AI in Schools: Starting with Intention

There is a whole lot to say about the rapid rise of AI tools in education. It can be tempting to gravitate towards one extreme or the other — either AI will revolutionize education, or AI will be the ruin of education. Rather than casting judgment or aspiration, Bluum’s perspective remains focused on how we can integrate AI tools in ways that genuinely improve teaching and learning.

We are acutely aware that technology, in and of itself, is not the goal. Rather, the edtech makes available and accessible that which supports better teaching and learning. Our goal is not new tech — our goal is, and always has been, improved learning. AI is a tool, and we believe that every inclusion of a tool should begin with a purpose grounded in education and student outcomes.

With this core value in mind, Bluum considers the following framework when engaging in discussions about the application of AI in education:

Begin with learning in mind.

Answer these questions before adopting a tool: What learning problems or gaps are we trying to solve? Does the tool actually address the problem? Does it deepen student critical thinking, or simply speed it up?

In working with thousands of educators, we have learned about both their hesitations and excitement around AI tools. When asked about student response to a particular tool, one teacher commented, “Students will love it because it means they have less to ‘learn’… because [Microsoft’s] CoPilot can do it all for them.” This is a concern shared by many educators, and a valid one at that. This teacher recognizes that efficiency is not the same thing as learning. Another teacher stated, “I think I will be able to utilize this tool to better engage my students with activities that align with their IEP goals and objectives.” This reflects the approach we encourage: identify an existing instructional need — in this case, meeting IEP goals — and then determine whether AI can help address it.

AI implementation should not begin with a tool and then search for places to use it. Instead, educators must begin with what they want students to learn, consider the needs of their particular students, and determine whether and how AI can meaningfully enhance their instruction.

Be proactive.

Our work with educators reinforces the importance of intentional planning before applying AI in their instructional preparation or classroom curriculum, rather than reacting after challenges arise. At a minimum, this means ensuring that staff have the training and support they need to understand when, why, and how to use AI tools. This professional learning effort should begin before implementation and continue as the tools and uses evolve. Targeting this learning early gives teachers a shared understanding and framework for implementation, rather than leaving each educator to navigate the tools independently.

Amplify teachers, don't replace instruction.

Among the greatest opportunities of AI is to amplify what teachers already do well. It can help educators generate ideas, adapt materials, differentiate instruction for varied needs, and spend less time on the routine tasks that often consume their prep time. In a recent Bluum professional learning session, one educator shared that her plan in using the AI tool is to “create differentiation in Math and ELA small groups.” A pre-K teacher shared their plan for intentionally using the tool to enhance their instructional planning, stating, “I imagine I will not be exposing my pre-K students to AI, but I will use it to strengthen my teaching skills.” In each case, it is clear that the value of AI comes from giving the teacher additional capacity.

This feedback reinforces the notion that the most important parts of teaching cannot be automated. A teacher’s most critical work lies in building relationships with students, recognizing when a lesson is not landing, understanding the context behind a student’s needs, and making professional judgments about what to do next. While AI can suggest an activity or generate a resource, it can never know a child in the way that a teacher does. Therefore, the teacher must always remain the final decision-maker, evaluating and adapting any AI-generated suggestions, and ultimately determining whether it belongs in their classroom at all. Used in this way, AI becomes another resource that teachers can lean on, while their relationships, professional judgment, and expertise remain firmly at the center of teaching. 

Consider risks & responsibilities

Alongside pre-planning and intentional implementation is the consideration of potential risks before a tool is ever used in the classroom. Just as educators should take the time to evaluate whether an AI tool supports an instructional goal, they must also understand how it handles student information and whether it meets established privacy and data security requirements. Creating these conditions at the outset allows teachers to explore the potential of AI without placing the responsibility for navigating complex security and student privacy questions on individual educators.  

Responsible use also requires understanding the limitations of the technology itself. AI can produce information that sounds convincing but is inaccurate, and its outputs can reflect biases present in the systems used to create it. Professional learning that addresses hallucinations, bias, verification, and appropriate use is a foundational element of implementation. Our teacher feedback includes requests for support with “how to teach students when to and when not to use AI,” noting that students can mistake AI as “the be all, end all.” Building responsible-use training into the implementation stages can help educators model best practices, and in turn, teach students to approach AI with critical judgment and nuanced thinking.

At Bluum, we carefully approach the implementation of AI in classrooms by asking where it can meaningfully strengthen teaching and learning. When we lead with learning, plan intentionally, trust teacher expertise, and protect student information, the AI tool remains as it should be- a tool in service of learning, rather than the driver of it.