Joint Hearing on AI, Student Data, and Privacy in NYC Public Schools - June 24, 2026
Joint Hearing on AI, Student Data, and Privacy in NYC Public Schools - June 24, 2026
The New York City Council Committees on Education and Technology held a joint oversight hearing on June 24, 2026, to examine the use of artificial intelligence, student data privacy, and related policies in NYC public schools. The hearing also considered several pieces of legislation, including introductions on algorithmic tool reporting, data breach reporting, and studies on access to gifted and talented and special education programs. No votes were taken; all legislation was laid over. A two-year moratorium on student-facing AI was a central topic, supported by many council members and public testimony.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Student Panel: Students from the NYCLU Teen Activist Project and other schools expressed strong opposition to AI in classrooms, citing concerns about cognitive offloading, loss of critical thinking, privacy, and bias. They called for human-centered education and transparency.
- Parents and Advocacy Groups: Speakers including members of the AI Moratorium Coalition, Fairplay, and local parent organizations urged a moratorium on AI tools. They highlighted data breaches (e.g., PowerSchool, Illuminate), lack of transparency, vendor NDAs, and the risk of student data being used for surveillance or profit. Several supported Int 684 and Int 853 on access to gifted and special education programs.
- Educators and Experts: Testimony from Fordham University, Mouse, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and others emphasized the need for evidence-based, equitable AI adoption with strong guardrails. Some argued for a pause to develop standards; others warned against a blanket ban, advocating for teacher-guided AI literacy.
- Disability and Equity Advocates: NY Lawyers for the Public Interest and Dignity in Schools NY highlighted disparities in access to special education services and the disproportionate impact of surveillance and AI bias on Black, Brown, and immigrant students.
Discussion Items
- Oversight of AI in Schools: Council members questioned DOE officials about AI guidance, data privacy, breach reporting, and vendor oversight. Key issues included:
- Lack of a comprehensive list of approved AI tools; DOE admitted it does not fully track all tools used in schools.
- Inconsistencies in testimony: DOE said Gemini is only used in 35 high schools, but parents reported widespread use in elementary grades.
- The IRMA review process does not evaluate algorithmic bias, equity, or instructional effectiveness, despite language on the DOE website suggesting otherwise.
- Data breaches: The State Comptroller's audit found DOE failed to report 67 of 141 breaches on time. DOE cited vendor delays and staff training gaps.
- Training: Only 138,000 of ~160,000 employees completed required privacy training; DOE could not confirm all staff with access to PII are trained.
- Legislation Considered:
- Int 0412-2026: Requires disclosure of school admissions policies. DOE said information is already public.
- Int 0684-2026 (Zhuang): Study on language access and geographic barriers to gifted programs. Supported by Place NYC and others; opposed by AQE who argued there is no evidence young children can be reliably identified as gifted.
- Int 0853-2026 (Zhuang): Study on access to special education services. Supported by many testimony; NYLPI suggested existing data already shows gaps.
- Pre-considered T2026-2129 (Dinowitz): Annual reporting on algorithmic tools. Tech NYC supported but recommended clarifying definitions.
- Pre-considered T2026-2130 (Dinowitz): Quarterly reporting on data breaches of algorithmic tools. Supported broadly; concerns about timeline feasibility.
- DOE Testimony: First Deputy Chancellor Danielle Junta stated the agency supports the goals of the bills and is finalizing updated AI guidance based on 6,491 survey responses. She emphasized that current guidance prohibits student data from training AI models and requires human review. However, council members pressed on lack of transparency, specific vendor details, and the gap between policy and classroom reality.
Key Outcomes
- No votes were taken on any legislation; all introductions were laid over for future consideration.
- Council members called for a two-year moratorium on student-facing AI, with 29 members signing a letter to the Mayor and Chancellor. The DOE did not commit to a moratorium but acknowledged the need to strengthen guidance.
- DOE pledged to improve data privacy training, update data classification policies, and work with the council on reporting requirements. They also committed to developing a tool scorecard for bias and efficacy evaluation.
- Next steps: The council will follow up in writing on outstanding questions, including data processing agreements, vendor lists, and progress on the State Comptroller's audit recommendations. Public testimony will remain open for 72 hours.
