Table of Contents
NYSUT AI Resolution: No Companion Chatbots Under 16
The NYSUT AI resolution bans student-facing AI in pre-K-2, restricts grades 3-8, and opposes companion chatbots under 16. What it means for your family.
Three months before New York City banned student AI through eighth grade, the state’s teachers union wrote the outline. The NYSUT AI resolution, passed by an 82-member board of directors on June 1, 2026, called for no student-facing AI in pre-K through grade 2, restrictions on non-educational AI in grades 3 through 8, educator-led supervision at every grade, no social companion chatbots for students under 16, and a paper-and-pencil option alongside digital standardized tests. It binds nobody. It is also the clearest published statement of what teachers themselves think the limits should be, and the companion-chatbot provision is the one that matters most inside your house.
Key Takeaways
- NYSUT’s 82-member board passed the resolution on June 1, 2026. It is non-binding: a union position and advocacy goal, not enforceable policy.
- Pre-K through grade 2: no one-to-one student device use except for documented needs such as translation or special education, and no student-facing AI.
- Grades 3 through 8: no non-educationally based AI. All grades: AI use must be supervised, educator-led, and designed to promote critical thinking rather than replace instruction.
- No “social companion” chatbots that simulate human relationships for students under 16, plus paper-and-pencil assessment options for all students.
- President Melinda Person’s framing: “Educators are not anti-technology. We are pro-child. Every decision made in the name of innovation must actually serve the students in our classrooms.”
What the NYSUT AI resolution says, grade by grade
A union resolution is a policy position adopted by a labor organization’s governing body. It shapes bargaining and lobbying; it does not change what a district does on its own.
Chalkbeat reported the June 1, 2026 vote, and the Yonkers Times laid out the provisions by band:
- Pre-K through grade 2: No one-to-one screen or device use, except for documented needs such as translation or special education. No student-facing AI.
- Grades 3 through 8: No non-educationally based AI.
- All grades: AI use must be supervised and educator-led, designed to promote critical thinking rather than replace instruction. Paper-and-pencil assessment options required for all students.
- Under 16: No “social companion” chatbots that simulate human relationships.
The resolution also raised the testing-prep problem, citing students spending excessive time preparing for computer-based testing and calling for reduced device reliance. NYSUT committed to leading conversations about technology’s role in learning, positioning educators and families rather than ed-tech companies as the decision-makers.
Chalkbeat noted the political echo. Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels had called AI “the most invasive technology,” and Governor Kathy Hochul expressed openness to studying screen limits, comparing the process to her cell phone ban rollout. Whether the resolution caused what followed or predicted it, New York City’s September 2 policy landed in the same territory: a moratorium on student-facing generative AI for 2-K through grade 8, companion chatbots barred district-wide, and device-minute caps by grade.
NYSUT’s stance versus what districts actually did
| Grade band | NYSUT resolution (June 1, 2026) | NYC policy (September 2, 2026) | Katy ISD framework (July 2026) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-K to grade 2 | No 1:1 devices except documented needs; no student-facing AI | No individual devices; smart boards allowed; no student-facing AI | Approved curriculum-embedded AI platforms with teacher supervision; no open chatbots |
| Grades 3-5 | No non-educational AI; supervised educator-led use only | No student-facing generative AI; 30 min/day device cap | Approved platforms only, teacher-supervised; no open chatbots |
| Grades 6-8 | No non-educational AI; supervised educator-led use only | No student-facing generative AI; 45 min/day device cap | Grade 6 no chatbots; grade 7 supervised approved tools; grade 8 authorized with citation |
| Grades 9-12 | Supervised, educator-led use; critical-thinking focus | Five capped pilots, max five classes per school; two 45-min AI literacy modules a year | Generative AI with teacher authorization and required citation |
| Companion chatbots | None under 16 | Barred at all grades district-wide | Not addressed separately |
| Assessment | Paper-and-pencil option for all students | Not specified in the AI policy | Not addressed |
The row that travels furthest beyond New York is the companion-chatbot line. NYSUT drew it at 16, New York City extended it to all grades, and no district framework built around access to productivity AI addresses it at all. That’s the gap parents have to cover themselves.
