Neuroscience expert warns board to weigh harms of student-facing AI and heavy device use
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
A neuroscience and digital-wellness presenter told the board that heavy in-school device use and student-facing chatbots are associated with declines in attention, reading scores and youth mental-health indicators and urged the board to set clear goals focused on human connection and critical thinking.
A speaker with a neuroscience and school-wellness background urged the Kansas State Board of Education to question whether student-facing AI and heavy in-class device use are solving real problems — or creating new ones.
Susan Dunaway, who described work on school-based digital wellness, summarized national trends she and others have linked to increased screen saturation: higher rates of adolescent emergency-room visits for self-harm, rises in major depressive episodes, and lower standardized assessment scores in some subjects. Citing recent research, she said that where student AI use is frequent, students report greater conversational use of AI for companionship and mental-health support and, worrying, less connection to teachers.
On risk and mechanisms: Dunaway argued the key mechanism is social disconnection and fractured attention. She referenced Center for Democracy and Technology research showing higher rates of students using AI for companionship or romantic interactions in contexts where classroom AI use was higher; she said such patterns can shift help-seeking away from trusted adults and toward opaque commercial chatbots.
What she urged: Dunaway recommended board leaders start with clear end goals — connection, community, and critical thinking — and prioritize policies that preserve human contact, teach digital and brain literacy, and treat device use as a measured pedagogical choice rather than an automatic default.
Board response: Members praised the research and said the district case-studies presented earlier (no-phone and cart strategies) were useful examples of local responses; several asked for further evidence and for how the board might support districts weighing these trade-offs.