Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Mike Rounds (R-SD) recently introduced the Literacy in Future Technologies Artificial Intelligence (LIFT AI) Act, a bipartisan bill that would create a competitive, merit-based grant program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) to fund K-12 AI literacy curriculum and educator training.
Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI have endorsed the bill alongside the Information Technology Industry Council and the Software & Information Industry Association. Even the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has signed on, creating a coalition that's as unlikely as it is formidable. But education leaders who truly want to help students navigate an AI-driven world are right to be skeptical.
Any education grants whose criteria are shaped by Big Tech, its lobbyists, and the current administration warrant a closer look. And the bill's own words reveal priorities that have little to do with student agency. This article dissects the LIFT AI Act to reveal what's in store for U.S. schools and suggests ways to develop frameworks that actually empower students.
What is AI literacy?
The World Economic Forum describes AI literacy as something that "isn’t just about teaching coding or understanding algorithms. It’s about building a foundation of competencies that empower learners to navigate an AI-integrated world with confidence and purpose." Likewise, UNESCO's AI competency framework for students explicitly calls on schools to help students "understand and assert their agency in relation to AI."
LIFT AI defines AI literacy as "the age-appropriate knowledge and ability to use artificial intelligence effectively, to critically interpret outputs, to solve problems in an AI-enabled world, and to mitigate potential risks." It looks fine at first glance. But absent from the bill is any meaningful reference to student agency, including the right to opt out entirely.
It's also worth noting who's backing this definition. Big Tech funding a federal AI literacy initiative smacks of a casino hosting a webinar on responsible gambling. And because it's universities and nonprofits, not the schools themselves, that would apply for these grants, K-12 educators would have no say in the framework being built for them.
Who's in charge of the curriculum?
The bill would authorize the NSF to grant awards to universities and nonprofits for K-12 AI literacy curriculum, professional development, evaluation tools, and "additional activities determined appropriate by the Director." Grantees would then develop lesson plans, project guides, and slide decks as well as training modules and assessment tools delivered through third‑party platforms. It would then be up to K-12 administrators to decide whether to adopt these materials or form their own AI literacy framework.
Currently, the office of the NSF director is vacant: Sethuraman Panchanathan resigned amid the April 2025 funding cuts. The president's nominee—Jim O'Neill, a tech investor with no formal scientific or engineering background—awaits confirmation in the Senate. Meanwhile, the ongoing dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education means federal K-12 oversight is being redistributed to agencies that are not primarily oriented toward K-12 education, raising concerns about accountability to schools and students.
The bill's own words reveal where that accountability actually lies. Its preamble prioritizes "fostering early exposure to AI concepts and technology to develop an AI-ready workforce and the next generation of AI innovators in the United States." It goes further, citing adversaries that pursue AI "for the purposes of surveillance, weaponization, and economic competition" and framing the goal as "maintaining United States leadership through an AI literate public."
With language that positions students less as learners than as policy pawns, schools that adopt LIFT AI-funded tools should proceed with caution.
What will LIFT AI cost schools?
None of this is to say schools shouldn't benefit if LIFT AI becomes law. Schools that choose to forge their own framework will soon find that AI professional development and curriculum resources can be prohibitively expensive, costing potentially tens of thousands of dollars per year once subscriptions, training, and ongoing IT support get factored in.
But even schools that choose to adopt LIFT AI-funded materials should expect more than a one‑time rollout of curriculum resources and lesson plans. They’ll be committing to ongoing implementation work, like rewriting pacing guides, aligning those materials to state standards, and continually training teachers. They should also expect to pay extra for premium features such as analytics, auto‑grading, and vendor support.
Privacy and compliance burdens add yet another cost: once K-12 schools adopt LIFT AI-funded tools, they must still vet those tools for FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act), and state‑level data privacy rules. Additionally, they must manage consent, maintain records about where student data flows, and stand ready to respond to incidents—tasks requiring staff time, legal review, and ongoing, audit‑ready documentation.
Of course, adopting a grant-funded AI curriculum can have non-monetary costs as well, including pressure to narrow instruction around compliance-driven metrics and the sidelining of teachers’ voices. Public school teachers in Texas already have little room to push back on a curriculum shaped by STAAR, the state’s controversial standardized test. Add a federally funded AI literacy program like LIFT AI, and the pressure on teachers to follow externally defined priorities would almost certainly intensify.
LIFT AI has yet to become law, but with backing from Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and the AFT, it has the momentum to get there. Schools should start thinking through their approach now.
How schools can rewrite the narrative
Adopting LIFT AI tools doesn't have to mean capitulating to a framework your school didn't design. Districts can still foreground student agency, even if the materials lean toward workforce‑readiness metrics. Ways to foster informed and empowered AI use in students include:
- Drafting an AI‑use policy that centers agency over output.
- Vetting all tools (LIFT AI-funded or not) for FERPA, COPPA, and state privacy rules.
- Teaching students to start with their own thinking, then use AI to challenge and refine it.
- Investing in teacher‑driven professional development and regularly auditing both AI’s academic and emotional impact.
Schools that decide now what AI literacy means to them won't have to wait to find out what LIFT AI decides, and they'll be better positioned to use its tools on their own terms.
