A school system that teaches technology but gives less attention to communication, critical reading and reasoning provides only part of the education students need
The Karnataka government has a good reason for introducing Artificial Intelligence as a vocational subject in Classes 9 and 10. AI is changing higher education, employment, and everyday life, and school students should understand the technology that will shape their future.
From 2026-27, AI is being introduced in 1,642 government high schools under the National Skills Qualifications Framework (NSQF). In schools where the NSQF vocational option is offered in place of the third language, students can choose AI instead. The issue, therefore, is not whether students need AI. It is whether learning AI should require them to give up a language.
Also read | Is English native or foreign? CBSE third-language rule sparks confusion in schools
More than 2,000 language teachers protested at Freedom Park in Bengaluru on September 21. They support AI education but object to it replacing the third language.
Beyond jobs and employability
The natural question is why the two have been placed in competition. They serve different purposes. AI provides technological knowledge and vocational skills. Language develops communication, reading, writing, and access to people, ideas, and cultures. There is no obvious educational reason for one to displace the other.
AI literacy is also different from vocational training in AI. School students need basic knowledge of how AI systems work, how they affect their lives, and how to assess their outputs. They should understand privacy, bias, and the reliability of AI-generated content. That is different from preparing them for a specific occupation. What kind of AI education does Karnataka intend to provide, and why does it need the space a language occupies?
Parents want employment prospects for their children, and governments want young people to acquire skills suited to a changing economy. Schools cannot ignore either concern.
Behind this question is a larger one about the purpose of schooling. Subjects are increasingly expected to prove their usefulness in the labour market. Parents want employment prospects for their children, and governments want young people to acquire skills suited to a changing economy. Schools cannot ignore either concern. However, even employers do not define useful skills narrowly.
Skills for a changing economy
The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 estimates that 39% of workers’ core skills will change by 2030. Analytical thinking remains the most important core skill, with seven in 10 employers considering it essential. Resilience, flexibility, leadership, and social influence also rank highly. AI and big data are among the fastest-growing skills, but creative thinking, curiosity, lifelong learning, and technological literacy are also expected to gain importance.
What does this tell us about the curriculum? Technological skills have to be developed alongside cognitive and human skills. The same report places reading, writing, and mathematics among relatively stable skills, though their importance is expected to decline slightly. It also lists multilingualism among the skills expected to grow by 2030.
Language education, therefore, is not an obstacle to employability. Language is more than a means of communication. It helps students develop, organise and express their thoughts and engage with people and ideas. These capacities remain relevant in a technology-driven economy.
Better teaching, not fewer languages
Language education in India has long been contentious, and defending it does not mean its teaching is beyond criticism. Periodic scrutiny and reform are necessary. However, before a subject is displaced, what students learn in language classes should be examined.
Also read | Three-language policy leaves students, parents, educators under stress | AI With Sanket
Stephen Krashen’s distinction between language acquisition and conscious learning also raises a question about how languages are taught in schools. If students mainly memorise rules for examinations, they may pass tests without gaining confidence in using a language. Better pedagogy would address that problem more directly than removing the subject.
The Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2024 offers further evidence of the wider language challenge. Only 67.5% of Class VIII students in government schools across India could read a Class II-level text. Of course, ASER’s test does not assess the third language, so the figure is not evidence about third-language learning. It does, however, point to weak language foundations that schools need to address. If basic reading remains a challenge, should the response be to reduce language opportunities further?
Balancing AI and language choices
The new initiative also raises questions about staffing. The government has directed participating schools to appoint an AI guest teacher for 2026-27, with an honorarium of ₹20,000 a month, and has said existing teachers will not be transferred. At the same time, language teachers have raised concerns about the August 10 high-school teacher recruitment rules.
They say recruitment of language teachers appears to focus on Kannada and English, although government schools have also taught Hindi, Sanskrit, Urdu, Telugu, Tamil, Marathi, Konkani, Tulu, Malayalam, and Arabic. If recruitment does not cover these languages, students may gradually have fewer choices.
Karnataka should improve both AI and language education and decide how much curricular time each deserves based on evidence, educational purpose, and implementation capacity.
So, what should the government do now? First, it should clarify the educational purpose of the AI programme. If the aim is basic AI literacy, the curriculum need not occupy the same space as a full vocational subject. If the aim is vocational training, the government should explain why this requires removing the third-language option. Second, it should examine whether AI can be offered as an elective or through additional curricular time without reducing language choices. Third, it should improve language teaching and align teacher recruitment with actual student demand for recognised languages.
Technology and language can coexist
A language should not disappear from a school simply because a teacher is no longer available. Finally, the government should independently evaluate the first year of AI education. The evaluation should measure AI learning, teaching quality, language participation, and learning outcomes. These findings should guide any decision to expand the programme.
Also read | Why NEP’s three-language formula has sparked a Centre-TN clash
AI education in today’s technology-driven world is necessary. Language education is necessary too. A school system that teaches technology but gives less attention to communication, critical reading, reasoning, and social and cultural understanding provides only part of the education students need.
Employability is an important purpose of education, but it cannot be the sole measure by which subjects survive. Karnataka should improve both AI and language education and decide how much curricular time each deserves based on evidence, educational purpose, and implementation capacity. Preparing students for a technological future should expand their learning opportunities, not force them to give up one form of learning for another.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal.)
