Dinowitz questions DOE on vendor efficacy evidence and third-party verification

And is the intention to then continue that coalition, knowing that AI and screen time is a constantly evolving technology, constantly evolving field?

Or is the...

Intention to have a summative one and done report?

I think we are very truly and authentically open to see where that process with that coalition leads us in terms of where the policy goes and the continuation of the coalition, the need for it or not, or any shifts.

We are entering into that coalition

very authentically in partnership.

And we want to study how this policy landed.

What did we get right?

What did we get wrong?

Where can we adjust?

And share that publicly.

And we hope to do that certainly in partnership with some of our council members serving on the coalition, but also here in these spaces for feedback.

And I look forward to that work.

Again, you know, as I said in my opening, there's disagreements or a lot of questions, but it's very clear that changes were made and that it demonstrates a responsiveness that I want to commend the DOE for and thank them for.

Thank you.

You testified that you've done the research for the broad 30-minute, 45-minute, but individual vendors are approved without research on specific tools.

And I'm just wondering why vendors who put tools in front of our children in a classroom, that even the reports that you cite

reference real harms they could cause, why it is not incumbent upon them to provide any evidence or research to back up their claims that it will improve student learning.

We agree.

And some of the vendors that we partner with provide robust data around student usage, time limits.

They are able to flag too much time.

They are able to show growth in their product.

They work with us to kind of cross-reference different data sets sometimes.

Can I pause you for a sec?

Absolutely.

You've just mentioned, in broad terms, very reasonable things.

You know, what is too much?

What does growth look like?

Why is that not a standard for every vendor?

Yeah, you're right.

And that is the next step for us, that every tool that is in our schools has a very concrete instructional purpose, supports the school's

instructional vision, is captured in their comprehensive education plan, is determined in partnership with their school leadership.

teams, and then centrally as well.

The products that we're looking to bring into the system, you know, making sure that they're able to deliver on these exact items that you're citing and that we're expecting in this next phase of where we take New York City public schools

in any technology use.

Who provides that data?

That their products are effective.

The company that, well, of course, the company is going to tell us their products effective.

I'm talking about the evidence, the research.

So, for example, you might, you know, you're looking for a specific thing.

Schools are looking for, do you want to jump in on it?

Or no, you're looking for Randy?

No, but schools will look, you know, what do I need?

You know, I don't want to get too drilled into a specific product, but like if it's at the school level or central level, we, you know, we meet with vendors all the time.

They have their sales pitch, but our questions back to them are, you know, what is the evidence of impact?

And now we are making sure, even as we are entering into partnerships with anyone, that they are informing us.

You know, they're part of the data privacy guarantees that Dennis just talked about.

If they've added anything to their platform that wasn't there when we entered into a partnership, the onus is on the company to make sure that we are aware of any changes, such as adding any kind of...

AI to the product or taking it out if that's what they did and having more of that up close personal pulse on the product.