What Does the USDoE Guidance on AI Actually Mean?
This past Tuesday, July 22nd, the U.S. Department of Education released new guidance encouraging the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, along with a proposed supplemental grant-making priority to advance AI in education. I was encouraged to see the Department of Education do anything positive, as we all know that the current state of affairs there is anything but. But what does this new guidance say, and what does it actually mean? Obviously you cannot ignore the political implications that this guidance may have. As music educators preparing for the upcoming school year, this announcement is worth paying close attention to—not just for what it says about AI, but for what it might signal about the broader direction of federal education policy.
The Department’s “Dear Colleague Letter” outlines a number of compelling use cases for AI in K–12 education, from personalized instructional tools to AI-enhanced tutoring and career exploration platforms. In music classrooms, the implications are exciting. With the right tools, we can imagine using AI to provide real-time feedback on student performances, analyze musical compositions, and support differentiated instruction in a way that’s hard to achieve when we’re juggling 100+ students and a concert deadline. And yes, this guidance makes it clear that such uses of AI are allowable under existing federal education funding—provided they follow privacy and ethical guidelines.
The DoE frames AI as a tool to sharpen critical thinking, personalize learning, and prepare students for the challenges of tomorrow. There’s no doubt that these are worthy goals—and many of us in music education have already begun to explore how AI can help students become more independent musicians, composers, and thinkers. Tools like PracticeFirst, Sight Reading Factory, Soundtrap, Moises, and even newer AI-based notation and transcription platforms offer real potential to enhance instruction without replacing the teacher’s role.
But it’s hard to ignore the political undertones here. This guidance was released in direct response to President Trump’s April 23 Executive Order on advancing AI education. On one hand, it’s encouraging to see federal leadership paying attention to AI and its potential to improve schools. On the other, it raises valid questions about whether this is truly about empowering educators—or about pushing a particular political narrative that favors deregulation, state control, and the rapid adoption of emerging technologies, regardless of readiness.
The inclusion of AI as the fourth proposed priority—following evidence-based literacy, school choice, and “returning education to the states”—is telling. While AI deserves serious discussion and investment, its placement alongside heavily politicized issues could risk turning it into a symbolic talking point rather than a well-supported instructional strategy. For music teachers, that means we’ll need to tread carefully. We should remain open to what AI can do for our students, but we should also remain grounded in what we know works: authentic, human-centered instruction guided by trained, empathetic educators.
The Department emphasizes the importance of engaging stakeholders—especially parents—when introducing new technologies. That’s a good reminder for all of us, particularly when using AI tools that analyze student data or provide algorithm-driven feedback. Transparency, consent, and clear communication are essential. But we should also be cautious about policies that appear to offload decision-making to the states while introducing federally driven tech initiatives. The messaging may be mixed, and navigating that tension will likely fall to teachers and administrators on the ground.
That said, this guidance does create a meaningful opening for music educators. If you’ve been exploring AI tools, this could be the moment to seek funding to expand your program. If your district is preparing a grant application, you might find new ways to advocate for music technology as part of that process. And if you’ve been curious about how AI could support your students—whether through composition tools, adaptive assessment, or rehearsal software—now is the time to learn more, experiment, and contribute to the broader conversation. Obviously I would recommend speaking with your MusicFirst Education Manager about all of the tools that are under our umbrella that could be funded with this new initiative.
The Department is inviting public comment on this proposed AI priority until August 20, 2025. As music educators, we should take that invitation seriously. Our voices matter, not just in shaping how AI is used in our classrooms, but in making sure that policies reflect real educational needs—not just political agendas. If AI is going to help shape the future of learning, let’s ensure it supports the full range of student expression, creativity, and growth that music education uniquely provides.