By JC Bowman
Artificial intelligence has sparked conversations and predictions. Technology leaders compare it to the Industrial Revolution and say it will move faster. We cannot yet measure that claim. We can see the change in workplaces, in customer service calls answered by chatbots, and in the tools children use to search, write, and study.
Even the people building advanced AI do not fully understand how their models arrive at every answer. Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen captured the excitement with a startling phrase: “we are literally making sand think.” He sees extraordinary possibilities. Others see reasons for caution. Schools face both: a tool that may offer each child more ways to learn and one that can provide a convincing answer without educating the child.
For Tennessee schools, this is already a classroom issue. A 2025 Pew Research Center survey found that 54% of American teens had used AI chatbots for schoolwork. One in ten said chatbots helped with all or most of their schoolwork. These are national figures, but the question belongs in every Tennessee classroom, public and private: Is the student learning, or is the machine doing the work?
We should recognize the value of a useful tool. In a national Gallup survey, six in ten public school teachers said they had used AI for their work during the 2024–25 school year. They used it to plan lessons, create activities, and adapt materials for students. Weekly users estimated that it saved them nearly six hours per week. That is a self-reported estimate, but time returned to a teacher is worth our attention.
A teacher can use that time to work with a struggling reader, call a parent, or provide thoughtful feedback. Technology should serve the teacher and the lesson.
A child can ask a chatbot to explain a math problem and gain understanding. The same child can ask for the answer, copy it, and move on. Researchers studying nearly 1,000 high school math students found that a standard AI chatbot helped during practice but left students performing worse on an exam taken without it. An AI tutor designed to guide students through problems avoided that outcome. How the tool is designed and used matters.
An assignment is more than a product to turn in. Reading a difficult passage, working through a wrong answer, and finding the words to explain an idea are part of learning. A polished essay tells us little if its author cannot discuss it.
One teenager in the Pew survey praised AI for answering difficult questions: “No need for research!” I understand the appeal, but I also hear a warning. A student cannot judge an AI answer about the Civil War, a science experiment, or an equation without knowing something about the subject. Critical thinking requires knowledge. We cannot teach children to question an answer while neglecting the facts needed to do so.
Reading, writing, and mathematics remain central, especially in the early grades. Children need books, handwriting, direct instruction, discussion, and practice. AI cannot serve as a shortcut around those foundations.
Tennessee already requires local school boards and public charter schools to adopt policies governing AI use by students and staff. That shifts the conversation beyond informal experimentation. Educators must help shape how schools implement those policies. Teachers need a voice in selecting tools, setting classroom rules, and deciding when students must work independently.
A policy written without critical input from those responsible for teaching will miss what happens in the classroom. Right now, groups are mobilizing to drive the AI debate, with funding from out-of-state groups such as the Gates Foundation.
Before districts widely adopt a tool, they should know what student work and personal information it collects, how long it retains that information, and whether the vendor uses it for any other purpose. They should also test whether it improves learning, using results measured independently of the company selling it. Convenience and a polished demonstration are not evidence that children learned more.
We can make room for AI while still insisting that students show their own work. Ask them to explain their reasoning aloud, write in class, demonstrate the steps in a problem, and defend a conclusion with evidence. Give teachers the training and authority to decide when a tool helps and when a screen should be closed.
A chatbot can write an essay, solve an equation, and deliver a confident explanation in seconds. None of that tells us what a student knows. When we hand a young person a diploma, we should be able to say with confidence that the student earned it. A diploma must mean something.
#####
JC Bowman is the Executive Director of Professional Educators of Tennessee
Legal Notice: Permission to reprint this editorial in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and Professional Educators of Tennessee are properly cited.
You must be logged in to post a comment.