by Maddy Sims, The Hechinger Report
January 29, 2026
Synthetic intelligence is already reshaping how we work, talk and create. In training, nevertheless, the dialog is caught.
Sensational headlines make it look like AI will both save public training (“AI will magically give lecturers again hours of their day!”) or destroy it fully (“College students solely use AI to cheat!” “AI will change lecturers!”).
These dueling narratives dominate public debate as state and district leaders scramble to jot down insurance policies, subject vendor pitches and resolve whether or not to ban or embrace instruments that usually really feel disconnected from what lecturers and college students truly expertise in school rooms.
What will get misplaced is the basic query of what studying ought to appear to be in a world through which AI is in all places. And that’s the reason, final yr, reasonably than debate whether or not AI belongs in faculties, roughly 40 policymakers and sector leaders took inventory of the roadblocks in an training system designed for a special period and wrestled with what it will take to maneuver ahead responsibly.
Associated: Loads goes on in school rooms from kindergarten to highschool. Sustain with our free weekly e-newsletter on Ok-12 training.
The group included educators, researchers, funders, father or mother advocates and expertise specialists and was convened by the Heart on Reinventing Public Training. What emerged from the three-day discussion board was a clearer image of the place the sphere is caught and a shared recognition of how frequent assumptions are holding leaders again and of what a extra coherent, human-centered method to AI may appear to be.
We agreed that there are a number of persistent myths derailing conversations about AI in training, and got here up with shifts for combating them.
Fable #1: AI’s largest worth is saving time for lecturers
Academics are overburdened, and many AI instruments promise reduction by quicker lesson planning, automated grading or prompt suggestions. These makes use of matter, however discussion board individuals had been clear that effectivity alone is not going to rework training.
Focusing too narrowly on time financial savings dangers locking faculties extra tightly into techniques that had been by no means designed to arrange college students for the world they’re graduating into.
The deeper difficulty isn’t find out how to use AI to save lots of time. It’s find out how to create a shared imaginative and prescient for what high-quality, future-ready studying ought to truly appear to be. With out that readability, even one of the best instruments quietly reinforce the identical factory-model constructions educators are already struggling towards.
The shift: Cease asking what AI can automate. Begin asking what sorts of studying experiences college students deserve, and the way AI may assist make these doable.
Fable #2: The primary problem is getting the best AI instruments into school rooms
The training expertise market is already crowded, and AI has solely added to the noise. Academics are sometimes left stitching collectively core curricula, supplemental packages, tutoring providers and now AI instruments with little steerage.
Discussion board individuals pushed again on the concept that higher instruments alone will resolve this downside. The actual problem, they argued, is to align how studying is designed and skilled in faculties — and the insurance policies meant to help that work — with the talents college students have to thrive in an AI-shaped world. An app shouldn’t be a studying mannequin. A group of instruments doesn’t add as much as a technique.
But this isn’t solely a supply-side downside. Educators, policymakers and funders have struggled to obviously articulate what they want amid a quickly advancing expertise surroundings.
The shift: Outline coherent studying fashions first. Consider AI instruments primarily based on whether or not they reinforce shared objectives and combine with each other to help constant instructing and studying practices, not whether or not they’re novel or environment friendly on their very own.
Fable #3: Leaders should select between fixing immediately’s faculties and inventing new fashions
One of many tensions dominating the discussions was whether or not scarce state, native and philanthropic assets must be used to enhance current faculties or to construct completely new fashions of studying.
Some individuals fearful that utilizing AI to personalize classes or enhance tutoring merely props up techniques that not work. Others emphasised the ethical urgency of enhancing circumstances for college kids in school rooms proper now.
Quite than resolving this debate, individuals rejected the false selection. They argued for an “ambidextrous” method: enhancing instructing and studying within the current whereas deliberately laying the groundwork for basically completely different fashions sooner or later.
The shift: Leaders should guarantee they don’t lose sight of immediately’s college students or of tomorrow’s potentialities. Wherever doable, near-term pilot packages ought to assist construct information about broader redesign.
Fable #4: AI technique is principally a technical or regulatory problem
Many states and districts have centered AI efforts on acceptable-use insurance policies. Creating guardrails definitely issues, however when compliance eclipses studying and redesign, it creates a chilling impact, and educators don’t really feel secure to experiment.
The shift: Coverage ought to construct in flexibility for studying and iteration in service of recent fashions, not simply act as a brake pedal to fight unhealthy habits.
Fable #5: AI threatens the human core of training
Maybe probably the most highly effective reframing the group got here up with: The actual threat isn’t that AI will change human relationships in faculties. It’s that training will fail to outline and shield what’s most human.
Individuals constantly emphasised belonging, function, creativity, essential considering and connection as important outcomes in an AI-shaped world.
However they are going to be fostered provided that human-centered design is intentional, not assumed.
The shift: If AI use doesn’t help college students’ connections between their studying, their lives and their futures, it gained’t be transformative, irrespective of how superior the expertise.
The group’s individuals didn’t produce a single blueprint for the way forward for training, however they got here away with a shared recognition that effectivity gained’t be sufficient, instruments alone gained’t save us and concern gained’t information the sphere.
Associated: In a yr that shook the foundations of training analysis, these 10 tales resonated in 2025
The query is not whether or not AI will form training. It’s whether or not educators, communities and policymakers will look previous the headlines and seize this second to form AI’s position in ways in which really serve college students now and sooner or later.
Maddy Sims is a senior fellow on the Heart on Reinventing Public Training (CRPE), the place she leads tasks centered on finding out and strengthening innovation in training.
Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.
This story about AI in training was produced byThe Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, unbiased information group centered on inequality and innovation in training. Join Hechinger’s weekly e-newsletter.
This article first appeared on The Hechinger Report and is republished right here below a Artistic Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Worldwide License.
