New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s one-year moratorium on generative AI for public school students till Class 8 has reopened a global debate India is just entering. Should we ban GenAI among younger students? In this Parley, Lavina Jaiswani and Deepa Jacob argue it out — and both say no, but for nuanced reasons.
Jaiswani, founder of Somasa International School, uses AI to personalise learning, create worksheets, gamified quizzes on Kahoot and Quizlets. Her point is process over answer. If AI gives the answer to a fractions lesson, it misses the struggle, trial-and-error, the satisfaction of getting it. She bans GenAI in her classroom, not through policy, but pedagogy — asking children to read a word with its own flaws, not just practise what AI dictates.
Jacob, a Class 5 teacher, lives the integration — every child has an iPad from kindergarten, SeeSaw journals learning, AI transcribes reading fluency. She worries about AI becoming a crutch that kills contribution. “If you want to create human beings that make their own contribution in the world, there should be serious restrictions.”
Both converge on the real question: what is school for? If it is for information, AI can replace teachers, especially where quality teachers are short. Central and State pilots are doing that in rural areas. But if school is for formation — stories, conversations, being human — AI is at best an assistant. The Notebook LM example is telling: synthesising ideas by feeding an AI is not thinking; human brain’s immeasurability lies in its struggle.
The policy answer is not a one-year ban. It is guardrails. Teach children that AI comes with its own flaws, that it can hallucinate, that verification is needed. Let AI do prep time for teachers — limited time — but keep the human in front of the child. As Jaiswani says, children are much more tech-savvy than five years ago. Banning won’t make them unaware. Making them aware of pros and cons will.