By: May Hara is an associate professor at Framingham State University and has taught middle school English and English as a second language in the New York City public school system. Annalee G. Good is an evaluator and researcher at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research at University of Wisconsin–Madison and has taught middle school social studies.
They are the authors of Teachers as Policy Advocates: Strategies for Collaboration and Change.
In recent months, educators across the country have engaged in heated debate around the impact of new artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT on classrooms and schools. Issues of plagiarism, data privacy, and potential impact on student learning are central to these discussions. Tools designed to respond to the unethical use of AI technologies in the classroom, such as a bot developed to detect ChatGPT use in assignments, bring with them a fresh set of considerations. Debates around the role of new technologies in the classroom include the perspectives of some educators who seek ways to thwart their use, as well as others who seek to support students in leveraging new tools for learning.
Schools, districts, and institutions of higher education are already in the process of developing policies to respond to the reality of tools such as ChatGPT. In one well-publicized example, the NYC Department of Education has announced plans to block access to ChatGPT on school networks and devices. At the K–12 and higher education levels, faculty and administrators confront the need to negotiate a commitment to academic honesty against considerations of student surveillance and data privacy.
It is critically important that those who work most closely with students be at the table when these policies are being developed. Policymakers will charge teachers and faculty with implementing, adapting, and responding to AI policy on the ground. Therefore, educators must be at the center of the policy design process from its inception. Too often, teachers are excluded from key steps of the policy cycle, including conceptualizing the policy problem, identifying policy solutions, writing actual policy text, and designing implementation and evaluation plans. The result can be policy that misses the mark precisely because it omits the knowledge of teachers. Over time, the absence of systemic attention to teachers’ expertise in schools, districts, and universities can become a push factor that leads to teachers leaving the classroom.
Policymaking in schools and teacher education programs does not have to be this way. As our own research into teachers and policy suggests, there are ways that school administrators, department chairs, and others in decision-making roles can ensure that teacher representation is a substantive part of AI policy design.
First, team leaders, principals, and other administrators can intentionally prioritize policy discussions relating to AI and ChatGPT. Time is always at a premium in schools, but administrators have some leeway, particularly in spaces already designated for faculty-wide discussion, to hold inclusive, whole-group conversations about policy matters that are of immediate relevance such as ChatGPT. This is also true in university teacher education programs, where increased transparency around new policy development can be an embodiment of programs’ beliefs that teacher policy engagement is critical to professional preparation. Those in decision-making power can make clear that important policy conversations must include all teachers.
Second, leaders can engage in mapping activities to identify key considerations on all sides of the topic and needed resources to develop an effective policy. Engaging in “concept mapping” with teachers can lead to a 360-degree view of the policy problem, including dimensions relating to student surveillance and data privacy that may have not been clear to those removed from day-to-day practice in classrooms. Similarly, engaging in “power mapping” with teachers can help identify existing resources and resource needs, including data and human capital considerations, to support policy efficacy. In teacher education, these activities can not only lead to policy choices that accurately incorporate the points of view of teacher candidates, but they can also represent much-needed professional learning in policy engagement for future teachers.
Third, leaders can create explicit opportunities for teachers to contribute not only to policy design, but to both the writing of policy texts and to its evaluation. At the K–12 level, this can look like opportunities for all teachers, not just those already in leadership positions, to sit on AI policy design teams. In university teacher education programs, teacher educators can provide hands-on practice in policy advocacy by designating seats for teacher candidates on teams that will be designing policies that directly impact them.
It is clear that schools and students deserve better integration of teacher voices into all aspects of the policy cycle. Long-term and institutional change in the role of teachers in policy making is necessary and long-awaited. In the meantime, individual teachers, principals, teacher educators, and policymakers can take action within their spheres of influence to advocate for a more easily-accessed, better-heeded teacher voice in policy. The current conversation around ChatGPT and AI technologies, with its myriad of implications for teaching and learning, represents a timely and important policy area in which to do so.
Photo by fauxels