SUTHERLAND INSTITUTE STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
Christine Cooke Fairbanks
Education Policy Fellow
Sutherland Institute
Salt Lake City, Utah
The Rise in AI in Education Should Mean Stronger Protections for Parental Rights
U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions
Subcommittee on Education & the American Family
The Future of K-12 Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
430 Dirksen Senate Office Building
June 16, 2026
I. Introduction and the Changing Landscape of K-12 Education
Chairman Tuberville, Ranking Member Blunt Rochester, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record on a topic that is fundamentally shifting the topography of American K-12 education. As the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution rapidly unfolds, it is opening up unprecedented possibilities for how our children access, analyze, and author information. What was once considered the realm of science fiction is now an active, everyday element in school districts across the country.
While public discourse frequently focuses on the debates regarding the development and impacts of large language models, a more grounded reality is taking shape behind the scenes: AI is already serving as a powerful, pro-human mechanism that can dramatically improve pedagogical efficacy, reduce administrative teacher burnout, and maximize individualized learning pathways.
However, as federal and state policymakers look toward the future of K-12 education, we must remember that a technological leap should never precipitate a step backward for fundamental constitutional and societal principles. As we seek to foster innovation, the primary standard guiding our legislative efforts must be the preservation and bolstering of parental rights, educational choice, and classroom transparency. AI may change how education is delivered, but it must never displace the legal right of parents to guide the upbringing and education of their children.
II. The Debate and the Prudence of Educational Choice
The rise of generative AI has sparked a debate among educators, parents, and policy stakeholders. On one side, some education leaders argue for an urgent, high-tech pivot to ensure students are optimized for an increasingly AI-driven workforce. Conversely, other leading experts emphasize a necessary return to core, classical knowledge. They point to historically low reading and math proficiency rates—underscored by recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores[1]—to demonstrate that students must firmly master baseline, fundamental literacy and critical thinking skills before navigating complex digital tools.
The very fact that deeply well-intentioned parents and experts hold such divergent, nuanced views highlights an essential truth: there is no single “correct” approach to AI in the classroom. Because parents possess unique values, distinct tolerances for technology, and varied philosophies on child development, the expansion of educational choice is more critical now than ever before.
- The High-Tech Path: Some parents may actively want their children to leverage AI tutors, engage with adaptive learning dashboards, and learn the intricacies of prompt engineering to prepare for tomorrow’s economy.
- The Low-Tech/Classical Path: Other parents may prefer a low-tech environment centered entirely on human interaction, tactile textbooks, and traditional instruction to cultivate deep attention spans and core knowledge retention.
- The Customized Path: Additionally, families utilizing homeschooling methods are discovering that AI tools can serve as customized assistants to help curate tailored curricula.
According to data from EdChoice surveys, roughly two-thirds of school parents believe that public schools should teach the responsible use of AI.[2] But for the remaining third—and for those who diverge on what “responsible use” entails—one-size-fits-all mandates will inevitably breed conflict and alienation. Rather than attempting to federally dictate the precise intersection of AI and learning, policymakers should champion parental choice. Empowering families to direct their children’s education ensures that technology serves the family unit, rather than forcing the family to conform to institutional technological experiments.
III. The Necessity of Transparency and Protecting Student Privacy
What makes parents effective decision-makers and authentic partners in education is access to clear, timely, and honest information. Trust is the baseline currency of a functional school system, and that currency risks rapid devaluation if school districts integrate AI systems cloaked in bureaucratic secrecy. Just as parents possess a fundamental right to know what their children are learning via physical curricula, they deserve to understand how AI is being utilized inside the classroom.
Recent national polling highlights a sharp skepticism among families regarding AI and personal data tracking.[3] Nearly 70% of parents explicitly state they do not want their children’s grades and sensitive personal information inputted into external AI software. Furthermore, parental support for utilizing AI tools for standardized testing preparation and general tutoring actually dropped between 2024 and 2025.
