Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
Driving past Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, I noticed a billboard that reads something like, “We treat your cancer like it’s YOUR cancer.” The message is more than a slogan. It captures a growing conviction that generic approaches are no match for serious threats to human health.
What distinguishes places like Fred Hutch is not just advanced science, but disciplined systems: shared clinical protocols, team-based decision-making and constant feedback between research and practice. These are the hallmarks of precision medicine, fueled by advanced diagnostics, data and generative artificial intelligence, and they are delivering transformative results in treating diabetes, heart disease and cancer. AI-assisted screenings are catching aggressive cancers earlier, as new models can analyze previously unexplained genetic mutations to forecast health risks.
Of course, education is not medicine. Learning is not governed by biology alone, student outcomes are harder to define and schools have nothing like the professional norms or accountability structures of clinical care. But that is the point: Precision medicine began with a refusal to accept broad variations in care when better evidence and tools were available.
AI is already in classrooms across the country, but mostly to help teachers save time or give extra support to children with disabilities or language barriers. What if all students could attend schools that said, “We treat learning like it’s your learning,” offering precision education: a supportive environment harnessing human expertise and technology to deliver truly customized solutions for every child?
That reality is closer than we think. AI gives educators the potential to understand, diagnose and respond to students’ learning needs with a specificity that was previously impractical at scale. It can rapidly surface a child’s learning gaps and strengths in math and recommend targeted interventions. But that information alone does little; AI’s power lies in being embedded in professional workflows, guiding adults toward specific, evidence-based actions and tracking whether those measures improve learning over time. To effect genuine change, AI must be accompanied by a reevaluation of the systems that contain it.
Two New Reports Urge ‘Human-Centered’ School AI Adoption
AI could improve instructional quality, for example, but only alongside a broader rethinking of the teacher’s role. Rather than incrementally improving one educator’s ability to reach every student, AI could serve a team of instructional professionals, each with specialized expertise. AI tutoring tools can help students fill learning gaps, but even the best have low persistence rates. Their effectiveness depends on student motivation or intensive adult oversight. Without structural change, AI risks exacerbating achievement gaps rather than closing them.
And perhaps most importantly: Far too many students simply don’t like school. They find it boring and irrelevant, struggle with mental health and lack strong adult mentors. Families, educators and policymakers are calling for something more joyful. All of this points to a fundamental design choice: whether AI will reinforce the existing classroom model or become the backbone of a genuinely different support system for young people.
Personalized learning was intended to accomplish this. But despite its popularity, it too often amounts to little more than self-paced software or playlists of digital content, mired in low expectations and disconnected from evidence-based teaching. CRPE’s own studies of personalized learning schools show how easily these efforts become convoluted, mushy and unmoored from rigor.
Precision learning is fundamentally different. It would enable educators to use technology, data and evidence to identify exactly where a student is struggling, which interventions are most likely to work and how to deliver them effectively and equitably. This is a commitment to evidence over intuition, to shared professional standards over individual preference, to accountability for results rather than good intentions. Personalization asks educators to adapt and give students more choices. Precision demands that state, district and school leaders change how decisions are made, implemented and evaluated.
New Interactive Map Showcases Personalized Learning in All 50 States
Rather than ed tech and personalized learning initiatives that fail because they aren’t grounded in evidence and continuous improvement, education needs an accountability infrastructure that looks more like medicine’s standard of care: a shared professional and ethical baseline for which treatments must be offered. In medicine, deviating from those standards can mean malpractice. Education has no comparable expectation, and introducing one would be uncomfortable. It would force hard conversations about professional autonomy, preparation and responsibility when students fail to learn. But avoiding those discussions carries costs: persistent inequity, uneven instructional quality and the normalization of low achievement.
The effort must start with defining what precision learning means and holding educators and developers accountable for its implementation. Ed tech developers should embed decades of learning science into their designs, just as medical software embeds clinical guidelines. Schools of education should lead the field in conducting and disseminating state-of-the-art research and training educators to use it, much as medical schools run clinical trials and keep practitioners current. And just as the federal government once seeded the Human Genome Project, a reimagined Institute for Education Sciences could lead a national effort to map the “learning genome” — a shared, continuously updated knowledge base of what works, for whom and under what conditions.
States have a unique role in creating the conditions for precision learning at scale. Specifically, they can:
Build precision learning consortia that bring together educators, researchers and ed tech companies to develop and test solutions and share results publicly, These consortia should make targeted investments in organizations with a proven track record of designing and implementing these approaches.
Align incentives and accountability systems so precision learning becomes a professional expectation, not an option. Just as medical boards define best practices for care, states could convene researchers, practitioners and technologists to establish precision learning protocols, perhaps starting with reading and math, where the evidence base is strongest.
Rethink the role of the teacher. In a precision learning model, “the teacher” would no longer be a single role expected to diagnose, design, deliver, remediate, counsel and motivate simultaneously. Schools would instead deploy differentiated teams, with some adults specializing in diagnostics and data interpretation and others in instruction, mentorship or intervention, all supported by AI systems that surface evidence and guide decisions. This is more a labor redesign than a technological shift, requiring that states fundamentally rethink the role of the teacher, including certification requirements and salary schedules. Precision learning would replace the one-teacher-does-it-all model with specialized teams, backed by AI that surfaces insights and supports better decisions.
Ensure all schools have the resources, devices and staff training needed for participation in precision learning. The greatest risk of AI-driven precision learning is that it deepens divides if access is limited to affluent schools. In medicine, precision treatments began as elite offerings before standards and insurance systems made them broadly available. Education must skip that inequitable phase entirely.
If a patient were dying and a proven treatment existed, it would be unthinkable for a doctor to withhold it. Yet in classrooms, students fall further behind every day, even when research-based solutions exist to help them succeed.
Don’t Destroy Institute of Education Sciences, Rebuild It With Students in Mind
In medicine, good intentions are not enough. They must be paired with evidence, standards and accountability. Education deserves the same seriousness, because the stakes are just as high. Precision learning is not about replacing teachers or chasing the next shiny technology. It is about building the professional, moral and structural capacity to deliver what we already know works for every student.
We have much of the science. We have the technology. What we need is the will, and the infrastructure, to bring them together.
AI can’t fix education on its own. But it can provide the precision educators have always needed and never had. If we get this right, we’ll look back on this era as the moment we began treating learning like what it truly is: a vital, individual and human process worthy of the same precision, urgency and care that doctors bring to saving lives.
Did you use this article in your work?
We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how
