Connect with us

Education

What Trump’s Draft Executive Order on AI Could Mean for Schools

Published

on


A draft executive order from President Donald Trump aims to integrate artificial intelligence across K-12 education, with potentially significant ramifications for schools.

The order would instruct federal agencies to take steps to teach students how to use AI, train teachers to incorporate it into their tasks, and partner with the private sector to develop relevant programs in schools, according to the Washington Post, which obtained a copy of the draft order and first reported about it.

AI, and more specifically America’s competitiveness in this technology, has become a major focus of the Trump administration, said John Bailey, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Another focus of the administration is China, which recently announced its own policy that aims to integrate AI into its education systems, said Bailey.

“When you combine those two things, it’s not surprising to me that you would see the administration leaning into this moment to say that we should be tasking the agencies to explore different ways of leveraging AI to kind of help with workforce issues, with AI literacy,” he said.

If Trump signs it, the order would come at an important time, Bailey said, for schools to harness the technology to accelerate learning as students’ math and reading scores continue to lag.

But carrying out a federally led initiative—whether it’s an executive order or something else—to integrate AI wholesale into America’s K-12 schools could meet several hurdles. Among them: A slimmed down federal government with less funding, staffing, and expertise may struggle to carry out the draft order’s directives, and states may be resistant to the Trump administration’s efforts.

What the draft executive order on AI in schools would require

The copy of the order obtained by The Post is marked “predecisional,” which means it could change before the president signs it or the administration could scrap it altogether.

As it is currently written, the executive order would establish a White House task force on educating young people about artificial intelligence chaired by the director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy and including the secretaries of education, agriculture, labor, and energy, as well as Trump’s special adviser for AI and cryptocurrency, according to The Post.

The draft order reportedly instructs the task force to identify existing federal funding that can be directed toward the effort, and it tells Education Secretary Linda McMahon specifically to prioritize federal grant funding for training teachers on how to use AI. The order states that all educators should receive professional development on incorporating the technology into all subject areas. Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer would be tasked with developing registered apprenticeship programs in AI-related jobs.

The draft order further instructs relevant federal agencies to prioritize spending on AI and seek out public-private partnerships with academia, industry, and nonprofits to teach students AI literacy and critical thinking skills.

Finally, the order would create an AI competition for students and educators called the “Presidential AI Challenge,” according to The Post.

The departments of education and labor and the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy did not respond to requests for comment.

These are all promising goals, said Pat Yongpradit, the chief academic officer of Code.org, a nonprofit that promotes computer science education.

“A lot of the points made in the [draft] executive order … are positive things, especially the focus on AI literacy and critical thinking skills,” he said.

AI literacy, however, shouldn’t just focus on how to use AI as noted in the draft order, said Yongpradit, who also leads TeachAI, an initiative supporting schools in using and teaching about the technology. Comprehensive AI literacy should include learning how to interact and collaborate creatively with the technology, effectively manage AI’s actions, and responsibly design AI solutions, he said.

Yongpradit, who has not seen a copy of the draft order, said he’s interested to see what this would look like in practice.

“Professional development is key for changing classroom practice, but it needs to be high quality,” he said.

Joseph South, the chief innovation officer for ISTE+ASCD, said he’s encouraged by the reported contents of the draft executive order. What he would like to see is more support for education leaders, he said.

South said that when he led the office of education technology during the Obama administration, he saw a lot of professional learning on ed tech for teachers, but “almost no support for leaders around ed tech.

“I’d love to see that become an element of the final [executive order],” he said.

National AI priority would be difficult without federal support

But starting a nationwide initiative to promote AI integration into K-12 teaching and learning could be difficult given recent funding and staffing cuts to the U.S. Department of Education and other federal agencies, experts say.

For example, the team at the Education Department that was tasked with framing a national educational technology plan under multiple administrations and assisting states and districts in implementing technology in schools was recently eliminated as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to trim the federal workforce and ultimately eliminate the Education Department. The department now has about half the number of staff as it did when Trump took office.

“It’s hard to kind of understand at a time when they’re deprioritizing federal education policy and priorities, how to reconcile that with establishing a national priority in this area [of AI],” said Bailey, a former director of the Office of Educational Technology during the George W. Bush administration. However, he said, a more streamlined Education Department might be better able to meet the priorities of the Trump administration as outlined in the draft order.

“Maybe the Department of Ed. is re-imagining how to best staff and structure and support something like this. But I think it’s an open question,” Bailey said.

At this time, schools need guidance and support on how to maximize AI’s benefits while minimizing the risks and potential harms, Bailey said. But even as the federal government may want to establish AI integration as an education priority and marshal resources to address the challenges schools face in doing this, the Trump administration runs the risk of undermining its goals by politicizing AI.

“History is replete with examples of really good and important work [in education] that, the moment the federal government started establishing it as a priority, ended up [becoming] controversial,” he said. “We’ve seen this with school accountability, we’ve seen it with Common Core.”

