightedness), sleep disruptions, neck strain, anxiety, and depression.

We offer 10 steps to honoring these rights by establishing an analog right to learning and teaching methods for all students: 

1. Make the one-year pause on AI in 2k-eighth grade permanent; 
   
   
2. Make the one-year pause on screens in 2k-second grade permanent; 
   
   
3. Revise the third-through-eighth-grade screentime policy to require, not just recommend, limits on screentime; 
   
   
4. Only using educational technology when it is necessary to the educational purpose of the learning objective, including creating asynchronous, analog learning opportunities when remote days are required;
   
   
5. Create a right of refusal to participate in digital screeners; 
   
   
6. Return state testing in third through eighth grade to paper testing as demanded by over half of NY City Council; 
   
   
7. Extend limits on screen time to include homework;
   
   
8. Set limits on screen time for high schoolers, including canceling all experimental AI pilots;
   
   
9. Prior to any renewal, expansion, or substantial modification of contracts involving all digital assessment tools (i.e. i-Ready, MAP), the New York City Department of Education shall hold public hearings;
   
   
10. In line with New York State’s new Portrait of a Graduate, New York City should support educators in authentically assessing students through reading conferences, student writing, portfolios, projects, performances, mathematical explanations, discussions, observations, presentations, exhibitions of learning, and other classroom-based evidence that provides actionable information about how students think and learn.