The Brief

The Los Angeles Unified School District’s restrictions on generative artificial intelligence have drawn mixed reactions from education experts and students.

The district said in a statement to EdSource that its new Generative AI Ad Hoc Committee is working on specifics and will bring policy recommendations to the school board by the end of this academic year.

Here’s what experts and students have to say about the approach.

Responses have been edited for length and clarity.

Stephen Aguilar, professor of education at USC who leads the Center for Generative A.I. and Society

As a general rule, I am against blanket bans.

The core idea that I try to get across when we’re talking about screen time bans or AI bans is that we’re treating these technologies as though they are uniform, almost like a drug. AI is an umbrella term that refers to lots of different types of technologies.

Before everyone was talking about generative AI, cognitive tutors were AI-based tutoring systems that helped kids learn math. They can be very good at providing hints and diagnosing which concepts specifically students have issues with.

Teachers are often under-resourced and not respected in terms of the decisions that they end up making in the classroom. And policies aside, teachers end up defining almost 100% what the learning environment looks like for the kids that are under their charge.

So, I think that any real solution to this challenge involves giving teachers, and to a lesser extent parents, good information backed by sound science about the effects of different technologies.

Professional development is one way. Teachers need to be responsive to the emerging science about how kids learn — not because learning changes fundamentally, but because the tools we use to learn change.

Lucrecia Santibañez, professor of education and faculty co-director of UCLA’s Center for the Transformation of Schools 

I think [AI bans are] probably the correct approach. As we learn more, some of these policies may be revised.

It is easier to ban it in the elementary grades because kids are learning basic skills. They’re learning how to read, write, do basic math and understand concepts about science.

What gets tricky in high school is that every kid pretty much has a smartphone, so their ability to independently access AI is really high. As teachers get better trained to use AI in their own teaching and assignments, we may see more of a hybrid model.

One of the guiding pedagogical questions for me is: Is doing the tasks themselves an important part of what students are meant to do? If you want students to brainstorm, for example, some of that needs to be practiced first before it is delegated to an AI companion.

An analogy that makes sense is to treat classrooms like gyms. If you want to get fit and be able to run, you have to do it yourself. And it is the same way with education.

Chaitra Sure, senior at Taft Charter High School in Woodland Hills 

I don’t frequently use AI, but I do observe people in the classroom using it. I would say it’s mostly used to give the answer, and then they [students] just move on without really understanding.

I think this ban is mainly because a lot of students don’t know how to use AI effectively in an educational sense. But I don’t think the ban is going to really restrict usage. We can use precedents like the phone ban. I don’t see my peers using phones any less.

But I think what we need right now is some sort of class or lesson integrated into the curriculum that teaches us how to use artificial intelligence more effectively, which we’re not taught.

With the growing prevalence of artificial intelligence and technology beyond high school, in college and in careers, it’s going to become much more important to know how to use AI. I think what would be more effective is having a required curriculum or more opportunity in school to learn how to use artificial intelligence more effectively.

It’s going to be so helpful for the future.

This story was originally published by EdSource.

Topline:

New data shows Waymo’s robotaxis are crashing less often as they log more miles driven in Los Angeles. Experts recently joined LAist 89.3’s AirTalk with Larry Mantle and said the numbers are encouraging but don’t tell the whole story.

The data: Analyzed by the Los Angeles Times, it found:

• Crash rates are down from 57 crashes per million miles driven in 2023 to under six this year.
• The majority of Waymo-involved crashes happened while the vehicle was stopped. However, Waymos are designed to stop when they encounter issues.

Why safety is improving: Better technology, remote human help, and human drivers getting accustomed to Waymos are likely reasons safety is improving, Matthew Raifman of UC Berkeley told AirTalk listeners.

Concerns: Former federal auto safety regulator and UCLA law professor Ann Carlson stressed on air that Waymo’s improving safety record shouldn’t be extrapolated onto other autonomous car companies like Tesla’s Cybercab or Amazon’s Zoox, both of which have had recent safety issues.

Listen: To the full AirTalk segment above to hear about the challenges involved in making autonomous cars safe in every environment.

Bernie Sanders. Jane Fonda. There’s some star power endorsing each of the two Democratic candidates to be California’s next insurance commissioner.

