A Lesson on AI from the NYC Public Schools
Yesterday, I read an article in the New York Times about how the New York City Public Schools are guiding teachers on how to properly utilize AI tools in their classrooms - the first guidance from the NYC DOE - modeled after other large urban school districts across the country - including Chicago and Denver. NYC teachers are being encouraged to use AI only to generate lesson ideas, support research, and even help draft classroom materials, but it cannot be used to grade student work or handle discipline. I think that this is a really important line in the sand, and frankly, I couldn’t agree more with that guidance. For the last few years, the conversation around AI in education has swung between two extremes. On one side, some startups and venture capitalists are extolling that AI is the future of everything. On the other side, it’s something to block, ban, or fear. What New York City is doing instead is much more practical. They are treating AI as a tool for teachers, not a replacement for teachers. And in my opinion, that’s exactly how music educators should be thinking about it.
If you’ve ever sat down on a Sunday afternoon (or late in the evening) trying to plan out a week of rehearsals, warm-ups, listening examples, and differentiated activities, you know how time consuming that process can be. This is where AI can be incredibly helpful. It can generate rehearsal ideas, suggest repertoire connections, or even draft parent communication emails in seconds. Used well, it gives teachers more time to focus on what actually matters: working with students. Tools lie ChatGPT, Claude, MagicSchool and even the MusicFirst Assistant can be really helpful for these types of planning activities. But grading? That’s different.
While using automated assessment tools like PracticeFirst powered by MatchMySound or Sight Reading Factory can be very helpful in collecting assessment data for large groups of students over time, I don’t know any music teachers who use those grades as the sole way of assessing their students. Assessment in music is not just about whether something is correct. It’s about interpretation, expression, growth, and context. A performance is not a multiple-choice test. A composition is not just a set of right or wrong answers. When we evaluate students, we are listening for nuance, effort, and intent. Those are deeply human judgments. AI can’t replace that.
There’s also a trust factor between students and their music teachers that is unique to music education. When a student submits a recording or performs in front of you, they are taking a risk. They are putting themselves out there. Turning that moment over to an algorithm removes the human connection that makes teaching meaningful in the first place. It is my firm belief that software tools that assess student performance should always be used in tandem with real-time, in person assessment. In lessons, rehearsals, performances - everything that we do as music educators.
Research and early classroom experience back this up. AI can be useful for providing quick feedback, but it can also introduce bias and miss important context about individual students. That’s why keeping a human in the loop is not just a recommendation. It’s essential. What New York City is really saying is this: AI can support the work, but it cannot replace professional judgment. And thank goodness for that. For music educators, this opens up a very clear path forward and reinforces the need to have a highly trained educator in the room. Always. Use AI to save time. Use it to explore ideas. Use it to enhance creativity. But keep the core of teaching firmly human.
The irony here is that I believe the more powerful AI becomes, the more valuable human teaching becomes as well. Students don’t just need information. They need guidance, feedback, and someone who understands them as individuals. That’s something music teachers do naturally all the time, and certainly no algorithm can replicate. If anything, this policy is a reminder of what our role really is. Technology can help us prepare. It can even help us reflect. But when it comes to teaching, listening, and evaluating students, the human element is not optional. It’s the whole point.
What do you think about this article and the stance that the NYC Public Schools are taking? How are they similar or different to your own beliefs - or your district’s policies?