The South Korean government bet heavily on artificial intelligence in classrooms with a million-dollar investment in digital textbooks. They promised more personalized learning, a reduction in teaching load and, generally speaking, fewer school dropouts. The reality It has been very different: after a single semester they stopped being mandatory and became complementary material, allowing each school to decide whether to use them or not. Few have continued using them.
A experiment that does not has worked. In March of this year a special program started educational promoted by then-president Yoon Suk Yeol: textbooks with artificial intelligence for mathematics, English and computer science. The government invested more than 1.2 trillion won (726 million euros at the exchange rate) in equipment and teacher training, while the publishers allocated another 800,000 million won (484 million euros) to the development of the material. Barely four months later, in August, parliament stopped considering them official texts after an avalanche of criticism. They are now optional supplementary material.
Problems that came from day one. Ko Ho-dam, a high school student on Jeju Island, explains it to Rest of World: “All of our classes were delayed due to technical problems. I didn’t know how to use them well either. Working only with my laptop, I had a hard time staying focused. The books didn’t offer lessons adapted to my level.” Complaints spread throughout the country. Students, teachers and families reported errors in the content, risks to data privacy, increased screen time and, paradoxically, a greater workload for both teachers and students, especially if at the beginning it was necessary to add time to adapt to the new system.
In a hurry. Representative Kang Kyung-sook, an opponent of the program, he questioned deadlines in parliament: “Traditional textbooks take 18 months to develop, nine to revise and six to prepare. But AI books took only 12, three and three months respectively. Why the rush?” Lee Bohm, researcher at the University of Cambridge, points out “AI should be tested first in homework or practice before being carefully introduced in class. The focus should be on how to integrate it into the school curriculum.”
Digitized classrooms and addiction. South Korea has been dealing with another technological problem for years: digital addiction among young people. According to psychiatrist Lee Hae-kook, professor at the Catholic University of Korea, “almost one in two young people is at risk of smartphone addiction,” a figure that, according to Le Monde, increased between 30% and 40% after the pandemic.
The country has had digital detox centers since 2002 and will ban mobile phones in schools starting March 2026. In this context, introducing more screens in classrooms has generated greater rejection. Jang Ha-na of the Political Mamas organization, which advocates for the well-being of women and children, expressed to the medium that “textbooks (with AI) worsen the effectiveness of learning. Once digital devices become central in classrooms, exposure to screens increases, weakening literacy and communication skills.”
Legal and political battle. According to the medium, even before the launch, teachers unions and civil groups They sued the then minister of education for abuse of authority, arguing that the program was “problematic” by making the use of AI mandatory, ignored risks to minors, and lacked data protection measures. The government moved from mandatory adoption to a voluntary test one year in January.
Yoon was ousted in April following his attempt to impose martial law, and new President Lee Jae Myung, who promised to reverse the policy, kept his word. According to explains Rest of World, the publishers that developed the texts announced lawsuits for financial damages. Hwang Geun-sik, president of the committee that represents them, explains that “companies that trusted the government saw the market suddenly disappear. Our business is reduced and staff cuts are inevitable.”
The figures say it all. The adoption rate collapsed from 37% in the first semester to 19% in the current one. Only 2,095 schools use them now, half of the number at the beginning of the school year. Among teachers, opinions are divided. Lee Hyun-joon, a mathematics teacher in Pyeongtaek, admits that “monitoring students’ progress was a challenge. The overall quality was poor.” In contrast, Kim Cha-myung, a primary school teacher near Seoul, recognize to the means that “they were convenient, helped save time and supported students with difficulties. But he also added that “the program failed because everything was rushed. It should have been implemented gradually after proving its effectiveness.”
llearned action. Kim Jong-hee, digital director of Dong-A Publishing, one of the developer publishers, defend that books “did not cause addiction to screens” and that they can reduce educational inequalities. But he acknowledges that “a key reason for the setbacks is that the issue became overly politicized.” “We no longer trust the government, and that is the biggest problem,” he added.
Cover image | Korea Times (Yonhap)
In Xataka | There is a national symbol that Japan has kept unchanged for generations: a very expensive school backpack
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings