Guardrails & Guidelines on Tech for Well-Being & Literacy Development

The Guardrails & Guidelines on Tech for Well-Being & Literacy Development session of GLR Week 2025 brought together leading voices in child development, education, and technology to explore the challenges and opportunities that digital tools present in children’s lives. Moderated by Lisa Guernsey and An-Me Chung, Ph.D., of New America, the conversation was grounded in a clear call for thoughtful, child-centered approaches to tech use — approaches that recognize both the promise of innovation and the urgency of ensuring safety, equity, and developmental appropriateness. 

A central theme of the discussion was the critical need for systemic, upstream solutions. Speakers emphasized that families, educators, and individual schools are navigating complex and rapidly evolving technologies on their own. Kris Perry, MSW, of Children and Screens opened her remarks by framing this need for broader societal infrastructure, saying, “We need a cautious, child-centered approach here, even if it takes longer, and we must expect that these tools are able to demonstrate that they do actually deliver on their promises to improve and support learning and do not introduce new risks or harms in the process.” 

This point was echoed throughout the session, particularly in relation to the importance of regulations, child-centered design standards, data protections, and clear public policies. Jenny Radesky, M.D., of the University of Michigan and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) made clear that we are no longer just dealing with isolated moments of screen use, saying,“The AAP has increasingly been calling attention to the fact that there is a digital ecosystem around kids.” This broader ecosystem must be shaped with children’s developmental needs in mind, not left solely to the incentives of commercial tech platforms. 

Alongside the need for infrastructure and regulation came a second message — the urgent need for more research. Speakers, including Amina Fazlullah of Common Sense Media and Erin Mote of InnovateEDU, underscored the importance of evaluating EdTech tools for their intended benefits and unintended impacts. This is especially vital in the context of new generative AI tools and AI-powered companions, which are already in widespread use among teens. As Fazlullah noted, “The way generative AI and social AI companions operate, they create this sense of hyper-personalized relationship or conversation with the user,” often without sufficient guardrails to protect children. 

Yet action cannot be postponed while research catches up, which led to the third theme — we must act on what we already know. As education journalist and author Anya Kamenetz put it, “No problem is solely caused by or solely resolved by technology.” Understanding the role of technology as embedded in wider social, emotional, and educational contexts is essential. Trish Brennan-Gac, J.D., of Maryland READS drew attention to how these broader systems are already impacting children’s foundational learning, asking, “Is the overuse and misuse of technology actually contributing to the reading crisis we have in our country?” Her comments were backed by neuroscience research showing that digital reading does not activate young children’s brains in the same ways as shared, in-person book reading with a caregiver. 

To support families in navigating these realities, practical, clear guidance is needed. As Jane Park of Google Kids and Families emphasized, families are often overwhelmed by the volume of tech content and need trusted sources. Park noted, “Families are looking for guidance on how to talk about technology. And so whether they’re pediatricians or even just a trusted messenger in a laundromat or anywhere, they could help play a really powerful role in sharing all these resources.” 

The final theme was a recognition that innovation will not — and should not — stop, but that it must include child development experts from the start. David Lowenstein, MPA, of Lionstone Consulting Group captured this spirit when he said that the, “’Prove it first’ [approach] doesn’t have to mean freeze all innovation.” Rather than defaulting to opposition or passive acceptance, the panelists advocated for co-design approaches that involve educators, families, and young people in the creation of tools. “Safety is not the counter polarity to innovation,” Mote emphasized. “We have to have conversations about safety and security, particularly with minor data.” 

The conversation closed with a sobering reflection on privacy, especially in the context of young children’s interactions with AI-driven platforms. Sydney Saubestre of New America illustrated how personal and complex the data being collected can be, often beyond what families realize, explaining that “when taken together, they add up to a pretty full picture of a person.”  

Amanda LaTasha Armstrong, Ph.D., of Digital Promise reminded attendees that even young children can — and should — be taught to understand that AI is not a human companion but a tool, saying, “[It’s important] to reiterate to young children that the AI tool that you’re using is like a machine…a tool that is used.” 

Together, these themes underscored the urgent need for a “caution-first” mindset, where innovation is paired with responsibility, and where children’s development, dignity, and human relationships remain the center of any technological solution. As Isabelle Hau of Stanford University eloquently stated, “We have to ask, what do we believe every child deserves, and put relationships, dignity, and development first and foremost beyond any technology.”