NYC Council meetings, chaptered and linked by time.
Independent project. Not affiliated with the New York City Council.
Created by Uzair Qadir
Inspired by Vikram Oberoi's City Meetings
New York City Council
Oversight – Examining Screen Time and the Use of Digital Devices in New York City Public Schools
Read summaries and jump into the video at the segment start.
Council staff welcome attendees to the joint hearing of the Committee on Oversight and Investigations and the Committee on Education, remind attendees to silence devices, sign in, and not approach the chairs.
Councilmember Shekar Krishnan, Chair of the Committee on Oversight and Investigations, introduces the hearing topic and thanks co-chair Eric Dinowitz, DOE representatives, students, educators, unions, and council colleagues in attendance.
Krishnan describes how the 2020 pandemic forced children onto Chromebooks and Zoom, and how digital devices have since proliferated in classrooms and homes, creating ongoing negotiations over screen time at home.
Krishnan highlights studies showing digital devices disrupt student focus, cites Google admitting YouTube is unsafe and distracting, and criticizes big tech companies profiting from millions in school contracts while accessing student data.
Krishnan outlines the DOE's September guidance: no individual devices for pre-K through grade 2, 30-minute limits for grades 3-5, 45 minutes for grades 6-8, no limits for high school, and exemptions for standardized testing. He argues mandates are needed.
Krishnan asks whether DOE is committed to overhauling technology reliance, auditing tech companies, and protecting students from predatory big tech. He calls for concrete plans and mandates, thanking council staff for their work.
Councilmember Eric Dinowitz introduces himself as a former NYC public school student and teacher, now Chair of the Committee on Education, and co-chair of the hearing on screen time and digital devices.
Dinowitz recounts teaching through a screen during COVID-19, notes that screens stayed after in-person learning returned, and frames the hearing as addressing whether students should continue facing screens all day.
Dinowitz cites research linking excessive screen time to obesity, sleep disorders, depression, and anxiety. He also acknowledges assistive technology's value for students with disabilities and English language learners, but stresses tools must be vetted and teachers trained.
Dinowitz describes the policy banning individual device use for 2K through grade 2, recommending limits for grades 3-8, and a moratorium on student-facing AI through grade 8. He questions the DOE's assumption that screens are good and necessary.
Dinowitz notes teachers and administrators are unsure how to apply or circumvent the new limits, and asks what evidence DOE can produce for blanket screen use, what teacher training is offered, how stakeholders are engaged, and whether DOE will lobby for handwritten state assessments.
Dinowitz names council members in attendance, thanks his staff and co-chair Krishnan, and concludes his opening remarks.
Speaker Julie Menin thanks the chairs and frames the hearing around parents' basic question of how much of the school day children should spend in front of screens, noting technology should support instruction, not replace it.
Menin references screen time restrictions in at least six states and Los Angeles's limits, and highlights that more than half of American teenagers use AI chatbots for schoolwork, with research showing AI may harm independent performance.
Menin notes reading scores dropped six percentage points for grades 3-8 and third-grade proficiency sank nearly 14%. She calls for guardrails ensuring every device, platform, and screen minute serves a clear educational purpose.
Public Advocate Jumaane Williams thanks the chairs and acknowledges the administration's new AI and screen time policy as a response to widespread advocacy and research on negative effects of excessive screen time for young children.
Williams references State Senator Gounardes's FOCUS Act and Norway's ban on generative AI for elementary students, and calls for schools to recommit to teaching basics amid declining reading and math scores.
Williams discusses his office's new report calling for responsible AI use, ongoing public engagement, and AI-specific procurement standards to prevent problematic contracts like digital bathroom passes and voice recognition apps for young children.
Williams shares quotes from a community forum on AI, urges using current knowledge to change course before more harm occurs, and warns that the house is already on fire regarding technology's impact on children.
Krishnan recognizes Councilmembers Brewer and Farias on Zoom, and explains that before DOE testifies, a panel of educators, organizers, parents, and activists will speak first about their experiences with screens in schools.
Dr. Salas-Ramirez, a neuroscientist and parent, testifies about the impact of ed tech and screen time on children's cognitive load, emotional engagement, and mental health, calling for an audit of ed tech platforms and a moratorium on AI and ed tech.
Aracelis Lucero, executive director of MASA, describes how AI, screen time, and digital curricula exacerbate inequities for immigrant families, sharing a personal story about her son's declining literacy and writing skills due to screen-based learning.
David Monahan, campaign director at Fair Play, testifies about correlations between screen time and mental health declines, the addictive design of YouTube and gamified learning tools, and urges DOE to put mandates in place.