While AI-type technologies have been around for decades, attention to it spiked in 2022 following the release of ChatGPT, a generative AI tool that can produce human-like conversational responses to prompts. Since then, districts have been grappling with what role the rapidly evolving technology should play in classrooms.

The Education Department, under the Biden administration, released a toolkit for education leaders on integrating AI in schools with an eye toward safety, ethics, and equity concerns. At least 27 states and Puerto Rico have also developed AI guidelines of their own for districts, according to TeachAI.

The draft order comes as McMahon recently pondered how AI could be integrated into classrooms, particularly to improve one-on-one instruction. Speaking before tech company representatives and educators earlier this month at the ASU+GSV summit in San Diego, McMahon applauded a district that was integrating AI as early as pre-kindergarten. (She mistakenly referred to AI as “A1,” which kicked off a viral firestorm over the slipup.)

“Wasn’t all that long ago that it’s, ‘We’re going to have internet in our schools, whoop,’” she said. “Now, OK, let’s do [AI] and how can that be helpful? How can it be helpful in one-on-one instruction? How can it be helpful in absorbing more information for those fast learners?”





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Education

9 AI Ethics Scenarios (and What School Librarians Would Do)

Published

on


A common refrain about artificial intelligence in education is that it’s a research tool, and as such, some school librarians are acquiring firsthand experience with its uses and controversies.

Leading a presentation last week at the ISTELive 25 + ASCD annual conference in San Antonio, a trio of librarians parsed appropriate and inappropriate uses of AI in a series of hypothetical scenarios. They broadly recommended that schools have, and clearly articulate, official policies governing AI use and be cautious about inputting copyrighted or private information.

Amanda Hunt, a librarian at Oak Run Middle School in Texas, said their presentation would focus on scenarios because librarians are experiencing so many.


“The reason we did it this way is because these scenarios are coming up,” she said. “Every day I’m hearing some other type of question in regards to AI and how we’re using it in the classroom or in the library.”

  • Scenario 1: A class encourages students to use generative AI for brainstorming, outlining and summarizing articles.

    Elissa Malespina, a teacher librarian at Science Park High School in New Jersey, said she felt this was a valid use, as she has found AI to be helpful for high schoolers who are prone to get overwhelmed by research projects.

    Ashley Cooksey, an assistant professor and school library program director at Arkansas Tech University, disagreed slightly: While she appreciates AI’s ability to outline and brainstorm, she said, she would discourage her students from using it to synthesize summaries.

    “Point one on that is that you’re not using your synthesis and digging deep and reading the article for yourself to pull out the information pertinent to you,” she said. “Point No. 2 — I publish, I write. If you’re in higher ed, you do that. I don’t want someone to put my work into a piece of generative AI and an [LLM] that is then going to use work I worked very, very hard on to train its language learning model.”

  • Scenario 2: A school district buys an AI tool that generates student book reviews for a library website, which saves time and promotes titles but misses key themes or introduces unintended bias.

    All three speakers said this use of AI could certainly be helpful to librarians, but if the reviews are labeled in a way that makes it sound like they were written by students when they weren’t, that wouldn’t be ethical.

  • Scenario 3: An administrator asks a librarian to use AI to generate new curriculum materials and library signage. Do the outputs violate copyright or proper attribution rules?

    Hunt said the answer depends on local and district regulations, but she recommended using Adobe Express because it doesn’t pull from the Internet.

  • Scenario 4: An ed-tech vendor pitches a school library on an AI tool that analyzes circulation data and automatically recommends titles to purchase. It learns from the school’s preferences but often excludes lesser-known topics or authors of certain backgrounds.

    Hunt, Malespina and Cooksey agreed that this would be problematic, especially because entering circulation data could include personally identifiable information, which should never be entered into an AI.

  • Scenario 5: At a school that doesn’t have a clear AI policy, a student uses AI to summarize a research article and gets accused of plagiarism. Who is responsible, and what is the librarian’s role?

    The speakers as well as polled audience members tended to agree the school district would be responsible in this scenario. Without a policy in place, the school will have a harder time establishing whether a student’s behavior constitutes plagiarism.

    Cooksey emphasized the need for ongoing professional development, and Hunt said any districts that don’t have an official AI policy need steady pressure until they draft one.

    “I am the squeaky wheel right now in my district, and I’m going to continue to be annoying about it, but I feel like we need to have something in place,” Hunt said.

  • Scenario 6: Attempting to cause trouble, a student creates a deepfake of a teacher acting inappropriately. Administrators struggle to respond, they have no specific policy in place, and trust is shaken.

    Again, the speakers said this is one more example to illustrate the importance of AI policies as well as AI literacy.

    “We’re getting to this point where we need to be questioning so much of what we see, hear and read,” Hunt said.

  • Scenario 7: A pilot program uses AI to provide instant feedback on student essays, but English language learners consistently get lower scores, leading teachers to worry the AI system can’t recognize code-switching or cultural context.

    In response to this situation, Hunt said it’s important to know whether the parent has given their permission to enter student essays into an AI, and the teacher or librarian should still be reading the essays themselves.