Sure, it has historically been a little-known regulatory position. But its profile and importance are rising after a decade of some of the most destructive and deadliest wildfires in the state, which have disrupted one of the world’s largest insurance markets.

Not a homeowner? The commissioner's actions still affect your wallet if you're a renter, driver, pet owner, landlord, business owner, buyer of life insurance or possible user of workers' compensation.

If voters elect Jane Kim, the former San Francisco supervisor is proposing a drastic change that could have come out of the playbook of Sanders, her most famous backer: public disaster insurance.

If state Sen. Ben Allen wins, the movie star-backed candidate wants to get everyone on board to help reduce wildfire risk — individuals, communities, fire experts, local and state officials and the insurance industry — which he says would help solve the availability and affordability issues around homeowners insurance.

Voters are deciding between two candidates with a lot in common, including extensive track records of consumer advocacy, but who are offering very different ways of trying to solve the state’s insurance problems. At a debate between them moderated by CalMatters on Thursday, Kim characterized her opponent as offering to “tinker” and uphold the status quo, while Allen referred to Kim’s plans as “totally unprecedented and unmoored.”

The commissioner leads the Insurance Department, whose responsibilities include approving how much insurers can charge customers for property and casualty insurance, such as home, auto, commercial, renters, pet and travel.

A few years ago, some insurance companies stopped writing or renewing homeowner policies in areas with high fire risk, saying the state wasn’t approving their rate requests quickly enough so their prices weren’t matching the risk. That pushed homeowners into the FAIR Plan, a pool of insurers required to sell policies to those who can’t buy them from the regular market. The plan’s policies are generally more expensive and provide less coverage.

Last year, Commissioner Ricardo Lara rolled out new regulations that include faster rate reviews — when the Insurance Department looks at an insurer’s request to charge more money — and letting insurance companies factor reinsurance and catastrophe models into their rates. The department says the new rules are working because some insurers have said they plan to write more policies in the state again, though the state has not shared how many.

The new rules are generally leading to higher prices. Homeowners insurance rates in California rose 5% in the first half of the year, one of the largest increases in the nation, according to Insurify, a comparison site.

Meanwhile, average auto insurance premiums in the state are among the highest in the nation as replacement costs have gone up with the cost of vehicles. Both candidates said they hope to increase awareness of a state program that provides low-cost auto insurance to low-income drivers; Kim wants to expand it.

The Insurance Department reviews insurer practices and conducts investigations, though it’s limited in what it can order companies to do, as survivors of the Eaton and Palisades fires in January 2025 have found as they struggle to rebuild partly because of insurance-claim delays and denials.

The candidates’ records

One of the candidates was in a position to take action on the issue: The governor recently signed Allen’s Senate Bill 1209, which increases the commissioner’s ability to compel insurers to fix problems the department finds after an investigation.

For example, the department found that State Farm violated the law in its handling of claims from last year’s fires in the Los Angeles area and recommended penalties, but the case has yet to go to a hearing. Although the law Allen authored, which was co-sponsored by Lara, is not retroactive, it should give the future commissioner additional power to hold insurers more accountable.

Democratic state Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón is among many fellow lawmakers endorsing Allen in the race.

She said the senator, who represents the Palisades, “jumped into action the second he heard about the fire.” That meant assessing the situation, rallying his staff and going to his district immediately afterward, she said.

“From the start to now, he has been active,” Limón said. “He has authored legislation, held town halls and brought stakeholders together.”

She worked with him on the climate bond that voters approved in 2024 that is now helping fund water infrastructure, wildfire prevention and more. Allen, who also authored a landmark plastics law to reduce pollution that continues to face blowback, has been a champion of the environment — hence the support from Fonda’s climate political action committee.

“He has been able to land some of these difficult deals,” Limón said.

Allen has been a state senator since 2014 and is terming out. In his last legislative session, he authored two other laws that will affect the insurance market: One will establish a state-backed loan program for homeowners to upgrade and harden their homes against fire. The other will require insurers to give homeowners more details if they’re planning to drop their coverage, and give homeowners time to fix the issues to try to retain their insurance.

“This law’s going to help people help existing coverage, and keep them off the FAIR Plan,” Allen told CalMatters. “We have to think about holistic solutions.”