Navid Hassan, a PEP member and parent, testifies about the need for sovereign municipal tech infrastructure, criticizes DOE's reliance on outside vendors, and highlights privacy law violations by ed tech products using YouTube loopholes.
Krishnan thanks the first panel and calls up DOE representatives for their testimony, noting questions for the first panel will be deferred until after DOE testifies.
Committee counsel introduces the DOE panel—Danielle Giunta, Scott Strickland, and Laura Lai—and administers the affirmation to tell the truth before the committee.
Danielle Giunta, First Deputy Chancellor, introduces herself and her team, states DOE's guiding ethos that students learn best through connection with teachers and peers, and references the successful cell phone ban policy.
Giunta outlines the updated screen time policy: no individual screen use for 2K through grade 2, recommended 30-minute limits for grades 3-5, 45 minutes for grades 6-8, and course-dictated use for high school, emphasizing technology should be used sparingly with clear instructional purposes.
Giunta details exceptions to the screen time limits: assistive technology for students with disabilities and multilingual learners, digital assessments and diagnostics, out-of-school learning, and centrally approved instructional programs like e-books and coding classes.
Giunta explains the AI policy: a full moratorium on student-facing generative AI for 2K through grade 8, and for high school, AI restricted to five vetted pilots, career readiness programs, and required AI literacy coursework.
Giunta summarizes that NYC's policy has some of the broadest restrictions on AI and screen use in the country, is a one-year policy, and will be evaluated through a Technology in Schools Coalition to map future technology use.
Krishnan asks why DOE issued recommendations rather than mandates, expressing concern about inconsistent implementation across schools. Giunta responds that the limits are non-negotiable despite the word 'recommended,' and that schools need flexibility for implementation.
Krishnan asks how DOE defines the 30-45 minutes of screen time. Giunta clarifies it should be intentional, active instructional use, not passive or routine use, and that routine device use is not acceptable.
Krishnan raises concerns about K-2 students bringing Chromebooks home, opening up screen time negotiations at home. Giunta acknowledges limited need for daily device use at home but notes remote learning days require device readiness.
Krishnan asks what drove the different policy for grades 3-5, wondering if standardized testing starting in grade 3 was the reason. Giunta and Laura Lai explain the policy was based on developmental research, not solely testing.
Laura Lai explains DOE took a developmentally based approach, noting stronger research on screen time impacts in early years for language acquisition and psychological development, and that some limited examples show benefits under teacher supervision for older students.
Krishnan raises concerns about students accessing YouTube on school devices, getting around filters, and asks if DOE will mandate blocking student YouTube access. Giunta agrees and Scott Strickland explains YouTube has been filtered out of all student devices as of that week.
Krishnan asks whether filters are strong enough to prevent students from circumventing YouTube blocks. Strickland describes using Google Admin Console for Chromebooks and agents on iPads to block access both at school and at home.
Krishnan questions how student data is shared with vendors and third parties, citing Amira as an example that records student voices, and asks about parental consent and disclosure requirements.
Dennis Doyle, DOE Chief Privacy Officer, explains the IRMA data privacy compliance process, data processing agreements with vendors, and that no parental consent is collected because DOE relies on the FERPA school officials exception for sharing student data with third-party contractors.
Krishnan expresses shock at the FERPA exception, urges DOE to adopt a consent or notification policy for student data sharing, and argues NYC should hold itself to a higher standard given its advanced screen time and AI policies.
Dinowitz asks whether DOE's data privacy policies extend to subcontractors of ed tech vendors. Doyle confirms contractual requirements extend to subcontractors, but DOE does not collect those contracts directly. Dinowitz presses on how many audits have been conducted and demands answers during the hearing.
Dinowitz asks Laura Lai to share the research supporting the specific 30 and 45-minute limits. Lai says she doesn't have citations on hand but offers to send them, and Dinowitz requests all cited research be posted publicly.
Dinowitz contrasts DOE's process with LA Unified's public process that consulted pediatricians and collected feedback from 19,000 community members, asking what DOE's equivalent process was and who was consulted.
Giunta describes DOE's internal conversations with pedagogical and computer science teams, feedback from advocates and council members, and plans to use the Technology in Schools Coalition for more formalized stakeholder engagement going forward.
Dinowitz raises concern that tech companies may have been consulted in prior policy iterations and asks DOE to share who was consulted and the specific research used. Giunta says the coalition work is being finalized and will be shared publicly.
Dinowitz asks why vendors are approved without research on specific tools and whether there is third-party verification of product effectiveness. Giunta acknowledges this is an important next step and discusses plans for stronger vendor accountability.
