Numbers at a Glance
6,491 survey responses
65.2% expressed concern about cognitive development
3,300+ open-ended comments reviewed
67% of respondents found the guidance mostly or very clear
42.5% requested grade-band guidance on developmentally appropriate AI use
Introduction
Over a 45-day period, we invited families, students, educators, leaders, labor partners, and community members to share their perspectives on the role of AI in our schools. More than 6,400 respondents contributed feedback to help inform our path forward. We are sharing these results so families can see how their feedback is guiding our ongoing work with technology in schools.
How We Gathered Feedback
- The survey was open from March 25 through May 8, 2026.
- It was administered online through the Alchemer survey platform using an anonymous link.
- It was promoted through the Guidance on Artificial Intelligence, an NYC Public Schools press release, and by the Chancellor and engagement channels throughout the collection window.
- We received 6,491 responses in total, including more than 3,300 open-ended comments.
A Note on the Results
- This was an anonymous, online survey – not a scientific sample – so the results reflect themes in the feedback rather than a precise, generalizable picture of all perspectives across NYC Public Schools.
- Because responses were anonymous, some may be duplicates.
- Respondents could select more than one role, and several questions allowed more than one answer. As a result, percentages may add up to more than 100%.
Who Responded
Respondents were asked to identify their role or roles in the school community (select all that apply).
- 47.0% Educator
- 43.7% Parent/
Caregiver/ Family - 11.8% School Staff
- 6.0% Community Member
- 4.4% School Administrator
- 4.3% Student
- 2.3% External Partner
- 1.8% Labor Partner (UFT)
- 1.4% Central Office Staff
- 0.5% Labor Partner (DC‑37)
- 0.3% Labor Partner (CSA)
Key takeaway: Educators (47%) and parents, caregivers, and family members (44%) together made up the large majority of respondents. Because people could select more than one role, the figures do not total 100%.
View Who Responded Data Table
| Role | Responses | % of total |
|---|---|---|
| Educator | 3,009 | 47.0% |
| Parent, caregiver, or family member | 2,798 | 43.7% |
| School staff member | 757 | 11.8% |
| Community member or advocate | 386 | 6.0% |
| School administrator | 278 | 4.4% |
| Student | 275 | 4.3% |
| External partner, researcher, or organization | 147 | 2.3% |
| Labor partner (UFT) | 116 | 1.8% |
| Central office staff member | 89 | 1.4% |
| Labor partner (DC-37) | 34 | 0.5% |
| Labor partner (CSA) | 21 | 0.3% |
Clarity of the Guidance
After reviewing the Guidance, how clearly does it communicate what AI can and cannot be used for in NYC schools? (Select one)
Key takeaway: About two-thirds of respondents felt the Guidance communicated its rules very or mostly clearly, while roughly one-third wanted more specific examples or greater clarity for their own context.
View Clarity of the Guidance Data Table
| Response | Share |
|---|---|
| Mostly clearly – I understand the framework but have some questions | 34% |
| Very clearly – I know exactly what is and isn't permitted | 33% |
| Somewhat clearly – I need more specific examples to apply it in my context | 19% |
| Not clearly – I am uncertain what this means for my school or role | 14% |
Top Areas of Concern
What are your top areas of concern? (Select up to 3.) The table shows the overall results and, for each stakeholder group, the percentage of respondents within that group who selected each concern. The top three concerns overall are bolded.
Educator
- Cognitive development (AI doing the thinking students should do)61.2%
- Impact of AI, technology, and social media on student mental health and social-emotional well-being46.7%
- Academic integrity and homework44.8%
Parent/
- Cognitive development (AI doing the thinking students should do)75.8%
- Impact of AI, technology, and social media on student mental health and social-emotional well-being57.2%
- Student data privacy and security47.6%
Student
- Impact of AI, technology, and social media on student mental health and social-emotional well-being51.5%
- Cognitive development (AI doing the thinking students should do)48.2%
- Student data privacy and security47.6%
Community
- Cognitive development (AI doing the thinking students should do)83.1%
- Impact of AI, technology, and social media on student mental health and social-emotional well-being59.5%
- Student data privacy and security42.6%
Administrator
- Cognitive development (AI doing the thinking students should do)57.9%
- Academic integrity and homework45.7%
- Impact of AI, technology, and social media on student mental health and social-emotional well-being40.7%
Key takeaway: Cognitive development was the single most common concern by a wide margin, followed by the impact of AI on student mental health and well-being. Concern about cognitive development was especially high among community members (83%) and parents (76%), while students were the one group most concerned about mental health and well-being (52%).
View Top Areas of Concern Data Table
| Area of Concern | All | Educator | Parent/ |
Student | Community | Administrator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cognitive development (AI doing the thinking students should do) | 65.2% | 61.2% | 75.8% | 48.2% | 83.1% | 57.9% |
| Impact of AI, technology, and social media on student mental health and social-emotional well-being | 50.8% | 46.7% | 57.2% | 51.5% | 59.5% | 40.7% |
| Student data privacy and security | 43.2% | 38.7% | 47.6% | 45.6% | 42.6% | 38.1% |
| Academic integrity and homework | 39.8% | 44.8% | 36.5% | 39.3% | 36.4% | 45.7% |
| Age-appropriate AI use across grade levels (K–5, 6–8, 9–12) | 27.6% | 28.4% | 26.6% | 27.6% | 15.1% | 36.3% |
| Bias and equity in AI tools | 22.9% | 24.5% | 19.5% | 27.6% | 34.3% | 21.2% |
| Transparency about AI use in schools | 21.3% | 19.5% | 22.6% | 25.0% | 21.0% | 20.5% |
Completeness of the Traffic Light Framework
Do you think the Traffic Light Framework was complete? If not, which section should include additional AI uses or applications? (Select one)
Key takeaway: A plurality of respondents felt the framework's categories were already sufficient, though a sizable share (29%) wanted additions across all three tiers. Among those who named a single tier, the Red "prohibited uses" category drew the most requests for expansion.
