A story on the introduction of the country’s first comprehensive guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence in basic education did not banner the headlines. Yet its significance runs deeper than many of the day’s louder events — from anti-corruption drives to protest mobilizations.

On Feb. 20, Education Secretary Sonny Angara issued Department Order No. 003, s. 2026 — the first national framework governing how AI may be used in Philippine basic education. Quiet as it seemed, the move signals a turning point. It acknowledges a reality many schools are already facing – artificial intelligence is no longer at the gates of education. It is inside the classroom.

Students use AI to draft essays, polish grammar, and brainstorm ideas. Teachers experiment with it to prepare lesson plans, generate quizzes, and analyze performance data. The technology’s rise has been swift — so swift, in fact, that policy has struggled to catch up.

That gap is what DepEd’s 49-page directive now seeks to close.

The fears surrounding AI in education are not imaginary. Many worry that instant answers may dull critical thinking. If a machine can compose an essay in seconds, will students still learn how to structure arguments? If a chatbot explains every concept, will learners wrestle with ideas long enough to truly understand them? And if AI can refine or even write a paper, will honesty erode unless clear rules demand disclosure?

DepEd’s guidelines confront these questions directly.

At the heart of the policy is a firm principle: AI is a tool, not a teacher. It may assist, but it must never replace human judgment. Teachers and learners remain at the center of the educational process. Even in high-risk areas such as grading, admissions, scholarships, and disciplinary decisions, AI cannot operate without strict human oversight.

Students are now required to disclose when and how AI tools are used in their work — whether for brainstorming, editing, or research. This simple but powerful requirement promotes transparency and accountability in an age when authorship can easily blur.

The guidelines also draw bright ethical lines. Prohibited are AI systems that engage in facial recognition scraping, biometric categorization, emotion detection, social scoring, or manipulative chatbot targeting of minors. In doing so, DepEd recognizes that data privacy and emotional safety are as important as technological efficiency.

Nationally, the policy supports broader government efforts to institutionalize AI responsibly. The Department of Science and Technology has launched the National Artificial Intelligence Center for Research and Innovation (NAICRI) as a central hub for AI research and governance. Last year, DepEd itself has established the Education Center for AI Research (E-CAIR) to develop AI-driven solutions for teaching, school administration, and learner support.

These initiatives demonstrate that government is not merely reacting to AI’s arrival; it is attempting to shape its trajectory.

Yet even the most sophisticated centers and frameworks will mean little if we forget one essential truth – education is not the transmission of information. It is the formation of judgment, character, and discernment.

Artificial intelligence can generate answers. It cannot cultivate wisdom. It can simulate language. It cannot replace mentorship. It can analyze data. It cannot assume moral responsibility.

The real challenge is how to integrate AI without surrendering the human core of education.

DepEd’s new guidelines are an important first step. They recognize innovation without idolizing it. They set boundaries without stifling progress. They send a clear message that modernization must remain anchored in values.

In the end, the measure of this policy will not be how widely AI is used in classrooms, but how well our students continue to think for themselves.