Dinowitz asks if there is a timeline for holding companies accountable and canceling ineffective contracts. Giunta agrees it's an important next step, and Laura Lai describes the five high school AI pilots as a first step toward independent assessment.
Dinowitz shares parent and teacher anxiety about AI tools being described as 'vetted' without evidence of efficacy or safety, noting no rubric has been shared, modules haven't been seen, and teachers haven't received professional development on AI implementation.
Laura Lai explains the pilot selection process: IRMA compliance, existing tool use in high schools, no gamification properties, no cognitive offloading, three categories of tools, application process for schools, and a target launch around November with a framework to be shared publicly.
Krishnan expects the rubric and metrics to be public before pilots launch and asks if AI companies are paying DOE for the pilots. Dinowitz asks if pilot schools and modules have been chosen yet—DOE confirms they have not.
Krishnan asks what equivalent document justifies technology use for multilingual learners compared to IEPs for students with disabilities, and how DOE ensures screens don't disadvantage ELLs. Kyle McDonald explains federal and state policy grounding for ELL technology access.
Krishnan asks whether DOE has considered what screen use looks like for ELLs beyond just allowing it, and whether ENL teachers receive specific professional development on technology use. McDonald describes curricular scaffolds and PD within NYC READS curriculum.
Council Member Schulman asks when DOE will issue a clear list of exemptions, reports parents seeing no change in device use due to policy caveats, and raises concerns about 3K children being shown movies on teacher cell phones during nap time.
Schulman asks how many assessments DOE requires annually, whether schools must use screen-based assessments or if paper options exist, and whether parents can opt out of screen-based assessments. Giunta explains the assessment structure and says there is no opt-out option.
Council Member Morano picks up on Schulman's line of questioning, asking if an hour of digital assessments doesn't count toward screen time limits and why all screen time isn't counted the same given children's eyes and brains don't distinguish.
Morano asks if DOE would support a paper and pencil testing option as UFT has called for, and asks whether DOE believes the COVID emergency response became too much of a permanent educational model. Giunta agrees the moment requires reevaluation.
Morano asks what parents should do when homework is on Chromebooks and whether DOE would consider giving parents the right to request paper alternatives. Giunta says the policy doesn't address homework but teachers can support paper options.
Council Member Restler asks how DOE tracks students' screen time at home and how much homework is assigned on computers. Giunta clarifies the policy doesn't cover out-of-school time or homework limits.
Restler asks how DOE tracks screen time for kids who don't have Chromebooks at home and how parents can restrict screen time. Giunta and Randy Asher describe device distribution, LTE connectivity, and parent resources for managing screen time.
Restler notes ordinary parents don't know how to configure routers and asks what general advice DOE provides. Asher describes digital literacy outreach through parent coordinators, Common Sense Media partnerships, and resources on parental controls and appropriate use.
Council Member Narcisse, drawing on her healthcare background, asks what health department or school health services contributed to setting the 30-45 minute limits and whether they were based on clinical evidence. Giunta references the research Laura Lai shared.
Narcisse asks who is responsible for ensuring schools stay under the limits and what happens if they don't. Giunta reiterates the limits are non-negotiable despite being called recommendations, and describes feedback loops with superintendents and school visits.
Narcisse asks if policy information is available in different languages and whether DOE will sign the Microsoft agreement that AFT and UFT have. Giunta confirms the website translates into many languages and says she needs to speak with VP Vaccaro about the agreement.
Narcisse asks if DOE has provided schools with a list of which approved programs contain AI components, noting teachers can't comply with the moratorium if they can't identify AI tools. Scott Strickland describes ongoing work to research and list AI-containing products.
Krishnan notes UFT VP Vaccaro is present, asks DOE if they have the number of data privacy audits conducted, and notes that for a $40 billion budget they should be able to find that number.
Council Member Maloney asks how DOE is rethinking in-person instruction vs. at-home assignments to mitigate AI risks, and asks about the digital divide and how many students depend on schools for device access.
Maloney asks how DOE evaluates exceptions for assistive technology, AI literacy, and workforce development, and how DOE will have the capacity to continuously evaluate the evolving ecosystem. Suzanne Sanchez and Tanisha Mitchell describe assistive technology vetting and AI literacy modules.
Maloney asks how DOE monitors whether apps and programs remain useful over time, whether DOE consults with teachers, and how it measures when programs need to be phased out. Giunta says gamified apps with AI fall under the moratorium and describes the purchasing review process.
Maloney summarizes key concerns: mandates vs. recommendations, laptops coming home for K-5, homework on computers, opt-out policies for online testing, and affirmative consent for data sharing, urging bolder action to address problems outpacing current solutions.
