By Amy Schatz and Luke Foreman 

‍

As students return to classrooms this fall, they may find themselves using more pencils and paper and spending less time on laptops and tablets, as school systems reconsider technology’s role in learning. Parents are helping drive that reassessment, pressing schools for clearer answers about screen time, student data and whether classroom tools are improving learning.

‍

That pressure is beginning to shape policy across the U.S. New York City recently announced a one-year moratorium on student-facing generative AI through eighth grade; companion chatbots will be prohibited across all grades, while high school use will be limited to AI literacy and supervised pilots. Los Angeles has adopted limits on school-issued devices, beginning with no classroom screen time for students in preschool through first grade and phasing in restrictions for older students. Feedback from nearly 19,000 community members identified attention, mental health, online safety and privacy among the leading concerns.

‍

Public opinion on classroom technology is more nuanced than the most prominent policy fights suggest. National Parents Union polling found that only 1% of parents wanted no classroom screen time, while roughly three-quarters supported daily limits and believed their schools’ current device use was about right. 

‍

Some districts are pairing greater scrutiny with continued adoption. Miami-Dade County Public Schools, which initially blocked AI chatbots over concerns about cheating and misinformation, spent months evaluating tools for accuracy, privacy and fairness before introducing Google’s Gemini to more than 100,000 high school students. The emerging divide is less about whether technology belongs in classrooms than when, how and why it is used.

‍

Taken together, these developments mark a shift from adoption to accountability. School systems, families and policymakers are placing greater weight on technology’s educational purpose, the evidence behind it and the conditions under which it is used. AI has raised the stakes around academic integrity, accuracy and students’ reliance on automated tools.

‍

How Policy is Defining Responsible Use

With no single national standard governing AI or classroom technology, states and districts are pursuing different approaches while three trends begin to define responsible use:

‍

• Limits based on age and use: The New York City and Los Angeles policies reflect a broader emphasis on protecting younger students. Utah’s H.B. 273 similarly requires a grade-level framework for classroom technology, along with parent notice when generative AI is used and policies governing approved student-facing tools.

‍

• Formal rules for schools and educators: Ohio required districts and schools to adopt AI-use policies by July 2026, while Maryland’s AI Ready Schools Act requires local systems to adopt policies aligned with forthcoming state guidance and designate central-office AI coordinators. Washington, D.C.’s “stoplight” model prohibits AI in high-stakes decisions such as discipline, allows certain uses with added safeguards and permits lower-risk applications with human review.

‍

• Stronger protections and product accountability: Oklahoma now requires educator review of AI output, annual disclosure of student-facing tools and a parent opt-out that preserves access to core instruction. New federal guidance asks schools and districts to evaluate products according to the learning problem they address, whom they serve, how long they should be used and the evidence supporting their effectiveness. Providers are encouraged to publish independent evaluations, be transparent about product quality and effectiveness, and provide implementation support.

‍

These policies are making AI governance increasingly operational. They define who may use a tool, which tasks require human judgment, what families must be told and what providers should demonstrate. The result will be local requirements built around similar expectations for educational purpose, evidence, transparency and oversight—expectations edtech companies will need to anticipate before entering a new market.

‍

What EdTech Companies Should Expect

For edtech companies, this more selective environment will affect how products are developed, introduced and sustained in schools.

‍

District leaders are also being inundated with products and pitches. When Chalkbeat asked five superintendents to share the pitches they received on a single day, it collected 90 messages from 79 companies. District leaders described generic promises, outreach disconnected from their needs and products that failed to integrate into existing systems.

‍

Companies preparing for this environment should:

‍

• Lead with the educational need and credible evidence. Explain the problem a product solves, whom it serves and what results support its use.
• Prepare for stakeholder scrutiny. Parents, educators and policymakers will expect accessible answers about age appropriateness, data, product limitations and the role of human judgment.
• Build implementation and communications into adoption. Training, district capacity, family engagement and ongoing evaluation will influence whether a tool succeeds after procurement.

‍

These changes make communications and public affairs part of responsible product strategy. That means understanding the policy environment, listening to affected communities and communicating with specificity. Early engagement can surface concerns, strengthen implementation and reduce the risk that families first learn about a tool through controversy.

‍

The companies best positioned for this next phase will treat evidence, policy readiness and stakeholder engagement as core parts of bringing a product into schools. Those practices will increasingly determine which tools earn trust and build a lasting role in the classroom.

‍

Amy Schatz is an Executive Vice President at the Glen Echo Group. Luke Foreman is an Account Director at BerlinRosen, where he where he leads public affairs campaigns for education and nonprofit clients.