- Legislative status: All bills (Int 0412, 0684, 0853, T2026-2129, T2026-2130) were heard and laid over.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon. Welcome to today's New York City Council hearing for the Committee on Education. Join with the Committee on Technology. Please sign so all cell phone and electronic devices. And as a friendly reminder, do not approach the days. If you wish to testify today, please fill out an appearance card. One of the sergeant at arms. Without further ado, chairs, we are ready to begin. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Council Member Eric Dinowitz, New York City Public School alum, although with a different signature on my diploma. Public School Special Education Teacher and Chair of the Committee on Education, and I am excited to be joined by my friend from the South, Chair of the Committee on Technology, Council Member Delarosa for today's hearing on artificial intelligence, student data and privacy in New York City public schools. Today's hearing will examine the landscape of AI use in New York City public schools, particularly as it relates to academic integrity and student data and privacy. The rapid proliferation of AI tools has sparked intense citywide debate about the role of and use of AI in schools. In May, DOE issued preliminary guidelines for AI in public schools, but the guidance has faced strong opposition from parents and advocacy groups alike. Many council members, including myself, and numerous community education councils have gone as far as calling for a two-year moratorium on the use of student-facing AI in schools. They point to ongoing worries about data privacy breaches and lack of transparency. And very troublingly for me as a former teacher, cognitive offloading and algorithmic bias. Others, however, argue that the question of allowing AI in schools is no longer relevant. National survey data show that the majority of students are using some form of AI for school-related activities. Instead, they argue the question should be: how do we harness it safely, equitably, and effectively for our students? Underlying this debate is the issue of data collection by third-party vendors and whether DOE's policy aligns with national standards. A 2026 audit by the state controller found that DOE does not have a documented data classification policy and does not maintain a comprehensive list of all application used by each school. With a number of high-profile data breaches, including the power school breach that exposed personally identifiable information for tens of millions of students and educators nationwide. Questions remain around what information is being collected about students and who has access to this information. Now, as someone who doesn't even believe calculators should be used in elementary school classrooms, I look forward to hearing today about how DOE is planning to protect student data, plans for updated DOE guidelines and AI, and how DOE plans to ensure academic integrity and rigor in light of AI. I'd now like to turn it to Chair Della Rosa for opening remarks. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our hearing. Technology has become an unavoidable part of our lives, with artificial intelligence changing the way we work, learn, and make decisions. This is why we have an obligation to ensure that innovation serves people and that technological progress is guided by accountability, transparency, safety, and public interest. Artificial intelligence tools, artificial intelligence tools are used by the Department of Education in its daily operations, as well as in classrooms. The use of AI in education has raised concerns that it may affect students' critical thinking and compromise the traditional learning process. Another concern that people have related to digit is related to digital privacy, safety, and equality. Some AI tools use personal data as training data. That data could include students' information such as names, dates of birth, behavioral analytics, medical history, family income, ethnicity, and even facial geometry. Without proper safeguards, this information could be used to profile students, predict or surveil their behavior, or make assumptions about their abilities and future opportunities. This information can also be breached. In fact, based on a recent New York State Comptroller's report, between January 2023 and February 2025, DOE experienced 141 data breaches incidents. Based on our conversations and public reporting, some tools used by the DOE may collect data without parents' knowledge or consent. While AI may offer potential benefits in education, its ethical use must be must be carefully considered. Many tools may have bias and as a result discriminate against certain students or communities. From the technology committee's perspective, safeguards against bias in AI algorithms and protecting student privacy are fundamental issues that must be addressed. Today, we wish to discuss both how AI should fit into the curriculum and how the Department of Education uses AI in its operations. We need to make sure that AI supports students and teachers rather than undermining the quality of education. We must ensure that we are preparing the next generation to thrive in this technological era while also protecting the rights and future opportunities. Like Chair Dinowitz, I also joined my colleagues in signing on to a letter from our school communities, and we've heard from our CCs calling on a two-year moratorium. We look forward to hearing testimonies from the Department of Education and OTI to gain insight and clarity around the many questions about AI in the classroom and the use of AI in the education system. We also look forward to hearing from members of the public, students, families, educators, and advocates. Unfortunately, neither the chief privacy officer nor the representatives of the newly established Office of Algorithmic Accountability are here today.
openpublica.com