Krishnan asks if DOE will commit to banning gamified apps the way it blocked YouTube, noting these apps existed before AI and may not be caught by the AI moratorium. Giunta says gamified apps are not what DOE envisions but takes it under advisement.
Krishnan asks if DOE has curriculum modules to teach digital health and safety before children are given screens, similar to D.A.R.E. programs. DOE staff describe existing digital literacy curriculum and computer science education that includes unplugged activities for young students.
Krishnan presses on whether digital literacy education is required for all schools or just those that choose to participate. Tanisha Mitchell clarifies there is no strict requirement for all students, but state standards exist for schools doing computer science.
Krishnan asks how many of DOE's 73 technology contracts involve instructional software or hardware. DOE staff report $105 million was spent on educational software in fiscal year 2026, and discuss the process of reviewing contracts for compliance with new policies.
Krishnan asks about the 38 programs DOE announced it would discontinue or disable AI components for, requesting the full list, and asks about projected costs for implementing the AI and screen time policy. DOE says it will share the list and doesn't have cost figures yet.
Krishnan adds the assessment screen time loophole to the follow-up list. Dinowitz summarizes remaining concerns about teacher PD, research rubrics, data privacy audits, and calls for the best policy in the country rooted in research and transparency. Chancellor Samuels thanks the committees.
Krishnan transitions to public testimony, calling up State Senator Andrew Gounardes and Assemblymember Joanne Simon to testify on their work on screen time and AI legislation.
State Senator Andrew Gounardes credits the administration's new policy, then details his FOCUS Act legislation setting age-appropriate screen limits with force of statute, creating a right to analog learning, regulating vendors, and requiring school-issued devices to be free of social media and AI platforms.
Gounardes asks the Council to codify screen time policy in local law, require a complete ed tech product inventory, require independent evaluation before contract renewal, guarantee families' right to non-digital alternatives, and support his FOCUS Act in Albany.
Assemblymember Joanne Simon discusses assistive technology's importance for students with disabilities, the need for better AT evaluations at IEP meetings, attention and executive functioning issues, and the value of programs like Amira and CUNY Reading Fellows when used appropriately.
Simon warns about students forming relationships with chatbots leading to self-harm, stresses digital literacy for parents and students, and recommends Maryanne Wolf's book 'Reader, Come Home' on how screens change reading brains.
Council Member Wong asks whether limiting screen time could alleviate school violence. Simon discusses social-emotional development and problem-solving, while Gounardes connects the replacement of childhood play with phone play to reduced ability to navigate conflict.
Krishnan transitions to general public testimony, reminding attendees of the two-minute time limit, decorum rules, and procedures for submitting written testimony.
Mary Vaccaro, UFT Vice President for Education, expresses support for aspects of the new policy, describes UFT's role in creating the AFT's National Academy for AI Instruction, and urges DOE to sign the Microsoft agreement for privacy, transparency, and security safeguards.
Julie Samuels, CEO of TechNYC, supports AI literacy education with safeguards, expresses concern that high school AI limits are too restrictive for future workforce preparation, and emphasizes data privacy must be central with real enforcement resources.
Doug Spring of the Salvadori Center describes their hands-on STEAM education programs using cardboard, rulers, and glue rather than screens, and shares NYU research findings that project-based learning maintains student interest in math better than screen-based curricula.
Lainey Hemison criticizes DOE's oversight of ed tech vendors, noting more than 700 programs access student data, questioning the IRMA process's adequacy, and raising concerns about YouTube workarounds through Google Classroom embedding that may still violate privacy laws.
Alyssa East, parent and co-leader of Distraction-Free Schools NY, criticizes the blanket exception for students with disabilities in DOE's screen time guidance, arguing ed tech is not assistive technology and excessive screen time exacerbates attentional issues for neurodivergent children.
Charlotte Pope of the NYCLU describes AI vendors shifting language to evade city policy, vendors celebrating pilot announcements, and concerns about student monitoring and inability to opt out of pilot classrooms.
Sophia Addison of the Child Mind Institute describes their work in NYC schools, supports precautionary safeguards on technology, and calls for mental health literacy curricula teaching healthy technology relationships alongside no-device policies.
Shannon Ritchie, a parent, describes discovering her third grader had access to violent and sexualized games on school Chromebooks after finishing state test prep, and being denied access to her son's internet history while Google has all the data.
A school psychologist testifies that NYC public schools have become data collection centers, devices disrupt natural development of young children, and teachers are not allowed to teach creatively due to Google-based curriculum mandates.
