July 24 2026 - 1:00pm
One would think, after the colossal failure of iPads in schools, we would learn that children deserve evidence-based education, not expensive digital experiments.
Yet the lure of educational technology with its glitzy marketing campaigns remains big business, estimated to be worth £106 billion globally by 2034. It has now inspired what has been billed as London’s first ever “AI-enabled primary school”, due to open in the capital next year. Other schools have, of course, adopted the use of AI in some areas, but Inspired Edge has a specific plan to integrate widespread use of the technology into the classroom. Rather than using AI to teach pupils directly, it will use AI software to help students learn at their own pace, while being able to “diagnose misconceptions, provide practice” and allow parents to access a “24/7 dashboard to see their child’s learning in real time”.
However, there are clear problems with this approach. At the risk of sounding like a Luddite, there is simply no need for AI in primary education. Not only is there little evidence that it will actually improve education, but there is also reason to believe that it undercuts how children learn and think independently. The idea of seven-year-olds learning the three Rs in some strange simulacrum of PC World is vaguely terrifying. The data on technology improving test scores is already weak — although British schools now spend an eye-watering £900 million on it a year — but for the primary curriculum it is non-existent.
What we do know is that younger students, and those with lower levels of education generally, appear to be most vulnerable to the negative effects of AI on learning, suggesting that it may diminish users’ capacity for deep reflective thinking, promote cognitive laziness, and weaken problem-solving abilities. So it seems ridiculous to allow primary school students, with all their delicate neuroplasticity, access to software and screens that shift the focus from understanding to mere completion, which undermines the depth and richness of learning.
To this point, any teacher will say that AI perniciously undermines the joy and effort of learning, because it removes the intellectual challenge that reinforces motivation and engagement. When generative AI shortcuts the effort-reward cycle, it doesn’t just “assist” — instead, it replaces the very struggle that leads to growth. How does a teacher teach a primary school pupil that they risk sacrificing their intellectual independence or academic integrity before they have even mastered their times tables?
Other countries are realizing the dangers of bypassing this “productive struggle” and are now encouraging schools to go back to basics. After a decline in national test scores, Norway has recently passed a ban on AI in elementary schools and pledged more money for books and textbooks. The UK should do the same. Otherwise, the risk increases of producing a generation with no critical thinking, attention span or tolerance for the smallest effort. After all, school should be where they go to learn skills, not offload them.