View Completeness of the Traffic Light Framework Data Table
| Response | Share |
|---|---|
| The current categories are sufficient | 35.4% |
| All three sections need additions | 28.7% |
| Red: Do Not Proceed (prohibited uses) | 18.5% |
| Yellow: Proceed with Caution (uses requiring professional judgment) | 12.9% |
| Green: Proceed with Confidence (approved uses) | 4.6% |
Priorities for Future Guidance
As we further develop our guidance and resources, what do you most want to see? (Select up to 3.) The table shows the overall results and, for each stakeholder group, the percentage of respondents within that group who selected each priority. The top three priorities overall are bolded.
Educator
- Classroom examples and educator resources44.0%
- Grade-band guidance for developmentally appropriate AI use (K–5, 6–8, 9–12)42.6%
- AI literacy training for educators, leaders, families, and students36.0%
Parent/Caregiver/Family
-
Guidance on AI and student mental health and social-emotional well-being45.9%
-
Grade-band guidance for developmentally appropriate AI use (K–5, 6–8, 9–12)44.0%
-
AI literacy training for educators, leaders, families, and students37.6%
Student
-
Homework, assessment design, and academic integrity guidance44.7%
-
Classroom examples and educator resources37.6%
-
Grade-band guidance for developmentally appropriate AI use (K–5, 6–8, 9–12)36.2%
Community
-
Guidance on AI and student mental health and social-emotional well-being49.5%
-
AI literacy training for educators, leaders, families, and students40.9%
-
Evidence-based AI tool evaluation criteria and accompanying tool list40.9%
Administrator
-
Grade-band guidance for developmentally appropriate AI use (K–5, 6–8, 9–12)60.4%
-
Classroom examples and educator resources48.9%
-
AI literacy training for educators, leaders, families, and students47.8%
Key takeaway: Requests for future support were closely clustered, led by grade-band guidance for developmentally appropriate use. Priorities varied by role: school administrators strongly favored grade-band guidance (60%), educators most wanted classroom examples (44%), and parents and community members prioritized guidance on student mental health and well-being.
View Priorities for Future Guidance Data Table
| Requested resource | All | Educator | Parent/ |
Student | Community | Administrator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade-band guidance for developmentally appropriate AI use (K–5, 6–8, 9–12) | 42.5% | 42.6% | 44.0% | 36.2% | 28.2% | 60.4% |
| Guidance on AI and student mental health and social-emotional well-being | 38.9% | 33.2% | 45.9% | 35.8% | 49.5% | 29.1% |
| Classroom examples and educator resources | 37.8% | 44.0% | 30.4% | 37.6% | 24.1% | 48.9% |
| AI literacy training for educators, leaders, families, and students | 37.7% | 36.0% | 37.6% | 31.7% | 40.9% | 47.8% |
| Homework, assessment design, and academic integrity guidance | 34.9% | 35.1% | 36.1% | 44.7% | 37.8% | 30.9% |
| Evidence-based AI tool evaluation criteria and accompanying tool list | 27.7% | 23.7% | 35.1% | 20.3% | 40.9% | 23.0% |
| Guidance on student AI use at home and on personal devices | 25.2% | 24.9% | 25.1% | 26.2% | 24.6% | 20.1% |
What Else We Heard
The final question was open-ended: "Is there anything important that the Guidance did not address, or anything you want us to know?" More than 3,300 people responded.
Common themes included:
- Cognitive and developmental concerns—that students should learn to think for themselves rather than rely on AI tools.
- The environmental impact of AI, including energy and water use.
- Screen time and human interaction—a desire for books, teachers, and hands-on learning over further digitalization.
- Calls for restrictions and distrust of the rollout, including requests for a moratorium or ban.
- Privacy and data security—distrust of vendors, concern about surveillance, and worry about student data being used to train AI models.
- Constructive requests as well, such as including early childhood in the framework and involving school librarians in implementation.
Parents
Highly skeptical of AI, with prominent calls for a moratorium or ban. Demanding opt-out mechanisms and stronger data protections.
- AI should have no place in schools, period.
- We need a two-year moratorium on any AI in classrooms.
- I want to opt my child out of all AI use.
Educators and Staff
Concerned about impacts on teaching and student learning; a need for clear guidance and professional development. Some support for teacher-facing AI, but strong opposition to student-facing AI.
- AI will replace the thinking we are supposed to teach.
- We need clear, enforceable rules—not general ideas.
- AI could be useful for lesson planning, but not for student work.
Students
More balanced than other groups—a mix between the desire for AI literacy and concern about overreliance on tools.
- If we use AI too much, we won't learn how to think for ourselves.
- It's useful if we learn how to use it correctly.
- Sometimes I'd rather just learn from a teacher than a screen.
Conclusion
We are grateful to everyone who took the time to respond. This feedback informed the 2026 Guidance on AI policy updates and our ongoing commitment to developmentally aligned, purposeful integration of technology in schools.