In New York City, education officials faced intense backlash in March when they attempted to release AI guidelines. They are under pressure to pause AI use in schools for two years.
In June, the Portland (Oregon) School Board approved a temporary pause on generative AI use in schools to buy time to develop an official policy. Last school year, without notice to parents or teachers, D.C. Public Schools expanded access to artificial intelligence tools on school-issued computers.
School districts nationwide are struggling with unclear guidelines around AI use in the classroom and are lacking the guardrails needed to protect students’ privacy.
Most parents couldn’t tell you which AI or EdTech products their children can access, what data those systems collect, how that information is used or whether the tools have actually been proven to improve learning.
That should concern all of us.
Public schools should not be laboratories for unproven technology such as AI. Before introducing new AI tools to hundreds of thousands of children, we should expect evidence that they are safe, effective and consistent with how children learn best.
The enthusiasm surrounding AI in education has been remarkable. Companies promise personalized tutoring, instant feedback, writing assistance, lesson planning and greater efficiency. Those possibilities are exciting. But excitement is not evidence.
The research has not kept pace with adoption. Stanford researchers recently found little high-quality causal evidence that generative AI improves K-12 learning outcomes. The Brookings Institution reached a similar conclusion after reviewing hundreds of studies and consulting educators, parents, students and technologists, warning that the developmental risks of generative AI may outweigh its educational benefits.
Meanwhile, AI is increasingly being placed in front of children who are still developing the skills these tools promise to perform.
AI can brainstorm ideas, summarize readings, revise essays, organize thoughts and answer questions in seconds. However, those tasks are not obstacles to learning. They are the work of learning.
Children become better writers by struggling to organize their ideas. They become better readers by working through challenging texts. They develop judgment by evaluating competing arguments and solving problems themselves. The effort is not a flaw in the educational process. It is the educational process.
If AI routinely performs that work for students, we risk outsourcing precisely the cognitive habits schools exist to develop.
Teachers recognize that concern. In a recent national survey, more than half said they worry that AI will undermine students’ critical thinking.
Parents deserve clear answers before, not after, these technologies become part of everyday classroom life.
Schools have obligations that technology companies do not. Companies are rewarded for rapid adoption and product improvement. Public schools are entrusted with children’s education, privacy and development. Their responsibility is not to accelerate innovation, but instead to exercise careful judgment on behalf of students and families.
None of this is an argument against AI. Artificial intelligence will undoubtedly shape the future, and today’s students should learn about it. Learning about AI is different from depending on AI as a routine learning tool before we know whether it actually improves learning, or what it may displace.
We need to ensure that AI meets the same standards we expect of every educational intervention.
Before we ask children to rely on AI to think, write or learn, adults should be able to answer a question: Where is the evidence that AI helps children become better thinkers? Until we can answer that question, school districts should pause all student-facing AI and demonstrate that these tools are worthy of our children’s trust.
Public schools should not be AI’s beta testers.
They should remain places where evidence, not marketing or technological enthusiasm, guides educational policy.
Michelle Harburg is part of Schools Beyond Screens DC, a group that advocates for evidence-based guidelines on technology in schools. She wrote this for InsideSources.com.
