Forum: Greater clarity on AI in schools welcome, but usage discipline is key

The Ministry of Education’s calibrated approach to artificial intelligence in schools brings long-awaited clarity to how AI should be used in education (P4 pupils have ‘executive functioning skills’ to start using AI under supervision: Desmond Lee, May 6).

The intent is clear. AI is to support learning, not replace it. Introducing AI from Primary 4 reflects pupils’ developmental readiness. Lower primary years remain grounded in hands-on learning.

But clarity of intent does not guarantee clarity of practice, and this is where many reforms struggle. Across systems, two opposing biases towards AI are already taking shape.

One drives efficiency and risks normalising dependency. The other resists AI altogether. Neither is likely to produce the intended outcome.

Balanced use will not emerge naturally from exposure to the technology and has to be deliberately constructed.

Students therefore need structured friction: attempting tasks independently before using AI, then explicitly reflecting on how it changed their thinking.

They should also be exposed to flawed AI outputs so that critique becomes part of learning, not an afterthought. Without this, “AI literacy” risks becoming tool usage rather than judgment.

The same issue is already visible beyond schools. Capability is too often defined as familiarity with tools, not the ability to decide when not to use them. This is a thinking gap.

There is also a need to dispel the notion that when guard rails exist, practice will follow. That assumption may be optimistic.

Implementation aligns with intent only when it is reinforced through design, feedback and correction over time.

Ultimately, this is less about artificial intelligence and more about discipline in cognition.

Schools that succeed will need to go beyond teaching students to use AI, and teach when to resist it. This is a long and involved change management process.

Chitra Venkatesh