Kim has not held an elected office since 2019. Her most recent jobs were California director for the Working Families Party, and before that, California political director for Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign.

A fellow former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors recalled Kim’s impact during her time there. It includes helping pass the first $15 minimum wage ordinance in the state, securing tenant protections and providing free community college for the city’s residents.

“I got to witness for eight years a woman that was tenacious and relentless,” said Malia Cohen, the state controller who’s running for another term.

Cohen said she and Kim represented different districts in San Francisco and sometimes had opposing priorities: “She has been my enemy and my friend.”

She recalled working with Kim to “ban the box” that formerly incarcerated people used to have to check on job applications, a city ordinance that became a model for the state.

At a rally last week in San Francisco where Sanders campaigned for Proposition 40, the billionaire wealth tax, Kim delivered a speech in which she chalked up her grit to her mother and being drawn to public service from her father, both immigrants.

From left, insurance commissioner candidate Jane Kim, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna join hands and wave to supporters during a “Ballots Over Billionaires” rally at the Curran Theater in San Francisco on Oct. 3, 2026.

(

Manuel Orbegozo

/

CalMatters

)

“My mother taught me to negotiate relentlessly in a world that did not see her, and it is what allowed me to walk into a room full of older white men and demand 40% affordable and middle-income housing,” Kim said, referring to her dealings with developers in San Francisco.

“She passed legislation in San Francisco that has shaped the California landscape,” Cohen said.

The candidates’ platforms

Kim and Allen have a lot in common. Each has promised to be tough on the insurance industry, including by pushing for insurer transparency and creating public report cards for them.

Both candidates have support from different labor, environmental and civil rights groups. But with two Democrats vying for the position for the first time, the endorsements reflect the divide within the party that has been highlighted by the victories of progressive candidates elsewhere, such as that of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

The California Democratic Party endorsed Allen, while the California Labor Federation endorsed Kim. Both U.S. senators from California, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, endorsed Allen. U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, the Democrat from Silicon Valley who has long been aligned with Sanders, endorsed Kim.

“I think Jane is a strong progressive,” Khanna told CalMatters in San Francisco earlier this week. “She understands that the big oil companies should be paying for the extreme conditions that are causing wildfires in California.”

Kim’s proposal for public disaster insurance, which she said would be funded by premiums policyholders already pay to insurance companies, would allow consumers to keep their existing coverage. It would split off fire and flood coverage. The state would run the program and could invest some of the revenue from premiums into wildfire risk mitigation and not into the fossil-fuel industry like insurance companies do, she said.

Kim’s plan aligns with proposals by experts who say the current insurance model is failing because of growing risks, and that public involvement is the answer. A report by the California Earthquake Authority, which was tasked with studying how the state can boost its catastrophe resiliency, includes an analysis of a state-backed wildfire insurer.

The insurance industry and some consumer advocates have slammed her plan, saying it’s a bad idea to shift catastrophic burden to the state. A San Francisco Chronicle endorsement of Allen said Kim would “blow up” the insurance system during a time when the regulations Lara implemented last year need more time to work.

Kim said onstage at the rally with Sanders in San Francisco last week: “They will tell us our ideas are too expensive or magical thinking, but the status quo is not the safest path. It is the most expensive one.”

She has pointed to New Zealand’s public disaster system as an example. At the debate on Thursday, Allen voiced a frequent criticism: The coverage that system provides is limited and doesn’t include wildfire.

“What matters is not the type of catastrophe but that we are covering catastrophe, and that we would work to cover up to a median price of a home,” Kim responded. She said New Zealand covers catastrophes that exist in their country, like mudslides and earthquakes.

Kim also wants to create a public option for low-cost auto insurance by expanding the state’s existing program for low-income drivers. Allen says that would allow drivers who have more resources to take advantage.

Allen’s plan for comprehensive wildfire risk mitigation — which the recent earthquake authority’s report analyzed, too — would include pushing the insurance industry to do more than “pay lip service” to reducing fire risk. Some homeowners have complained that their home-hardening efforts haven’t led to significant savings on their premiums, or ensured that they will be able to buy affordable insurance.

“The commissioner is uniquely positioned to force the industry to the table to be a part of the solution, to help to incentivize and reward real, meaningful resilience and risk reduction all over the state,” he told CalMatters.