Why the under-16 companion line is the provision to take seriously
A companion chatbot is an AI product designed to simulate an ongoing relationship: it has a persona, remembers you between conversations, and is engineered to keep you talking. That is a different product category from a homework helper, and regulators started treating it that way in 2026.
California approved SB 1119 on companion chatbots and children’s safety on September 10, 2026, amending SB 243, which took effect January 1, 2026 and requires disclosure to minors, reminders every three hours, sexual-content safeguards, and suicide protocols. The Federal Trade Commission opened a 6(b) inquiry into seven AI chatbot companies over risks to minors. OpenAI’s ChatGPT for Teens, announced August 18, 2026, auto-places 13-to-17 accounts into a teen experience with no romantic language or terms of endearment, a stronger instruction against claiming feelings or consciousness, expanded eating-disorder safety notifications, and parental linking with quiet hours but no transcript access.
Four different actors, a union, a state legislature, a federal agency, and a model developer, converged on the same concern in the same year. The evidence base on long-term effects is still thin, and honest coverage should say so: there is no large longitudinal study of what daily companion-chatbot use does to a 13-year-old’s social development. What exists is a cluster of institutional caution plus documented product-safety failures. That’s enough to act on without overclaiming.
On the academic side, the resolution’s other provisions have partial support. PISA 2025, released September 8, 2026, found 46% of OECD 15-year-olds use chatbots at least weekly for learning, with daily summarizing users nearly 30 points behind non-users in science and moderate users at or above them. The OECD calls these associations. That finding supports “supervised and purposeful” better than it supports “none.”
What to do at home with a union’s position
Check for companion apps, not just chatbots
Ask your child directly: does any app you use have a character that remembers you between conversations? Many teens don’t classify those as AI. That question, not “do you use ChatGPT,” finds the category NYSUT and California and the FTC are all worried about.
Use the resolution as a conference script
A union resolution is a citable document. “NYSUT’s board called for educator-led supervision of any AI use at every grade. What does supervision look like in this classroom?” is specific and non-adversarial. Teachers in New York often already agree with it, which makes it a collaborative question rather than a complaint.
Ask about the paper-and-pencil option
This is the provision most likely to matter to a specific child and least likely to be offered unprompted. If your child struggles with computer-based testing, ask whether a paper option exists for any assessment. NYSUT asked for it for all students; your district may or may not provide it, but nobody will offer if nobody asks.
Set your own under-16 line and say why
Whether or not your district bans companion chatbots, you can. The useful version is not “that app is banned” but “that app is built to keep you talking, and the people who build it are being investigated for how it affects kids your age.” Fourteen-year-olds respond better to a mechanism than to a rule. We walk through the conversation in companion chatbot check-in questions.
Check the teen-account settings if your kid uses ChatGPT
OpenAI’s teen experience changes defaults rather than adding a lock. Parental linking offers quiet hours and study hours but not transcript access, which is a deliberate design choice worth understanding before you assume you can see conversations. Set it up knowing what it does and doesn’t show you.
What not to do
Don’t treat a union resolution as a rule your school broke. It binds nobody, and a parent who arrives citing it as policy will get a correct and unhelpful correction. And don’t assume that because your district restricts productivity AI it has addressed companion chatbots; Katy ISD’s otherwise detailed framework doesn’t mention them, and that pattern is common.
What to Watch For Over the Next 3 Months
- Week 4: Ask your district two questions: does its AI policy address social companion chatbots specifically, and is a paper testing option available for any assessment your child takes?
- Month 2 red flags: A teen who describes an app “getting” them in a way friends don’t. Late-night usage spikes. An app with a name you don’t recognize that they defend unusually strongly. Also watch whether New York moves from resolution to legislation, given Hochul’s stated openness.
