Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a daily topic in the media, but Italian schools still keep it at the margins. University research may move forward, yet in the everyday life of pupils, AI is barely visible. This gap is striking because outside the classroom, students already interact with AI in search engines, translation tools, or even writing assistants, while inside school walls, they often return to methods unchanged for decades.
In primary schools (scuole elementari), the picture is very simple: AI does not exist. Teachers still depend on textbooks, handwriting drills, reading aloud, and basic arithmetic. Computers are used when available, but usually only for simple games or practice exercises. Teacher training programmes rarely include digital education, so most staff do not feel prepared to use AI-supported platforms even if these were offered. The result is a solid foundation in traditional skills, but no early exposure to digital reasoning.
Lower secondary schools (scuole medie) show small steps forward. Many have online platforms for homework submission and collaborative projects, sometimes with basic adaptive features. But these are exceptions, not the rule. Hardware is often outdated, technical support is minimal, and the curriculum is heavily tied to exam preparation. Teachers tend to “play it safe”, sticking with what is required, since introducing AI would mean extra workload with little official recognition. Students get more exposure to technology than in primary school, but AI remains something they hear about rather than use.
The situation becomes far more complex in upper secondary schools (scuole superiori). Technical and vocational institutes are the only places where AI is truly present, mostly in courses linked to computer science, robotics, or automation. Here, students may learn how algorithms function, write basic code, or build projects that apply machine learning to real-world problems. This gives them at least some practical literacy in AI, even if resources are uneven.
The licei, however, face a deeper challenge. Their programmes are built around classical, humanistic, or scientific traditions. A liceo scientifico may provide a solid base in mathematics and physics, but these do not automatically translate into AI literacy. Teachers often see AI as “outside the programme” and hesitate to integrate it. Without clear guidelines from the Ministry, they have little incentive to act. The risk is that liberal arts programs, which are meant to prepare students for university, leave them less prepared than technical school graduates when it comes to digital skills. A student who has studied Latin, Greek, and philosophy for five years may leave with strong critical thinking but no structured knowledge of the technology that now shapes society. This creates a paradox: the very schools designed to open doors to higher education risk closing them when it comes to new fields.
The obstacles are not hard to name: funding, training, and curriculum rigidity. But the consequence is that AI education in Italy develops unevenly, benefiting only those in certain technical tracks. The rest of the system continues as if AI were still a future issue, even though it is already shaping today’s workplaces and universities.
Until policymakers decide otherwise, Italian students will continue to meet AI on their phones before they ever meet it in their classrooms. And when that happens without guidance, they learn to use the tools but not to question them.
