In the 2023-2024 school year, when Director of Technology Chip Hale created an artificial intelligence (A.I.) ad hoc committee with Middle School Librarian Ruffin Powell, the question they were asking felt largely hypothetical: how might A.I. tools someday change teaching, learning, and the daily life of our school?
That “someday” arrived fast.
The committee has since expanded to include Director of Curriculum Lisa Wilson Carboni and Assistant Head for Teaching and Learning John Sharon. Their perspectives on artificial intelligence vary, but everyone agrees: the use of A.I. demands critical attention and thoughtful discernment.
Holding Complexity
When Chip attended a state-wide conference on technology in education last fall, he estimated that more than half of the sessions focused on implementing A.I. in schools as quickly and comprehensively as possible.
“Most folks at the conference were all in—not pumping the brakes,” Chip reflected.
Meanwhile, as Ruffin connected with librarians from other Quaker schools, she encountered a much more skeptical tone toward the technology: artificial intelligence prioritizes speed, efficiency, and scale, while Quaker education asks us to slow down, seek truth together, and remain accountable to one another and the Earth. And for every benefit A.I. promises, an equally pressing concern exists, such as:
- Inclusivity vs. Bias: A.I. can help create more inclusive classrooms by supporting students with diverse learning needs. At the same time, research has shown that generative tools can reproduce biases and amplify harmful stereotypes.
- Convenience vs. Sustainability: The technology offers unprecedented convenience; however, that convenience carries massive environmental costs. Beyond the enormous energy and water demands required to train and operate large-scale models, the intensive mining of raw materials for A.I. hardware inflicts severe, toxic damage on local ecosystems.
- Insight vs. Privacy: A.I. can analyze vast amounts of information and identify patterns humans might miss. But sharing data with these systems raises ominous questions about privacy, ownership, and surveillance.
Such tensions resist black-and-white conclusions.
To explore this further, Chip and Ruffin attended “A.I. Across Friends Schools,” a gathering at George School in Newtown, PA, that brought together educators and administrators from Quaker institutions across the country. Unlike many technology conferences centered purely on rapid A.I. adoption, this event invited participants to dwell in its complexity.
“As Quaker educators, we are deeply practiced in questioning, listening, and sitting with uncertainty,” Ruffin said.
Designed as an “unconference,” the two-day event was entirely participant-driven. Attendees proposed conversation topics on sticky notes, collectively determined the agenda, and moved freely among sessions. Throughout the entire experience, their shared Quaker testimonies—simplicity, peace, integrity, community, equality, and stewardship (SPICES)—served as ethical touchstones.
A Living Document, Guided by Queries
One message echoed throughout the conference: trying to write a permanent A.I. policy today is like trying to carve internet regulations into stone back in 1995. Because the technology is evolving so quickly, guidance must be grounded in core values rather than fixed prescriptions.
At Carolina Friends School, the ad hoc committee has met this challenge by developing the “AI Guidance for Staff Use” document, now integrated into the staff handbook. Rather than relying on rigid rules, the framework anchors itself in queries designed to inspire ongoing conversations and discernment.
While certain boundaries are non-negotiable—student information must remain private and staff are to use only the school’s secure Google Gemini platform—the day-to-day application of A.I. is left to some professional discernment.
Because of this, the integration of A.I. looks different from classroom to classroom. Many teachers are already weaving media literacy training into their lessons, explicitly outlining where technology can enhance the learning process and where it threatens to cut corners around critical thinking.
Ultimately, the goal for us is to protect the heart of a Friends education. The productive struggle of wrestling with complex ideas, learning from mistakes, and discovering one’s own voice cannot be outsourced to an algorithm—nor can the sacred work of learning to live in community. These require a deeply human connection.
What’s Next
As artificial intelligence reshapes education, perhaps the most important questions are not about what these tools can do, but what kind of people we hope our students become. The committee is next working on documented guidance for student use, mindfully tailored for different age groups.
Technology will continue to evolve. New tools will emerge. Policies will shift and adapt. But the practices that have guided Friends education for generations—deep listening, thoughtful questioning, communal discernment, and a commitment to truth—offer a constant compass.
There are no easy answers, and the ad hoc committee isn’t rushing to fabricate them. But as Carolina Friends navigates this new frontier, the community is proving that the best way to face an uncertain technological future is to lean heavily into our oldest, most deeply held human traditions.
— Erin Reitz Adams