- Month 3 self-check: Can your child explain, without prompting, why an app designed to feel like a friend is different from one designed to answer a math question? That distinction is the whole under-16 provision, and a 13-year-old can hold it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the NYSUT resolution change what my child’s school does?
No. It is a non-binding union position adopted by an 82-member board on June 1, 2026. It shapes advocacy and bargaining. New York City’s September 2026 policy is the binding document for NYC families, and it happens to align closely.
What counts as a “social companion” chatbot?
A product designed to simulate an ongoing human relationship: a persona, memory across conversations, and engagement mechanics. That’s different from a homework assistant, which is why the resolution treats it separately and why California’s SB 243 and SB 1119 regulate the category specifically.
Why 16 rather than 13 or 18?
The resolution sets 16 without a published rationale in the reporting, and 16 is not a standard threshold in child-safety law. Note the contrast: New York City barred companion chatbots at all grades, and OpenAI’s teen protections apply to accounts aged 13 to 17. Reasonable people are drawing this line in different places.
Is there research showing companion chatbots harm teens?
Not a large longitudinal body, no, and it’s worth being honest about that. What exists is institutional caution converging fast: a state law (California SB 243, amended by SB 1119), an FTC 6(b) inquiry into seven companies, product changes from OpenAI, and a union resolution, all within about a year.
What’s the paper-and-pencil provision about?
The resolution asks for a paper option alongside digital standardized tests for all students, citing time lost to computer-based test preparation. It is the most concrete, least-discussed provision, and the easiest for a parent to ask about for a specific child.
How does a teachers’ union position relate to district policy?
Unions bargain and lobby; districts set policy. In New York the sequence was suggestive: the union resolution in June, then a moratorium on student-facing AI through grade 8 in September. Whether that was influence or shared reading of the same evidence, the resolution is a useful preview of what districts may adopt. We compared the resulting models in ban vs. scaffold vs. open.
About the author
Ricky Flores is the founder of HiWave Makers and an electrical engineer with 15+ years of experience building consumer technology at Apple, Samsung, and Texas Instruments. He writes about how kids learn to build, think, and create in a tech-saturated world. Read more at hiwavemakers.com.
Sources
- Chalkbeat New York. (2026, June 1). “New York teachers union backs screen and AI limits for young students.” https://www.chalkbeat.org/newyork/2026/06/01/nysut-teachers-union-wants-ban-on-ai-screens-for-young-students/
- Yonkers Times. (2026, June). “NYSUT calls for limits on screen time, student-facing AI in schools.” https://yonkerstimes.com/nysut-calls-for-limits-on-screen-time-student-facing-ai-in-schools/
- California Legislative Information. (2026). “SB 1119 – Companion chatbots: children’s safety.” https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1119
- Davis+Gilbert LLP. (2026). “FTC Probes AI Companion Chatbots for Risks to Minors.” https://www.dglaw.com/ftc-probes-ai-companion-chatbots-for-risks-to-minors/
- OpenAI. (2026, August 18). “ChatGPT for Teens.” https://openai.com/index/chatgpt-for-teens/
- Office of the Mayor of New York City. (2026, September 2). “Nation’s Broadest Generative AI Moratorium in Schools.” https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/09/mayor-mamdani-and-chancellor-samuels-put-students-first-with-nat
- OECD. (2026, September 8). PISA 2025 Results (Volume I). https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2025-results-volume-i_73451bc5-en.html ; AI-use findings at https://technode.global/2026/09/08/students-avoiding-ai-for-schoolwork-outscore-peers-in-science-bar-one-use-oecd/
- Houston Public Media. (2026, July 24). “Katy ISD restricts the use of AI in elementary school classrooms.” https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/education/2026/07/24/557895/katy-isd-ai-restrictions-elementary-school/
- Future of Privacy Forum. (2026). “Understanding the New Wave of Chatbot Legislation: California SB 243 and Beyond.” https://fpf.org/blog/understanding-the-new-wave-of-chatbot-legislation-california-sb-243-and-beyond/
