Generative AI, as a tool linked to plagiarism, cognitive offloading, reinforcing racist biases, lowered test scores, environmental destruction, sweatshop labour, and violence against girls and women, is a contentious topic. This is especially so in educational spaces, where there would ideally be more safeguards from these issues. However, as a still newly-popularized and advancing technology there is still a lot that is up in the air when it comes to AI, including how useful it actually is, how ubiquitous it will become, and how/whether it should be utilized in education.
One popular argument and justification for the use of generative AI in education is its “inevitability”: get on board or be left behind. This argument brushes over the fact that while the technology itself will not magically disappear, we are (or should be) in charge of how, when, where, and to what extent it is used. This point was particularly articulated well by Nima Shirazi and Adam Johnson of Citations Needed:
“There’s this idea of not making the distinction between inevitable and unavoidable [...] Is AI avoidable right now in many areas of our society, from education to healthcare, etc.? No. [...] But that does not mean that the future that is currently laid out is inevitable. It means that we have to actually take back a certain kind of control over the application and the governance of these systems [...] The kind of dulling of that question of how we actually have any control over something. Because if something is inevitable, by definition, we no longer are able to control it.”
Rather than using the idea of inevitability to dismiss concerns over AI, it is important for us to have these conversations about regulating and setting appropriate parameters around AI usage, especially for children.
Generally speaking, there are two camps when it comes to the argument over whether to incorporate AI into education or not. In the first camp, it is believed that because AI is unavoidable, students should learn to use it in a regulated environment. This would ensure that students develop the skills they will need in their personal and professional lives such as digital literacy, vetting sources, creating better prompts, and so on. In the second, it is argued that for children, AI is ultimately a detriment to developing independent critical thinking skills and cognitive development, proliferates misinformation, promotes plagiarism, and is attached to a whole slew of problems as mentioned above.
With this in mind, I was curious to look into how different education systems around the world approach regulating and incorporating AI. Generative AI is still too new for us to have any substantial data about the pros and cons of different modes of implementation or attempts to ban it completely from schools. Instead, I think it will be important for us as educators to keep tabs on how different education systems approach the regulation of AI. Below is a list and brief breakdown of some countries/regions that implemented intentional AI regulations in education which may be worth paying attention to:
New Brunswick: The New Brunswick Department of Education has officially incorporated learning about AI into its K-12 curriculum. This is an extension on the already-existing digital literacy component of the province’s curriculum and will start with “digital awareness” for younger grades before moving to practicing digital skills and hands-on practice with the technology in later grades. While this new policy has mixed reception, it will be important to see how AI is incorporated and what successes/failures come with it.
Los Angeles: After concerns were voiced about AI and general screen-time for students at school, L.A. schools have decided to stop the usage of AI in schools for the time being. This was announced just as New York City similarly announced a ban on AI in schools. In L.A. schools, students are not given any screen-time until grade 2, at which point screen-time is gradually increased as they age.
Norway: Norway has also opted to completely ban AI-usage for younger students, students in grade 8 and up to use it under teacher supervision. Norway will also be banning children under 16 from accessing social media, following Australia’s similar ban.
Sweden: Sweden does not have any specific policy around AI in schools. However, Sweden’s education system is currently shifting towards analogue learning, banning screens in the classroom to encourage better attention, conversation, and critical thinking. This is something that was pushed in response to lowering test results seen in conjunction with Sweden’s effort to provide each student with a laptop.
Singapore: Singapore incorporates technology and AI into education from grade 1. Singapore’s approach looks to introduce AI and other technologies to students according to the students’ age and stage of development. This policy was not enacted without concern from parents and the government has outlined the guardrails it has in place for student safety but claimed that it is more important for students to learn how to effectively use AI. Since 2023, the Singapore schooling system has increasingly ramped up its use of AI both for students and teachers.
There is obviously (and unfortunately) no clear or easily implemented policy that would solve the issues that arise with using generative AI in schools. Hence, the importance of looking at other educational systems and of being intentional about how we ourselves implement technology in the classroom. Additionally, while regulating generative AI may be helpful, students will always find shortcuts when lacking access to appropriate support and motivation. If our school system is filled with teachers overburdened by large class sizes, students who do not have access to social support systems either at home or in school, and a lack of supplies for conducting hands-on, innovative lessons, then AI will continue to be overused. In this case, any generative AI regulation or ban would ultimately be ineffective – a rule that teachers will not have the time, resources, or support to enforce against students who also lack the necessary time and attention.
References
Blume, H. (2026, September 3). LAUSD enacts student AI moratorium: What parents need to know - Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-09-02/lausd-student-ai-ban-policy.
CBC News: The National. (2026, September 19). N.B. becomes 1st province to build AI into K-12 curriculum [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU3pVTsqTYc.
Environmental cost of artificial intelligence: carbon, water, and land footprints. (2026, September 24). United Nations University. https://unu.edu/inweh/collection/environmental-cost-of-AIs-Enrgy-Use-Carbon-water-and-land-footprints.
How AI is exacerbating technology-facilitated violence against women and girls. (2026, April 10). UN Women – Headquarters. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2025/12/how-ai-is-exacerbating-technology-facilitated-violence-against-women-and-girls.
Gerlich, Michael. (2025). AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking. Societies. 15. 6. 10.3390/soc15010006.
Goldstein, D. (2026, September 3). Los Angeles District bans most A.I. for students. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/03/us/lausd-schools-ban-ai-artificial-intelligence.html.
Norway imposes near ban on AI in elementary school. (2026, June 19). Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/technology/norway-imposes-near-ban-ai-elementary-school-2026-06-19/
Shirazi, N., & Johnson, A. (2026, August 12). Episode 241: The Disempowering Politics of ‘Inevitability’ (Part I): Data Centers and LLM as ‘The Future.’ Medium. https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-241-the-disempowering-politics-of-inevitability-part-1-data-centers-and-llm-as-the-a2cb241aba85.
Strömberg, D., Lei, V., & Wu, Y. (2026). The generative AI learning penalty: Evidence from Chinese secondary education (CEPR Discussion Paper No. 21577). Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6868618
Sweden: the unmet promises of the digital classroom. (2026, April 6). The UNESCO Courier. https://courier.unesco.org/en/articles/sweden-unmet-promises-digital-classroom
Tan, R., & Cabato, R. (2023, August 28). Behind the AI boom, an army of overseas workers in ‘digital sweatshops.’ The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/08/28/scale-ai-remotasks-philippines-artificial-intelligence/
Wilks, L. (2020). [Review of the book Algorithms Of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, by Safiya Umoja Noble, and: Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code by Ruha Benjamin]. The Velvet Light Trap 86, 75-77. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/765116.
ClaraM@NUO
No comments:
Post a Comment