It seems inevitable that a large portion of writing in the future will be AI-generated or AI-assisted, so in that sense it's at least realistic to allow these tools. However, the more important point, to my mind, is that the debate really highlights an underlying philosophical problem in the education system itself; i.e., learning isn't about getting good grades or being "competitive", it's about... well... learning.

Part of the reason it's worth actually learning to write well is that it requires you to learn to think clearly, and to organize your thoughts in a way that can be understood by a reader. Reading is thinking—or at least it drives thinking—and, as such, a badly written article or essay can make a subject far more difficult to understand than the content alone actually indicates. A poor writer can make simple ideas hard to follow, just as an excellent writer can make complex ideas comprehensible. That requires skill in thought, not just grammar and syntax or juggling clauses.

So my concern would be that leaning too heavily on AI-generative/assistive tools in education will limit the student's capacity for clear thinking. That is, it will reduce the benefit of the education itself. Some will likely think that's far-fetched, but I really don't think it is.

PS: I can imagine a situation where students could be assisted in developing their thinking skills by working with these kinds of writing tools, but I think that would require a specialized type of UX. For example, a tool could be designed in such a way as to interactively build a kind of whiteboard or mind map to help students organize their thinking, before simply churning out paragraphs on the subject at hand.