This drop in support is not necessarily born of an absolute rejection of technology; rather, it is a rational response to a lack of clear boundaries, transparency, and data governance. When parents are kept in the dark about where their child’s data is going, suspicion naturally thrives.
To prevent AI from becoming a source of institutional distrust, public education systems should adopt a highly proactive approach:
- Clear Notification and Consent: School boards and districts should explicitly disclose what generative AI platforms are being utilized, what data is collected, and how algorithmic functions affect student evaluation.
- Strict Adherence to Privacy Protections: Systems should guarantee strict compliance with state and federal privacy laws, such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), ensuring that children’s personally identifiable information is never used to train commercial models or build persistent digital profiles.
- Opt-Out Provisions: Where AI tools are fundamentally woven into classroom instruction, parents should be provided viable, non-punitive alternatives for their children.
IV. State Frameworks as a Blueprint: Allowing Innovation to Lead
As the Subcommittee evaluates the federal footprint on AI policy, it would be wise to study the laboratory of the states, where balanced, pro-human frameworks are successfully emerging.
Utah serves as an excellent case study in striking the proper equilibrium between safety and innovation. With the passage of measures like the Utah AI Policy Act, the state established the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy and an accompanying AI Learning Lab.[4] This structure allows stakeholders to collaborate on regulatory solutions that encourage innovation while protecting consumers. Concurrently, the Utah State Board of Education released an AI framework that outlines clear principles, responsible use cases, and explicitly prohibited uses for students and teachers alike.[5]
Utah’s framework operates on a vital first principle: AI must be used strictly to help students achieve their unique educational goals. It views the technology with safe curiosity rather than restrictive panic, deploying dedicated AI specialists and grant initiatives to train educators effectively. At the local level, districts are partnering with innovators to offer optional AI tutors and personalized lesson plans, empowering local teachers to increase their efficiency and mitigate burnout without replacing the human element of mentorship.
Similarly, states like Alaska have recently established comprehensive K-12 AI frameworks centering on human oversight, ensuring that technology serves to augment human capabilities, critical thinking, and creativity—never to replace essential human interaction, grading integrity, or disciplinary judgment.[6]
V. Policy Recommendations for the Subcommittee
To ensure that the federal government supports an environment of innovation that honors parental authority, I respectfully urge the Subcommittee to consider the following guiding pillars:
- Do Not Over-Regulate Innovation at the Expense of Human Benefit: Avoid sweeping, top-down federal regulations that stifle the highly localized benefits of AI in classrooms. Safeguards cannot be called “pro-human” if they inadvertently eliminate the real-time human benefits of educational technology
- Tie AI Adoption to Transparency and Privacy Accountability: Ensure that any federal funding or guidance related to ed-tech adoption is strictly conditioned upon absolute transparency for parents and uncompromising data security for minor students.
- Protect and Expand Educational Flexibility: Recognize that as learning models fragment and personalize in the digital age, funding and policy should follow the student, allowing families to select the tech-rich or tech-free educational environments that align with their values.
VI. Conclusion
Artificial intelligence will undoubtedly shape the future landscape of American K-12 education. However, the introduction of sophisticated algorithms does not diminish the timeless, legal, and moral reality that parents are the ultimate guardians of their children’s intellectual development. By prioritizing educational choice, institutional transparency, and robust data privacy, policymakers can foster an environment where technology safely expands human potential without eroding the foundational role of the American family.
Thank you for your leadership on this critical issue and for considering these perspectives as you chart the path forward.
[1]https://www.edchoice.org/2025-graduates-of-unprecedented-times-were-naep-scores-always-this-low/
[2] https://www.edchoice.org/2025-parents-are-right-to-want-ai-in-k-12-education/
[3] https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5475742-ai-in-schools-parents-poll/
[4] https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/SB0149.html
[5] https://schools.utah.gov/informationtechnology/artificialintelligence/index
[6] https://education.alaska.gov/State_Board/october-2025/9.1_Alaska%20K12%20AI%20Framework_final_v2.pdf
