Junta on developmental appropriateness and distinguishing tool types
Junta outlines values driving next policies: centering developmental appropriateness across grade levels, distinguishing between unstructured student-facing AI and carefully reviewed instructional tools, and recognizing different considerations for assistive technology required by IEPs versus general AI tools.
From this feedback, we understand that our current guidance does need to be strengthened to better protect students and respond to community input.
While we're still shaping our next set of policies,
Let me speak to the values of what is driving what comes next.
First, we need to center developmental appropriateness.
Across all grades, students need opportunities to read, write, problem solve, discuss ideas, and work through challenging tasks with teachers and peers.
We are mindful of cognitive offloading when technology does the work that students need to do for themselves.
AI should not short circuit those learning experiences or allow students to bypass the work that learning requires.
We also recognize that the developmental and instructional needs of students vary greatly from pre-K through high school, and our policies should reflect those distinctions.
As we build on the March guidance, we are looking carefully at how expectations should differ by age and grade level,
how to prevent unstructured technology use, and how to prepare older students for a world in which AI is already present, without allowing AI to replace their own thinking.
Second, we are focused on distinguishing between different kinds of tools and uses.
Not all technology use is the same.
The clearest risk is unstructured student-facing AI that allows students to bypass the thinking, writing, reasoning, and problem-solving they need to do for themselves.
That is very different from a carefully reviewed tool designed for a specific instructional purpose, used under educator supervision,
With clear limits and a clear role for the teacher.
It is also different from assistive technology or software like text-to-speech required by a student's IEP or 504 plan, a language access support for a multilingual learner, or a teacher-facing planning tool.
Those uses raise different legal, instructional, and equity considerations, ones that we are factoring into our next set of policies.