AI in schools, held to a human standard
The center of Dr. Tom D'Amico's work is not the machine but the school. He repeatedly returns to the idea that AI has to be judged by what it does to relationships, care, community, and learning conditions. That is why a post on an OECD report is framed around the reminder that human connection must remain at the core of schools.
His AI lens is evidence-seeking rather than promotional. PISA findings, meta-analyses, policy briefs, and international reports appear beside classroom-facing resources. The result is a steady habit of asking where AI helps, where it hurts, and what educators need to know before drawing simple conclusions.
Children's wellbeing is a recurring test of the technology. Posts on social media law, bullying, socio-emotional development, and online safety sit beside AI literacy material, making the topic feel less like a tools feed and more like a civic brief for schools responsible for young people.
The practical side is equally visible. District leaders, teachers, and policy teams are given questions to ask, examples to compare, and playbooks to adapt. Even product demos become occasions for governance: implementation, student engagement, academic integrity, and age-appropriate use are all part of the same conversation.
- Further reading
- Understanding how Canada's Safe Social Media Act will impact children and youth ... once it comes into effect
- Teachers Using AI Say It Frees Up Time for What Matters Most
- Portugal has released their Education AI Guidelines for input - Interesting to see their age bands (AI translated version in the comments)
- Impact of AI on children’s socio-emotional and cognitive competences - ENESET 2026 (European Union)
- Trying to figure out A&E in the age of AI? The updated Academic Integrity Policy from the International Baccalaureate is a good exemplar to consider