    Malespina and Cooksey both cautioned against relying on AI plagiarism detection tools.

    “None of these tools can do a good enough job, and they are biased toward [English language learners],” Malespina said.

  • Scenario 8: A school-approved AI system flags students who haven’t checked out any books recently, tracks their reading speed and completion patterns, and recommends interventions.

    Malespina said she doesn’t want an AI tool tracking students in that much detail, and Cooksey pointed out that reading speed and completion patterns aren’t reliably indicative of anything that teachers need to know about students.

  • Scenario 9: An AI tool translates texts, reads books aloud and simplifies complex texts for students with individualized education programs, but it doesn’t always translate nuance or tone.

    Hunt said she sees benefit in this kind of application for students who need extra support, but she said the loss of tone could be an issue, and it raises questions about infringing on audiobook copyright laws.

    Cooksey expounded upon that.

    “Additionally, copyright goes beyond the printed work. … That copyright owner also owns the presentation rights, the audio rights and anything like that,” she said. “So if they’re putting something into a generative AI tool that reads the PDF, that is technically a violation of copyright in that moment, because there are available tools for audio versions of books for this reason, and they’re widely available. Sora is great, and it’s free for educators. … But when you’re talking about taking something that belongs to someone else and generating a brand-new copied product of that, that’s not fair use.”

Andrew Westrope is managing editor of the Center for Digital Education. Before that, he was a staff writer for Government Technology, and previously was a reporter and editor at community newspapers. He has a bachelor’s degree in physiology from Michigan State University and lives in Northern California.





Source link

Continue Reading

Education

Bret Harte Superintendent Named To State Boards On School Finance And AI

Published

on






Bret Harte Superintendent Named To State Boards On School Finance And AI – myMotherLode.com

































































 




Source link

Continue Reading

Education

Blunkett urges ministers to use ‘incredible sensitivity’ in changing Send system in England | Special educational needs

Published

on


Ministers must use “incredible sensitivity” in making changes to the special educational needs system, former education secretary David Blunkett has said, as the government is urged not to drop education, health and care plans (EHCPs).

Lord Blunkett, who went through the special needs system when attending a residential school for blind children, said ministers would have to tread carefully.

The former home secretary in Tony Blair’s government also urged the government to reassure parents that it was looking for “a meaningful replacement” for EHCPs, which guarantee more than 600,000 children and young people individual support in learning.

Blunkett said he sympathised with the challenge facing Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, saying: “It’s absolutely clear that the government will need to do this with incredible sensitivity and with a recognition it’s going to be a bumpy road.”

He said government proposals due in the autumn to reexamine Send provision in England were not the same as welfare changes, largely abandoned last week, which were aimed at reducing spending. “They put another billion in [to Send provision] and nobody noticed,” Blunkett said, adding: “We’ve got to reduce the fear of change.”

Earlier Helen Hayes, the Labour MP who chairs the cross-party Commons education select committee, called for Downing Street to commit to EHCPs, saying this was the only way to combat mistrust among many families with Send children.

“I think at this stage that would be the right thing to do,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “We have been looking, as the education select committee, at the Send system for the last several months. We have heard extensive evidence from parents, from organisations that represent parents, from professionals and from others who are deeply involved in the system, which is failing so many children and families at the moment.

“One of the consequences of that failure is that parents really have so little trust and confidence in the Send system at the moment. And the government should take that very seriously as it charts a way forward for reform.”

A letter to the Guardian on Monday, signed by dozens of special needs and disability charities and campaigners, warned against government changes to the Send system that would restrict or abolish EHCPs.

Labour MPs who spoke to the Guardian are worried ministers are unable to explain essential details of the special educational needs shake-up being considered in the schools white paper to be published in October.

Downing Street has refused to rule out ending EHCPs, while stressing that no decisions have yet been taken ahead of a white paper on Send provision to be published in October.

Keir Starmer’s deputy spokesperson said: “I’ll just go back to the broader point that the system is not working and is in desperate need of reform. That’s why we want to actively work with parents, families, parliamentarians to make sure we get this right.”

skip past newsletter promotion

Speaking later in the Commons, Phillipson said there was “no responsibility I take more seriously” than that to more vulnerable children. She said it was a “serious and complex area” that “we as a government are determined to get right”.

The education secretary said: “There will always be a legal right to the additional support children with Send need, and we will protect it. But alongside that, there will be a better system with strengthened support, improved access and more funding.”

Dr Will Shield, an educational psychologist from the University of Exeter, said rumoured proposals that limit EHCPs – potentially to pupils in special schools – were “deeply problematic”.

Shield said: “Mainstream schools frequently rely on EHCPs to access the funding and oversight needed to support children effectively. Without a clear, well-resourced alternative, families will fear their children are not able to access the support they need to achieve and thrive.”

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: “Any reforms in this space will likely provoke strong reactions and it will be crucial that the government works closely with both parents and schools every step of the way.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending