Everyone wants to know the “right” answer on AI in schools. Should it be banned? Required? Left up to teachers? Locked down with strict rules? The reality is that there isn’t one right answer. In this, as in much of life, economist Thomas Sowell’s brilliant insight rings true: “There are no solutions, only trade-offs.”
When it comes to AI in education, different families have different preferences. And the effects of decisions made today may not be known for years. Given the diverse views among parents and the ever-changing nature of AI, it’s crucial that we embrace freedom rather than mandates.
This week, we’ve made the case that AI can be a real asset in the classroom, that great teachers will still be needed, and that school choice is what makes it possible for families who disagree about AI to get what they want instead of what government officials impose. So what should that mean for the people writing the rules? Here’s a framework built on three principles: light-touch regulation, flexible choice programs, and transparency.
Don’t Regulate What You Can’t Keep Up With
AI is more than just chatbots like ChatGPT, and it’s advancing every day. There are tools that can create study aids for students, exams for teachers, or simplify administrative tasks to give teachers more time to spend with students. Parents or teachers could also use AI to take, for example, math concepts and create problems incorporating kids’ interests to make those concepts more concrete and relatable.
A law or regulation specific to today’s AI capabilities will likely be outdated before it’s even implemented. Lawmakers who try to write detailed rules about which tools are allowed, how they must be used, or what they must include are chasing a target that won’t sit still—they’re based on the technology of the day and not on how things might evolve.
Combined, these factors illustrate why school leaders, teachers, and parents should be in the driver’s seat when it comes to how and when AI is used in education.
To be clear, this is a real trade-off. A light regulatory touch means some classrooms or families will use AI poorly before figuring out what works. That’s a tough path for policymakers to take. But the alternative—rigid rules keyed to today’s technology—means poor decisions could affect all kids in a school system, with no mechanism to quickly change course.
Let School Choice Do What Top-Down Mandates Can’t
As I showed yesterday, parents don’t agree on how much AI belongs in their kids’ education. Recent polling from the National School Choice Awareness Foundation found that 76 percent of parents support at least some use of AI in schools, but there is wide disagreement on what that looks like; 47 percent want it actively integrated into learning; 30 percent want a lighter touch; and 19 percent want little or none at all.
A single statewide mandate might satisfy one of those groups, but everyone else loses. That’s why choice is essential. It’s not about picking the “correct” AI policy and imposing it everywhere. It’s about letting the people closest to the child be the decisionmakers.
Vouchers and tax-credit scholarships help families choose a different school if their assigned public school’s AI approach doesn’t fit them. Education savings accounts and refundable tax credits go further, letting parents direct funding toward the mix of tools, tutoring, and curriculum that matches their child’s needs and their own comfort level with AI.
Lawmakers designing or expanding choice programs should ensure that the statutory language is broad enough to cover AI-related tools and services as eligible expenses.
Transparency Is Vital
Parents deserve to know what’s really happening in their children’s classroom so they can make informed choices. Schools should be transparent with parents about what AI tools are in use, what they’re used for, and what data they collect.
This doesn’t require a heavy compliance regime. Since public schools are a government-run quasi-monopoly in most places, regular market mechanisms won’t work to drive transparency. That justifies district or state transparency mandates. However, in the private education sector, parents can vote with their feet—and their tuition dollars. This incentivizes private providers to offer the level of transparency parents demand.
Sowell Was Right
None of this makes the debate over AI in education simple, but that’s to be expected. The job of policy isn’t to make these decisions disappear. It’s to put them in the hands of the people who actually know the child—parents and teachers, who are working with real options and real information.
The decisions about AI in education are a clear example of Sowell’s “no solutions, only trade-offs” maxim. Distant officials cannot know the right balance of AI in education for the kids, families, and teachers affected by the regulations they would pass.
Freedom, choice, flexibility, and autonomy are imperative for parents and teachers navigating the ever-changing world of AI in education.
For more on AI in education, be sure to watch the recording of our X space that featured a panel of experts with a variety of views on the topic. And don’t miss today’s Friday Feature, which showcases MARS Microschool, an AI-based school created by one of our X space panelists. You can also catch up on our weeklong AI in education series through the links below.
Monday: “Kicking Off a Special “AI in Education” Blog Series”
Tuesday: “AI in the Classroom: Why It Matters and Who Decides”
Wednesday: “AI Won’t Replace Great Teachers”
Thursday: “In the AI Era, School Choice Is Crucial”
