For families and schools navigating AI
AI is here. It’s driving.
And nobody has a map.
It did not knock. It arrived on phones, without permission, and it is already in the homework, the study hall, and the classroom. Chatbots have hurt children, and states are right to regulate them. Meanwhile, schools are banning everything with “AI” on the label — and students with disabilities are losing tools that federal law calls assistive technology. Whether you are a parent, a teacher, a superintendent, or a policymaker, this site is the map: what to look for, what to ask, and what to do next.
Our position
A ramp built for the body is not a luxury — it is access required by law. The same must be true for the mind. A cognitive ramp meets a learner in their own words and helps their thinking reach what it could not reach alone. Where a documented need exists, access to that ramp should be recognized, not withheld.
“Children with documented disabilities are being enrolled into environments that take what they offer and withhold what they need …”
The Center’s formal position statement — naming predatory enrollment, the four dimensions of measurable harm, and the structural solution.
Download (PDF)Our second position has its own page: Cognitive Access Parity — ramp the doorway, ramp the test →
A test you can hold in your hand
You should not have to take anyone’s word — including ours — for which tools are safe. The No-Answer Standard is a published, five-article test that any parent, teacher, or lawmaker can check a tool against in minutes. If a tool meets all five articles, it is an assistive cognitive tool. If it fails one, it is not — no matter what the box says.
The front door to this work is a person — not a policy
Before the framework, before the filings, there is James.
“Stay true to yourself and keep learning about yourself.”
James Co-founder, Center for AI Equity & Access
A ninety-second test for any AI tool in your child’s life — and the rights your child may already have.
Open the door → Educators & School BoardsThe evidence, the vendor questions, and the four steps that replace a blanket ban with a plan.
Open the door → Lawmakers & StaffA definitional carve-out that keeps every safety requirement and protects assistive access. Free, no attribution required.
Open the door →The distinction
The confusion is understandable: the machine that harmed children in the headlines and the machine that helps a student organize their own thinking are both called “AI.” Set them side by side and the difference is not the technology — it is the design:
It gives no answers. It plays no character. It works only from your child’s own words, and its job is done the moment your child moves forward on their own. A ramp exists to be crossed.
It plays a character. It remembers the relationship. It always has one more thing to say. It is built for engagement — and the country is right to regulate it.
The safe kind has a name: the assistive cognitive tool — an ACT. An assistive cognitive tool is assistive technology for thinking — the same legal category as a screen reader, applied to cognition. Learn to tell them apart in ninety seconds →
Free to use
Everything the Center publishes is free for parents, districts, and legislatures — no attribution required.
Companion Chatbots Are Not Assistive Technology — the two machines, in plain language.
Download (PDF)The assistive cognitive tool carve-out — drop-in text with drafter’s notes.
Download (PDF)Board-ready briefing — every figure sourced.
Download (PDF)