THE HAGUE--A broad majority in the Dutch House of Representatives is supporting a proposal to prohibit primary school pupils from using generative artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT, amid growing concerns that reliance on the technology could undermine children's development of reading, writing, creativity, and critical thinking skills.
The proposal has attracted support from political parties across the ideological spectrum, reflecting increasing concern over the influence of artificial intelligence on education and the need to establish safeguards for younger students. But the government and school's cautioned against a total exclusion of AI.
The motion, introduced by Volt party leader Laurens Dassen together with the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), calls on the Dutch government to introduce formal restrictions on the use of generative AI by primary school pupils. Ten political parties representing 88 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives have backed the initiative, giving the proposal majority support ahead of a parliamentary vote scheduled for November 3.
The proposed restriction would apply to generative AI systems capable of producing written assignments, answering questions, creating images, and generating other content in response to user instructions. These include widely available applications such as ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Claude, which have become increasingly accessible to students.
Lawmakers supporting the measure argue that primary education is a critical period during which children develop essential intellectual abilities through reading, writing, mathematics, problem-solving, and independent thought. They are concerned that allowing pupils to depend on AI-generated answers could interfere with the development of those skills, particularly when children have not yet established a strong educational foundation.
Dassen has warned that the rapid introduction of artificial intelligence into classrooms could repeat mistakes associated with the early adoption of social media, when technology became widely available to children before its potential consequences were fully understood.
Although he acknowledges the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence, Dassen believes its use could widen existing educational inequalities. His position is that children should first acquire fundamental academic skills and learn how to evaluate information independently before relying on systems capable of generating answers and completing assignments.
CDA parliamentarian Etkin Armut has similarly argued that traditional learning methods should remain central to primary education. The party maintains that textbooks, direct instruction, and independent learning should provide the foundation of children's education, with technology serving as a supporting resource rather than replacing the learning process.
Despite the parliamentary support, the proposed restriction has not yet become government policy. State Secretary for Education Judith Tielen has expressed understanding of lawmakers' concerns but indicated that more consideration is needed before introducing a prohibition.
Tielen is working on a national digitalization strategy for education that will address the role of artificial intelligence and provide guidance to schools and teachers on responsible technology use. The government has emphasized the importance of helping educators respond to technological developments without rushing into measures that could create new challenges.
The proposed restriction also raises questions about how schools would implement and enforce a ban, particularly as artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into educational platforms, search engines, and other digital services.
A parliamentary motion is not legally binding on the government. Even if approved, the proposal would require further government action before any formal restriction could take effect.
Schools Warn Against Completely Excluding AI
The proposal has generated a wider discussion among educators about whether banning generative AI would protect children's learning or leave them inadequately prepared for a technology that is expected to play an increasingly important role in society.
The PO-Raad, the national organization representing Dutch primary school boards, has acknowledged concerns about excessive AI use, pointing to early research suggesting that heavy reliance on such tools can negatively affect learning outcomes. However, the organization has cautioned against imposing a complete ban without sufficient consultation with schools and education professionals.
Education specialist and primary school teacher Barend Last has also argued that children should not have unrestricted access to artificial intelligence, but that carefully supervised use could provide educational benefits. He believes excluding the technology entirely could prevent students from developing the knowledge and skills needed to understand its capabilities and limitations.
The disagreement highlights an important issue for education systems: the difference between teaching children about artificial intelligence and allowing them to use it to complete schoolwork.
Under new Dutch curriculum objectives scheduled to take effect in 2027, primary school pupils are expected to learn about artificial intelligence, recognize its presence in everyday technology, and understand how to interact with AI systems responsibly.
The parliamentary motion would not necessarily prevent such instruction. Instead, lawmakers want to limit pupils' direct use of generative AI while preserving opportunities for schools to teach digital literacy and explain how the technology works.
