Bangladesh’s education system, from primary school to the HSC examination, has mostly been built around marks earned through memorisation. GPA-5 has largely become less a measure of understanding and more about how faithfully a student can reproduce a model answer, a formula or a paragraph learnt by heart. This approach was already inadequate for preparing youth; AI has now made it virtually obsolete.
Human thinking operates in two broad modes. The first is the lower-order cognitive mode: memorising facts, understanding them, and applying them to familiar problems. It’s efficient and the mode our curricula, coaching centres, and board exams have spent decades optimising. The second is the higher-order mode: analysing relationships, weighing motives, making ethical judgements, building new solutions for problems that have no memorised answer. It’s mentally demanding and largely what our system fails to reward.
AI has advanced disruptively in the first mode. Storing information, retrieving it, and matching patterns are essentially probability exercises, and machines do it faster than any student. A tool that can write a competent English composition or solve a board exam maths problem in seconds does not just help a struggling student. It makes the entire skill our system tests for less valuable.
This is the uncomfortable truth Bangladesh’s education policy has yet to confront: we are the ideal environment for AI to erode independent thinking. For decades, “notebooks” and commercial guides have sold Bangladeshi students pre-written answers to memorise. AI automates and personalises the same shortcut at zero cost and infinite scale. The incentive for a student to actually think is disappearing faster here than in most places. Left unaddressed, we risk producing a generation fluent in prompting AI but not trained to evaluate, question or build on what it gives them. Known in psychology as “cognitive offloading,” locally this is just a high-tech evolution of the GPA-5 problem. It replaces traditional notebooks with a powerful crutch that perfectly mimics the student’s writing style.
The response, however, must not be banning AI in classrooms. The real task is to redesign what we ask students to do, so AI becomes a sparring partner for higher-order thinking rather than a substitute for it. Estonia’s “AI Leap” programme, which is rolling out AI tutors nationally at the secondary level, is a useful reference point, but it’s built for a system that tests reasoning. Ours hardly does, and that is precisely where reform must begin.
Assessment must be reformed before curriculum. As long as SSC and HSC exams reward reproduction of memorised answers, no curriculum change will matter. Students and coaching centres will find new ways to game the old test. Introducing components that require analysis, argument, and original reasoning, even gradually, would do more to redirect classroom behaviour than any technology mandate.
Higher-order training should start earlier. Analytical and evaluative thinking is currently treated as something reserved for university research. It should begin in lower secondary school (roughly classes 7-8), through assignments that ask students to weigh motives, debate ethics, or propose original solutions, tasks a chatbot can assist with but not complete.
AI tutors that question rather than answer should be piloted. Rather than leaving students with unsupervised access to general-purpose chatbots, the NCTB and ICT Division could pilot Socratic AI tools, tuned to probe and guide rather than resolve, in a small number of schools before wider rollout.
Bangladesh’s AI-in-education conversation has focused heavily on student-facing tools and far too little on teachers. A teacher who cannot design an assignment resistant to copy-paste AI use, or understand what these tools can do, cannot be expected to guide students through it. Any serious policy has to start here.
The ICT Division and university education departments are better positioned to run flexible, evidence-generating pilots in select districts or grade levels than a ministry bureaucracy is to design and enforce a national policy on a new technology. The pilot initiatives must also be honest about the urban-rural and internet divides. What is learnt from these pilots, tracked systematically by universities and the UGC, should shape the eventual national rules.
The Industrial Revolution redefined physical labour and forced schools to teach differently. AI is now doing the same to mental labour. The choice in front of us is not whether to let AI into our classrooms, but whether we keep training students to do what the machine now does better or finally start training them to do what it still cannot.
H.M. Sabbir Hossain is a graduate student of international relations at the University of Chittagong.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