At the debate, Allen said his approach is “grounded in the realities we’re facing now, and how we actually fix the system as it is.”

Allen has said his plan includes thinking about mitigation as early as the development process. “We shouldn’t be building new construction that is irresponsible in high-risk areas,” he said earlier this year, before he and Kim ended up being the top two vote-getters in the June primary election.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Dave Grohl has had many roles in his more than three-decade career: Foo Fighters frontman, Nirvana drummer, documentary director, rock elder statesman. But away from the stage, he's also spent years helping Angelenos experiencing homelessness.

At 6:30 p.m., Saturday, Oct. 10, at Chaplin Studios in Hollywood, Grohl headlines Soundstage of Hope, a gala benefiting homeless services providers Hope the Mission and Los Angeles Mission.

Grohl said his passion to serve started with a passion for food.

"I fell in love with barbecue at a young age,” Grohl said. "Over time, I started cooking myself. When we had the Malibu fires in 2018, I thought, 'OK, well, I'm going to start cooking for people in need.'"

As Grohl got more experienced with a spatula, the grills began to grow.

“Like with any backyard barbecue fanatic, you go from the Big Green Egg to the bigger Green Egg to the biggest Green Egg,” Grohl said. “Then you wind up with a cabinet [smoker]. Then you wind up with a giant smoker in your driveway where you can cook for up to 500 people.”

Grohl’s attention turned to people experiencing homelessness during a trip to his L.A. recording studio in Northridge.

“It was cold and it was raining, and I saw so many people on the street,” Grohl said. “I thought, ‘Rather than cook for a fundraiser, I just wanna give food to people that are hungry and hand someone a plate of food.'"

Grohl said preparing and serving a meal to someone is a gesture of love to him.

“It's that good feeling knowing that you've shown another human being love and care and dignity, and all of those things that you would hope we'd share with each other every day,” he said.

Grohl will be performing at Saturday's gala along with John Mayer and the band Chevy Metal, which was founded by Taylor Hawkins, the late Foo Fighters drummer.

“When the Foo Fighters weren't touring, (Hawkins) would play pizza places and corner bars with this classic rock cover band called Chevy Metal,” Grohl said. “Since Taylor passed, his son Shane is the drummer now. So, it's kind of like this big family rock 'n' roll experience where I get to play Talking Heads and Black Sabbath and Rolling Stones songs with Shane and our friends. Chevy Metal rocks, dude. We're not messing around. We're gonna get out there and blast that place.”

If Grohl ever retires from music, he already knows his next career move.

“ I remember the first time I went down to Skid Row and carried a bunch of hot boxes of food to two, three, 400 people on the street,” Grohl said. “And I had that feeling, ‘Oh my God, I've found what I wanna do for the rest of my life.’ I found the thing that I love as much as music, if not more, and it was a really beautiful, liberating feeling.”

Grohl has found an analogy connecting food and music.

“The song is your recipe,” Grohl said. “The preparation and the cook is the recording. Serving to people, that’s your performance. And if people came back around for a second plate, that’s your encore.”

Tickets for Soundstage of Hope are available here.

Electric bicycles allow riders to zip across town in a way that’s more affordable and environmentally friendly than gas-powered cars. They reduce traffic, can help people with mobility issues and generally are fun to use.

But the rising use of e-bikes has also resulted in high-profile collisions and growing safety concerns among parents, healthcare professionals and state legislators. Gov. Gavin Newsom last week signed three new e-bike laws. They follow one he signed earlier this summer to develop an e-bike safety training program for students.

The measures limit youth access to e-bikes, set sidewalk speed limits and clarify what exactly classifies as an e-bike. But critics of the laws fear overregulation and over-policing could discourage riders from a mode of transit they argue is inexpensive, clean and liberating.

Here’s a look at the new laws.

Age limits in San Mateo County

Assembly Bill 2595 authorizes a San Mateo County pilot program banning children under 12 from riding certain lower-speed e-bikes. Parents or guardians whose children violate the law face $25 fines. At the end of the pilot, which is scheduled to sunset in 2031, the county must report to the Legislature about the program, including the number of traffic stops initiated for a citation.

