U.S. Department of Ed. Addresses IFS Concerns for AI in Education

On April 13th, the U.S. Department of Education published final language for its grantmaking priorities for advancing artificial intelligence (AI) in education. While far from perfect, that language includes some of the recommendations submitted by the Institute for Family Studies.

Last August, we submitted a comment in response to the Department’s proposed grantmaking priorities and definitions for advancing AI in education. In the comment, IFS Family First Technology Initiative director Michael Toscano and policy analyst Jared Hayden acknowledged that, while it makes sense to expand AI education and training opportunities for high schoolers, college students, and educators, the proposed priorities would foist untested and untrusted technologies on public schools. Moreover, the proposal largely presupposed that the integration of AI in classrooms was largely positive and thus lacked sufficient clarity around “appropriate methods” of AI integration in the classroom. Our comment called on the Department to prioritize research and to acquire adequate input from parents, educators, and school board members about the kinds of AI-related programs the Department should prioritize. 

After reviewing over 300 comments, including our comments, the Department has responded by adding three new priorities, and making two edits to its proposed priorities. It also updated its definition of AI literacy. Three of these changes were relevant to our concerns.

First, the Department added an additional priority that would allow for the awarding of grants for the “use of AI technology to improve program outcomes.” Second, in response to concerns regarding the need to ensure that students learn and use AI in ways that are appropriate, effective, and safe, the Department updated its original language to ensure that the expansion of AI education offerings in K-12 education be “age-appropriate.” It also added an additional priority that would award grants for efforts to “provide support and training to educators on age-appropriate AI education methodologies that emphasize foundational concepts in AI literacy and critical thinking skills while considering developmental readiness and students' safety factors in AI tool selections in K-12 education.” And lastly, in recognition that AI adoption “should not be evaluated solely by efficiency or automation metrics, but by its demonstrated impact on student engagement, learning progress, and readiness for future opportunities,” the Department clarified that its proposed priority to expand the appropriate use of AI technology in education must also be pursued in ways that are “ethical.”

Most of the Department’s final priorities puts the achievement of learning outcomes at risk by seeking to advance a technology that remains largely untrusted and whose effects on learning outcomes remain largely untested.

While we are grateful that these changes address a number of the concerns outlined in our comment, we believe most of the Department’s final priorities puts the achievement of learning outcomes at risk—and thus American leadership in AI—by seeking to advance a technology that remains largely untrusted and whose effects on learning outcomes remain largely untested. 

In fact, the effects of the past decade of educational technology should give the Department more reason to doubt than to hope that the integration of this technology will do much to improve learning outcomes. And while the Department insists that it will defer to local and state authorities and that families and educators are “best positioned” to weigh AI’s benefits and risks, its decision to direct educational grants for its finalized priorities inevitably creates more incentive to seek such funds.

While these changes may go far in ensuring the appropriate integration of AI education and technologies in American K-12 education, we maintain that to ensure the best student outcomes, the use of AI technologies in education requires more research and is best incorporated as a discrete subject or course. 

Jared Hayden is a Policy Analyst for the IFS Family First Tech Initiative.