As students head back to school, classrooms may face growing pushback from parents and caregivers over technology and AI. But should the debate really be about screen time or something deeper? We examine the evidence, the legitimate concerns, what technology may be replacing, and why the better question isn’t simply “tech or no tech,” but whether the tool actually improves learning. Technology should have to earn its place in the classroom.

AI in schools is no longer just about what a chatbot can generate. As AI evolves from answering prompts to accessing information, connecting with systems, and taking action, the questions schools need to ask are changing. What can AI see? What permissions does it have? What can it do on our behalf? Heading into 2026/27, AI literacy must include privacy, security, human oversight, permission literacy, and responsible AI agency.

Smart glasses and AI-enabled wearables are entering schools faster than many policies can keep up. Cameras, microphones, AI, and cloud processing can now be hidden inside everyday eyewear and accessories, creating new questions around privacy, consent, accessibility, safety, and misuse. We created this free, adaptable draft policy to help schools establish clear, balanced expectations before an incident forces them to react.

Smart glasses present schools with a complicated challenge. The same camera-equipped eyewear that raises legitimate concerns about privacy, consent, recording, and academic integrity may also help a visually impaired student read a worksheet, identify an object, or understand their surroundings. As schools develop smart glasses policies, we need to distinguish between misuse and meaningful accessibility, because sometimes the risk is also the accommodation.

What happens when a camera no longer needs to be pulled from a student’s pocket because it’s already sitting on their face? Camera-equipped glasses that once cost hundreds of dollars are now appearing for under $100, making discreet recording technology increasingly accessible to youth. As students return to school this fall, we examine why wearable cameras raise important questions about privacy, consent, academic integrity, and school policy.

As AI makes it easier to turn ordinary photos into harmful deepfakes, should Canadian schools rethink posting identifiable students and staff on public social media? This emerging legal question goes beyond consent and asks whether foreseeability, negligence, and a school’s duty of care could eventually come into play. The law hasn’t answered this yet, but the risk has changed, and it’s a conversation school leaders should be having now.

As AI-generated deepfakes become easier to create, schools need to rethink how publicly posted student images can be weaponized. This article examines an emerging UK sextortion case and why Canadian schools and districts should start preparing now with stronger photo policies, crisis response plans, staff training, and trauma-informed supports before this threat lands at their door.

Many schools request parent education on digital literacy and internet safety, yet in-person events often see low turnout, typically 20–30 attendees. The White Hatter’s live virtual presentations draw 60–70 parents on average, with some reaching thousands live and via replay. These sessions are professionally produced, interactive, and include free access to extensive online resources.

This review of the Doorman app highlights its potential as an alternative to phone pouches in schools. Unlike pouches, which promote avoidance, Doorman limits distractions while teaching responsibility and digital literacy. Students keep their phones but with restricted access to approved apps. Testing showed the app worked well, with high student buy-in due to its fairness. Privacy concerns were addressed transparently, and schools found it effective.