NEPC Review: 'A New Direction for Students in an AI World: Prosper, Prepare, Protect' (Brookings Institution, January 2026)
Saved in:
| Title: | NEPC Review: 'A New Direction for Students in an AI World: Prosper, Prepare, Protect' (Brookings Institution, January 2026) |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | William R. Penuel, University of Colorado at Boulder, National Education Policy Center (NEPC) |
| Source: | National Education Policy Center. 2026. |
| Availability: | National Education Policy Center. School of Education 249 UCB University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309. Tel: 303-735-5290; e-mail: nepc@colorado.edu; Web site: http://nepc.colorado.edu |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 13 |
| Publication Date: | 2026 |
| Sponsoring Agency: | Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice |
| Document Type: | Reports - Evaluative Opinion Papers |
| Descriptors: | Artificial Intelligence, Technology Uses in Education, Evidence Based Practice, Digital Literacy, Trust (Psychology), Governance, Guidelines, Safety, Privacy, Educational Quality, Evaluation Criteria, Well Being, Research Utilization, Research Methodology, Validity |
| Abstract: | A recent Brookings Institution report presents a synthesis of a year-long study of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in education. It outlines benefits and threats generative AI poses to young people's learning and development, concluding that its potential harms outweigh its benefits. The report describes three focus areas for action to reverse that conclusion: promoting AI tools that support evidence-informed pedagogies; developing holistic AI literacy; and promoting trustworthy AI tool design, governance, and guidelines for safety, privacy, and healthy development. A strength of the report is the breadth of perspectives and research studies it includes. A weakness is that it offers no systematic weighting of evidence based on quality or type of evidence. One result of this weakness is not problematic: Readers who are AI skeptics will find passages to support their beliefs, as well readers who are AI advocates--regardless of the report's overall conclusions. Another result is more troubling: It provides decision makers with a wide range of ideas, yet little help in selecting and evaluating options for ensuring that AI is used to benefit rather than harm young people's well-being. In addition, the report notes that all interest holders are important decision makers, but it does not say which interest holders should implement each of its 12 recommendations. Ultimately, the report provides a useful resource for those attempting to wrap their minds around issues concerning generative AI in education, but that usefulness is constrained by an apparent reluctance to close off the possibility that in the future, AI might bring significant benefits. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | ED681175 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | A recent Brookings Institution report presents a synthesis of a year-long study of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in education. It outlines benefits and threats generative AI poses to young people's learning and development, concluding that its potential harms outweigh its benefits. The report describes three focus areas for action to reverse that conclusion: promoting AI tools that support evidence-informed pedagogies; developing holistic AI literacy; and promoting trustworthy AI tool design, governance, and guidelines for safety, privacy, and healthy development. A strength of the report is the breadth of perspectives and research studies it includes. A weakness is that it offers no systematic weighting of evidence based on quality or type of evidence. One result of this weakness is not problematic: Readers who are AI skeptics will find passages to support their beliefs, as well readers who are AI advocates--regardless of the report's overall conclusions. Another result is more troubling: It provides decision makers with a wide range of ideas, yet little help in selecting and evaluating options for ensuring that AI is used to benefit rather than harm young people's well-being. In addition, the report notes that all interest holders are important decision makers, but it does not say which interest holders should implement each of its 12 recommendations. Ultimately, the report provides a useful resource for those attempting to wrap their minds around issues concerning generative AI in education, but that usefulness is constrained by an apparent reluctance to close off the possibility that in the future, AI might bring significant benefits. |
|---|