Naomi Sachs, a recent public school graduate, expresses concern about AI exemptions for students with disabilities and English language learners, arguing generative AI is not designed for language learning and could expose vulnerable students to linguistic biases.
Molly Sunak of the Center for Independence of the Disabled New York testifies that the blanket exemption for students with disabilities treats them as immune to screen time risks, calling for assistive technology to be at the center of policy conversations rather than simply exempted.
Iman Gad of Girls for Gender Equity urges prioritizing student privacy and safety over tech companies, raises concerns about heightened surveillance disproportionately affecting Black and Brown students, and shares youth demands for data privacy education and consentful tech.
Tanisha Grant, a mother and grandmother of autistic children, raises concerns about Black and Brown students lacking basic technology access, the environmental dangers of AI data centers, and the need to focus on literacy before introducing AI.
Alma Addy, a high school senior, testifies about the lack of transparency regarding how AI tools track student data, the need for student input in policy development, and concerns about mandated AI tools with negative effects on learning.
Sika Abuku, a high school student, testifies about AI being used by teachers for grading and lesson planning with errors, persistent student access to AI tools like Gemini despite filters, and concerns about student data being used to train AI models.
Arun Ahmed Misha, a high school junior, testifies about the lack of student consent in AI pilot programs, the fear of losing human connections with teachers and creative aptitude, and the need for student and parent awareness of AI policies.
Dinowitz asks students about their access to Gemini on school accounts, what balance they think is appropriate for AI in schools, and what they need from DOE to feel safe in pilot programs. Students emphasize the need for transparency, parental consent, and AI literacy.
Hilary Kong, a parent, describes her daughter using an AI reading tutor in first grade, digital math games and art benchmarks on devices, and the lack of meaningful parent engagement in technology policy decisions at her school.
Celeste Elias, a kindergarten parent, describes being unable to refuse iPads or iReady assessments despite privacy lawsuits, receiving no response from administrators, and discovering her child was given access to scary TikToks on a teacher's personal phone in pre-K.
Ethan Sachs, a comic book writer and NYC public school parent, describes how AI could replace the kind of hands-on journalism project that sparked his career, warning that artificial intelligence is counterfeit and the urgency to adopt it comes from companies seeking profit.
Crystal Cleven, a physician scientist and parent, describes the 'screen inferiority effect' showing screens lead to poorer reading comprehension, shares research on preschoolers read to by screens showing ADHD-like EEG findings, and reports parents saying children already watched YouTube in school this week.
Kate Mulvaney, a parent, demonstrates that YouTube is still accessible on her son's school-issued iPad, describes searching for explicit and violent content that was not blocked, and criticizes the extensive exemptions in the new DOE guidance.
Greg Pak, a comic book writer and organizer, criticizes AI pilot programs for using chatbots to give writing feedback, questions whether pilots use databases from major AI corporations, and argues every student should be required to opt in rather than being enrolled automatically.
Beata Safari of the NYC Bar Association's Technology Committee raises questions about who tracks cumulative screen time across multiple teachers, the gap between school and home screen time limits, and whether remote learning requirements conflict with banning home devices.
Jean-Marc Apollon of the NYC Bar Association argues a complete ban on AI for grading may create 'shadow AI' problems, and recommends a limited pilot program where AI recommends and teachers decide, with careful measurement of results and bias.
Alina Lewis, a former DOE teacher and assistant principal, criticizes Amira and iReady as hoaxes on NYC public schools, argues literacy is socially embedded, and refuses to accept that public school students are denied real learning while private school students get play and no screens.
Deepthi Sharma, a parent and tech entrepreneur, testifies about the contradiction of schools promoting reading while assigning screen-based homework, uncurated YouTube access on school devices, and urges treating screen time as a question of use rather than just policy.
Kayla Spence of CEC District 30 calls for mandates rather than recommendations, criticizes the policy's many carve-outs, questions parent representation in the technology coalition, and urges buying books and hiring librarians instead of ed tech.
Larissa May, founder of Half the Story, argues bans are a starting line but not the full answer, describes a five-part framework for student digital wellness including phone-free spaces, digital wellness curriculum, student role in policy design, and bringing back pencil and paper.
Kelly Clancy, a parent and PhD who has served on institutional review boards, argues no IRB would approve the AI pilots as designed because minors cannot meaningfully consent or withdraw, and no demonstrated benefit to children has been articulated.
Olympia Kazi, a parent and organizer of a District 6 screen break, calls for a complete screen ban from 8th grade and below, screen-free days for older students, and criticizes DOE representatives for lacking sense of what happens in actual classrooms.
Dinowitz reads the names of witnesses who registered but did not appear, thanks all participants and council staff, and officially closes the hearing.