Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This analysis reveals how educational governance shapes AI's role in classrooms across China, the US, and Europe, suggesting new avenues for educational technology.
This chapter argues from a postdigital perspective that artificial intelligence's impact on future education is driven not just by technical capabilities, but by regional governance, platform infrastructures, and values. By analyzing 2024--2026 policy discourses, the study identifies three distinct regional models: the US promotes an ``innovation-market-workforce'' imaginary; China focuses on ``state-coordinated system-integration''; and Europe emphasizes a ``rights-based, human-centred'' regulatory approach. These divergent configurations deeply influence curriculum priorities, teacher labour, and knowledge production rather than merely the pace of AI adoption. Ultimately, the chapter shifts the focus from a technological benchmark ``arms race'' to questioning which values and actors are actually designing future classrooms. It concludes by highlighting the need for critical GenAI literacy, educational sovereignty, and public-interest educational technology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: