What Makes Education a Public Good?

Why should education be a public good? What should school really be for?

These questions launched the "Education as a Public Good Design Lab" convened by the Teaching, Learning, and Tech team at New America. Educators, researchers, students, developers, designers, technologists and policymakers gathered to explore these questions and design prototypes leveraging open educational resources/practices (OER/P) and AI to further education as a public good. The urgency of this work was underscored by the White House's pending executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education.

Brookings Institution researcher Emily Markovich Morris framed the Design Lab by outlining the many purposes of education across the globe; these can include economic development, civic engagement, well-being, cultural sustainability, and liberation. Morris noted that modern education often prioritizes economic development above all else. Regardless of place, research has found that despite families and communities playing a critical role in ensuring students have an equitable and meaningful education, they have no formal role in the education process.

New York City Public School Superintendent Alan Cheng echoed Emily’s research and advocated for re-orienting education to promote social mobility, democracy, and community-well being alongside workforce skills. As participant Louisa Rosenheck noted, “There was agreement among participants that school should be many things that it isn’t right now—a place that prepares students for such a rapidly-changing future, a place where they all feel valued and seen, a place that integrates socio-emotional learning, skills, and content.”

Turning to the potential of OER/P in supporting education designed for public good, Hewlett Foundation’s Angela DeBarger and Assistant to Superintendent for Academics and Student Services for Centennial School District Anthony Gabriele emphasized the importance of accessible and open learning. “OER/P are not only about being able to access resources, but also about students being able to see themselves in the learning. It’s the opposite of teaching a curriculum like a script. Teachers create curriculum to more deeply connect to what they want their student to learn, and, in turn, what students want to learn,” remarked Gabriele. In addition, the opportunity for teachers to co-create learning materials is critical to OER/P, allowing for a collaborative learning process and greater student interest in learning.

When it comes to technology, understanding the potential for misuse and abuse of AI is essential to creating the most effective and inclusive solutions for customized and adaptive learning. OCAD University’s Jutta Treviranus stressed that "AI must move at the speed of trust”—right now, AI prioritizes "believability over truth and popularity over fairness," disproportionately harming marginalized groups like people with disabilities. Thus, rather than moving toward a single design solution, Jutta shared a more inclusive process, the virtuous tornado to encompass more possibilities and access. The Center for Democracy and Technology’s Ruchika Joshi cautioned against treating AI as a universal solution, urging a focus on real-world problems and raised concerns about market incentives. Meanwhile, Digital Promise’s Pati Ruiz discussed responsible AI use in education, the environmental impact of AI, AI product certification and frameworks for ethical AI learning environments, and shared district-level examples. The collective message was clear: AI should be ethical, inclusive, and developed with community input to prevent exacerbating inequities.

High school students, undergraduates, and recent graduates provided invaluable insights into the realities of modern learning, both inside and outside the classroom. As education technology and AI rapidly evolve—accelerated by the pandemic—many students expressed frustration over the lack of formal guidance on how to use these tools effectively in education. One student put it bluntly: “The student the school is built around today isn’t a real student,” underscoring the disconnect between traditional education and the needs of today’s learners. When pressed further, she and others noted that today’s school is built for the average student with little consideration for health and well-being or community context. While opinions on AI in the classroom varied, students unanimously agreed on the need for balance—technology should enhance learning, not replace in-person instruction, ensuring that education remains a true public good.

Before moving into design teams, John Roberts, from Oak National Academy, demonstrated Aila, an open source AI-powered assistant to help educators in the UK tailor content for their classroom. It is the first state-funded, openly-licensed, fully-resourced curriculum for teachers and students in the UK, in line with UNESCO 2019 recommendation on OER. Since its launch in January 2025, John shared that one in three teachers use Aila, and of these 73 percent of users reported a positive impact on workload working on average 5 fewer hours per week. This demonstration provided participants an example of how OER and AI are driving quality and safety in the UK.

Participants all agreed that to ensure effective use of OER/OEP and AI tools, it must be 1) led by a thorough understanding of pedagogy before product or policy development, 2) include students and educators at the beginning of product and policy design, and 3) commit to human-centered design. One participant concluded, “Technology can be part of that process, but if it drives the train, it’s not going to get us to the destination.”

For the next 24 hours, participants worked in teams on projects aimed at prototyping curriculum and learning materials, teacher support and professional development, policies that support accountability beyond standardized benchmarks of performance, and research and development.

One design team set out to develop a tool for students who excel academically but struggle with soft skills and motivation to find value in learning. Their user persona, Casper, needed support from a teacher-mentor, self-advocacy resources, and a pedagogy that fosters engagement. To address these needs, the team explored pedagogical approaches such as co-creation between students and teachers, reciprocal teaching, and open educational resources for both teacher training and student development in executive function, engagement, and well-being.

Their product ideation featured an interactive avatar that engages students in conversation, informed by input from students, teachers, and inventories assessing skills, goals, learning needs, and out-of-school factors. The team hypothesized that by providing students with insights into their school engagement, the tool would empower them with greater agency and voice in their learning.

Another design team aimed to create a tool for a mid-career high school math teacher, Laila, with a large and diverse class. Laila found students disengaging from work due to the volume and differing needs of students—including those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. She needs resources such as adoptable lessons and resources to better differentiate and uncover strategies to support students—a tool that incorporates different learning styles and instruction, meets each student’s needs, and can showcase learning in multiple ways. The team created a product that allows Laila to pull goals, specially designed instructions (SDI) and accommodations within individualized education programs (IEP) to create clusters of similar needs. Now, instructional resources can be differentiated by students' needs and abilities. The prototype utilizes IEP-informed resources and develops recommendations to adjust activities and instruction to meet the needs of each student.

One team developed a prototype to help teachers synthesize their assets, foster dialogue, and develop a plan for improving their teaching superpowers for change. With feedback during the final hour of the Design Lab from other participants, the team decided to extend this superhero persona to students. Other prototypes in the early ideation stage included accessing OER content for students with specific needs and an open source AI-driven next generation portfolio system for students collaborative projects, reflection, and assessment.

Teams will continue to meet, and iterate on their prototypes, incorporate into existing work, and engage other partners and opportunities.

Participants recognized the opportunity to learn and work in teams with people of different expertise backgrounds, ages, and ideas as a categorical strength of the Design Lab. “The variety of participants helped to bring diverse perspectives and expertise to ideate some great solutions.” In particular, all voiced appreciation for the thoughtful inclusion of students. Some shared that, despite having a design background, they often jumped straight to solutions or sought feedback on their current projects. Having students in the room helped refocus the discussion on aligning a specific problem and stakeholder with a solution.

Participants also mentioned how much they valued the tangible resources shared such as an article using AI to better train new customer service representatives, rather than replace them. Other takeaways included using the virtuous tornado to design, remembering the importance of collaboration, thinking more generally about the effective uses of AI, leveraging gen AI tools like Aila to save educators' time, designing for joyful and equitable learning experiences, attending to the disengagement challenge, emphasizing the importance of including researchers in tech design and thinking, underscoring the need to intentionally incorporate families and teachers in design, and understanding the desire of students to have more teacher engagement, and less time on devices.