The governor in 2024 signed laws to establish similar programs in San Diego and Marin counties. Other states, including Alaska, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, also have minimum age requirements for e-bikes ranging from ages 14 to 16. California does not have an age minimum for most e-bikes, although riders of the fastest ones must be at least 16.

A study by researchers from UC San Diego found that e-bike collisions — particularly among riders ages 14 and younger — are “rapidly increasing” in the state. In 2018 there were two incidents, compared to 1,566 in 2024, though e-bike usage in general has expanded over recent years.

Assemblymember Diane Papan, a San Mateo Democrat, proposed the latest pilot after two young children in the county died in collisions involving e-bikes and e-motorcycles. One of the crashes last year in Burlingame involved an SUV driver who initially collided with an 11-year-old on an e-bike. The driver then fatally struck 4-year-old Ayden Fang who was playing on a nearby sidewalk.

“There were multiple responsible parties at multiple points where this could have been avoided,” said Xiaoming Fang, Ayden’s father, at an Assembly hearing in April. “An 11-year-old should not be riding a motorized vehicle that can go up to 20 miles an hour.”

E-bikes require a level of judgment and situational awareness that young children do not yet have, said Robin Pang-Maganaris, a city council member for Belmont.

“What results is not just a risk to those children, but an undue and unfair burden on drivers, parents, teachers and community members who are forced to anticipate the unpredictable movements of these young e-bikes.”

Setting speed limits

The governor also signed AB 2346, which imposes new manufacturing and disclosure requirements for e-bikes and sets speed limits for riding on a sidewalk.

Starting Jan. 1, 2029, Class 2 e-bikes (or an e-bike that provides throttle and pedal assistance up to 20 mph) will be required to have a speedometer, and all e-bikes must have either integrated or detachable front and rear lights. E-bike retailers will be required to disclose to consumers information about each e-bike, including what class it belongs to, its maximum speed and if it has any age restrictions.

Another part of the law taking effect on Jan. 1, 2027 empowers local governments to set speed limits on bike paths and multiuse trails, ranging from 10 to 20 mph, and sets a default statewide limit for riding on sidewalks to 10 mph. Speed limits established before the provision goes into effect can remain.

E-bike vs. e-moto

The third law Newsom signed cracks down on retailers that sell devices that go faster than e-bikes, such as electric motorcycles that can travel over 28 mph, but are marketed to consumers as legal e-bikes.

A 2025 report by San Jose State University’s Mineta Transportation Institute found that illegal e-motos are the primary reason behind increased injuries among electric mobility riders, not legal e-bikes.

Senate Bill 1167 sailed through the Legislature with strong bipartisan support and no vote in opposition. Four key advocacy groups for bicycling and traffic safety — Cal Bike, People for Bikes, Streets for All and Streets are for Everyone — also backed the measure.

The law does not punish legal e-bikes, said Marc Vukcevich, Streets For All’s director of state policy, during a June hearing. Instead, it addresses what he calls “the e-moto problem.”

“Right now, public confidence in e-bikes is being undermined by a different category of vehicle, he said. “Which are high-powered electric mopeds, motor-driven cycles, and e-motos that are being marketed, sold and used as if they were ordinary bicycles or e-bikes.”

Villainizing e-bikes?

All three laws passed in the Legislature by almost unanimous votes, but they faced some criticism from e-bike advocates.

In its opposition to the San Mateo pilot, Streets for All characterized the plan as ineffective and premature since data from San Diego County’s pilot has not yet been submitted. In developing more pilots before reviewing data from existing ones, the move “undermines evidence-based policymaking,” it said.

There’s also concern about proper enforcement, said David Martinez, Streets for All’s state policy manager.

“How can you tell a 13-year-old from a 12-year-old?” he said. “I don’t know if that’s easily discernible.”

E-bike proponents also said they worried the new measures risk criminalizing e-bike riders, and they argued that legislators should focus more on creating roads that accommodate all types of users, instead of just regulating e-bikes. They point out that thousands of Californians die every year in vehicle collisions.

“Fifty percent of all vehicle trips in the country are three miles or less,” said Martinez. “That’s a bikeable distance. If we just had more protected, safe infrastructure where people from ages 8 to 80 can ride safely and feel comfortable while riding, then we can also … reduce the number of crashes that happen.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.