Nine Charlotte students debate AI, mental health and school safety: what a generation already living with it is asking for

By EdNC · November 2, 2026.

Nine of the ten finalists for student advisor to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) board of education, in North Carolina, took part in a public forum on October 21. The winner will represent the district's nearly 140,000 students for a one-year term starting January 1, 2027. According to EdNC, voting is open until November 3 and the winner will be announced on the 4th. The position does not have a vote on the board.

The student advisor position grew out of a partnership between CMS and GenerationNation, a civic-engagement nonprofit for students. Topics included campus safety, mental health funding, educational technology and access to resources.

On mental health, the candidates discussed budget cuts and counselor capacity. Achyuta Raajkumar argued that counselors are too overloaded to attend to each student individually. Sreenika Pandiri proposed check-ins with counselors at the start, middle and end of the school year. Avery Scrivener called for normalizing conversations about the issue in schools.

On safety, the district uses scanners from Evolv Technology, and several finalists questioned whether they are worth the cost. Kyle Boone-McDougall proposed having trusted teachers at entrances to check backpacks, which he said would be cheaper and give a greater sense of security. Taleya Turner called for openly acknowledging gun violence and expanding programs that bring students and school officers closer together.

On technology, the candidates discussed the district's recent rule limiting phone use during instructional hours. Gabi Williams and Tahirah Azim supported the limit, but Azim noted that students need to be prepared for a digital job market. Luka Bozovic rejected outright bans and called for clear guidelines on using generative AI for assignments. In his view, the technology delivers “significant productivity gains” for students and teachers, though it should not be used for every task.

**Our take.** The forum is local and the facts are modest, but the students' stance on AI is the most mature part of the debate. Almost no one called for a ban. They are asking for judgment: which tasks allow AI and which do not. That is the distinction many adult institutions still fail to make.

In general, schools swing between panic and uncritical enthusiasm. Students, who already live alongside these tools, seem closer to regulation based on use rather than fear. It is the same logic we advocate for AI governance: rules calibrated to actual capability, not to alarm.

There is also a quiet but important thread. If counselors are overwhelmed and budgets are cut, using AI for emotional support will become an increasing temptation. Nothing of the sort was proposed here, and it should not be assumed. But a shortage of human resources is exactly where such solutions tend to slip in, and clear limits with human oversight will be needed.

In the short term, schools face an uncomfortable transition: redefining assignments, assessment and trust. In the long term, a generation that learns to work with AI thoughtfully, rather than in secret, is the best foundation for a society that uses this technology where it matters, from health care to personalized education. That the only student position at stake has no vote is, however, a reminder of who still sets the rules.