With AI in schools, local leadership has more than ever

Credit: Julie Leopo / Edsource

Last week, the Trump administration's executive decree draft to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) in kindergarten schools in the 12th year made the headlines. The order, still in flow, would order federal agencies to integrate AI into classrooms and associate with private companies to create new educational programs. This decision comes as China, Singapore and other nations increase their AI education initiatives, fueling discussions on a new “IA space race”. But while the greatest actors in the world push for rapid adoption, the real question for American education is not to know if AI arrives – it will shape its role in our schools and on the terms of which.

AI is not just the next class gadget or software subscription. It represents a fundamentally new type of disruptor in the education space – which does not only complete public education but is increasingly built on parallel systems next to it. These platforms fueled by AI, often funded by public dollars via good or direct models to consumers, can operate outside traditional surveillance and public school values. The issues are high: AI already influences what matters as education, which delivers it and how it is governed.

This transformation occurs quickly. For example, in the Los Angeles Unified School District (Lausd), the ambitious “IA friend” chatbot project of the district, intended to support students and families, collapsed When its start -up partner fell, explaining the risks of investing in public funds in undated companies. Meanwhile, large technological companies present AI as “tutor for each learner and TA for each teacher”, promising to personalize learning and release the time of educators. The reality is more complex: the promise of AI is real, but its traps, especially when it bypasses local voices and democratic control.

The rise of AI in education is to reshape three fundamental principles: agency, responsibility and equity.

• Agency: Traditionally, public education has enabled teachers, students and communities to shape learning. Now, AI platforms – sometimes chosen by parents or delivered through private suppliers – can move the decision -making of classrooms to opaque algorithms. Teachers can find themselves implementing lessons generated by AI, while student learning paths are increasingly defined by proprietary systems. If educators and local families are not at the table, the agency risks becoming fragmented and individualized, eroding the collective mission of public education.
• Responsibility: In public schools, responsibility means clearly liability lines and public surveillance. But when the AI ​​tools have poorly classified students or private underperforms, we do not know who is responsible: the seller, the parent, the state or the algorithm? This dissemination of responsibilities can undermine public confidence and make quality and equity assurance more difficult.
• Equity: AI has the potential to personalize learning and widen access, but its advantages often go away unevenly. Families and richer districts are more likely to access cutting-edge tools, while underworld students may be left behind. As the platforms fueled by AI develop outside traditional systems, the risk is that public funds take place towards private and less responsible alternatives, deepening educational divisions.

It is tempting to see AI as an unstoppable force, intended to save or condemn public education. But this story lacks the most important variable: us. AI is not intrinsically good or bad. Its impact will depend on the way – and by whom – it is implemented.

The greatest strength of the American education system is its tradition of local control and community engagement. While national and global pressures rise, local leaders – school councils, district administrators, teachers and parents – must lead how AI is used. This means:

• Require supplier transparency on the operation of AI systems and how the data is used.
• Prioritize investments in teacher training and professional development, so that educators can use AI as an empowerment tool, no replacement.
• Insist the fact that AI's tools align with local values ​​and needs, rather than accepting unique-talented solutions of distant technological societies or federal mandates.
• Build coalitions in districts and states to share expertise and defend the policies that center the agency, responsibility and equity.

As the Surintendent of Dallas schools said, Stephanie Elizalde, “it is irresponsible not to teach (IA). We owe. We prepare children in their future ”. But preparing students in the future does not mean famous control of algorithms or external interests. This means exploiting the potential of AI while quickly holding public values ​​that define American education.

The choices that we now make – in particular at the local level – will determine if AI becomes a tool for equity and empowerment, or a force for additional privatization and exclusion. The decision -makers must focus less on descending mandates and more on the empowerment of local communities to be directed. AI can strengthen public education, but only if we make sure that people closest to students – teachers, families and local managers – have authority and resources to shape its use.

The world changes quickly. Let us ensure that our schools change according to our conditions.

•••

Patricia BURCH is a professor at USC Rossier School of Education and author of “Hidden markets: new educational privatization(2009, 2020).

The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. Edsource welcomes comments representing various points of view. If you want to submit a comment, please consult our guidelines And Contact us.