As artificial intelligence (AI) rapidly integrates into K-12 education, a new draft executive order from the Trump administration has brought the issue into sharp national focus. The proposal aims to embed AI in classrooms across the country, tasking federal agencies to collaborate with private companies to develop AI-powered educational programs, according to EdSource. This move mirrors similar aggressive efforts by countries like China and Singapore, raising concerns about a growing “AI space race.”
But amid the global push for rapid adoption, Patricia Burch, professor at the USC Rossier School of Education, argues that the most pressing issue is not whether AI is coming — it’s who controls how it’s implemented. “AI is not simply the next classroom gadget or software subscription,” Burch writes. “It represents a fundamentally new kind of disruptor… building parallel systems alongside public education.”
These systems, often supported by public funding through vouchers or direct-to-consumer models, increasingly operate outside traditional public school oversight. As AI reshapes what constitutes education and who delivers it, Burch warns that without deliberate, local leadership, the technology could deepen inequality and erode core democratic values in education.
But amid the global push for rapid adoption, Patricia Burch, professor at the USC Rossier School of Education, argues that the most pressing issue is not whether AI is coming — it’s who controls how it’s implemented. “AI is not simply the next classroom gadget or software subscription,” Burch writes. “It represents a fundamentally new kind of disruptor… building parallel systems alongside public education.”
These systems, often supported by public funding through vouchers or direct-to-consumer models, increasingly operate outside traditional public school oversight. As AI reshapes what constitutes education and who delivers it, Burch warns that without deliberate, local leadership, the technology could deepen inequality and erode core democratic values in education.
A Disruptive Force, With Real Risks
One high-profile example of the challenges came from the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), where an “AI friend” chatbot project collapsed after its startup partner went under. This failure exposed the dangers of investing public money in untested AI ventures. Meanwhile, tech companies continue to market AI as a revolutionary force — a “tutor for every learner and a TA for every teacher.”
But the reality, says Burch, is far more complex.
AI’s rapid ascent threatens to undermine three foundational principles of public education: agency, accountability, and equity.
But the reality, says Burch, is far more complex.
AI’s rapid ascent threatens to undermine three foundational principles of public education: agency, accountability, and equity.
- Agency: Teachers and communities have long played a central role in shaping how students learn. AI systems — especially those introduced by private providers — risk shifting decision-making from educators to opaque algorithms. “If local educators and families aren’t at the table,” Burch notes, “agency risks becoming fragmented and individualized.”
- Accountability: Traditional public education provides clear lines of responsibility. In contrast, when AI misclassifies a student or a micro-school underperforms, it’s often unclear who is accountable — the tech company, the parent, the school, or the software itself.
- Equity: While AI has the potential to personalize learning and expand access, its benefits are not equally distributed. Wealthier districts are more likely to implement cutting-edge tools, while under-resourced schools may be left behind. As Burch warns, “public funds [could] flow to private, less accountable alternatives, deepening educational divides.”
Local Control: The Key to Responsible AI in Education
Rather than leaving decisions to federal mandates or private companies, Burch emphasizes the critical importance of local leadership. “AI is not inherently good or bad,” she writes. “Its impact will depend on how — and by whom — it is implemented.”
The U.S. education system’s strength lies in its tradition of local control and community engagement. Burch calls on school boards, administrators, teachers, and families to demand:
Dallas schools Superintendent Stephanie Elizalde underscores this urgency: “It’s irresponsible to not teach [AI]. We have to. We are preparing kids for their future.”
Still, Burch cautions that preparing students for the future doesn’t mean surrendering decision-making to algorithms or outside forces. “The choices we make now — especially at the local level — will determine whether AI becomes a tool for equity and empowerment, or a force for further privatization and exclusion.”
With the world changing rapidly, Burch urges educators and communities to ensure schools evolve on their own terms — not those set by distant tech companies or political agendas.
The U.S. education system’s strength lies in its tradition of local control and community engagement. Burch calls on school boards, administrators, teachers, and families to demand:
- Transparency from vendors about how AI works and how data is used.
- Professional development so teachers can use AI as a supportive tool — not a replacement.
- Alignment with local values, avoiding one-size-fits-all models imposed by outside entities.
- Collaboration across districts and states to advocate for equitable and effective AI policies.
Dallas schools Superintendent Stephanie Elizalde underscores this urgency: “It’s irresponsible to not teach [AI]. We have to. We are preparing kids for their future.”
Still, Burch cautions that preparing students for the future doesn’t mean surrendering decision-making to algorithms or outside forces. “The choices we make now — especially at the local level — will determine whether AI becomes a tool for equity and empowerment, or a force for further privatization and exclusion.”
With the world changing rapidly, Burch urges educators and communities to ensure schools evolve on their own terms — not those set by distant tech companies or political agendas.