Connect with us

Education

Saying No to AI in Education

Published

7 months ago

on


American institutions are abuzz about AI and its potential. Universities, in particular, seem to be embracing AI without much question. The University of Texas at Austin is celebrating 2024 as “the Year of AI.” Arizona State University and Johns Hopkins University now offer undergraduate and graduate degrees in Artificial Intelligence. Multiple universities, including Penn State, Baylor, Oregon State, and the University of Michigan, among others, have hosted AI events where there seem to be very few questions about AI’s ethical ramifications or its effects on human flourishing. Instead, many professors understand AI as a tool that can enhance teaching and learning. In fact, instructors regularly receive advice on how they can incorporate AI into their classrooms to enrich student learning. Most seem to believe that professors have an obligation to teach students how to use AI responsibly because they will inevitably encounter it in their future workplace. This, I think, is the wrong approach.

My understanding of AI comes from a broader view of technology that has developed over the last ten years. Born in 1998, I grew up as technology advanced, smartphones proliferated, and everyone around me, especially adults, seemed to embrace a technocratic future. In middle school, my teachers installed smartboards in their classrooms. In high school, students received Chromebooks or iPads. At all times, everyone was on their smartphones. When I reflect on my encounters with these technologies from an early age, I cannot help but consider how adults’ ready embrace of technology shaped me in profoundly negative ways.

Constant engagement with technology at school meant that I was more likely to use it outside of the classroom. Because the adults I trusted quickly accepted and adopted new technologies in educational spaces, I figured those technologies were always acceptable. As a result, I was less likely to read, more likely to scroll, and highly likely to feel depressed. By age sixteen, I had developed an eating disorder, much to social media’s credit. Such experiences are not uncommon. My learning diminished, my relationships worsened, and I felt like I was slipping away from myself. Sometimes I would delete everything, try to unplug from all media, and find some semblance of peace, but then I’d go back to school. Screens were everywhere.

By the time I reached college, it was inescapable. Few classrooms were tech-free. Students interacted constantly on social media. On my smartphone alone, my screen time averaged anywhere from five to eight hours per day. There were few instances where some form of digital technology did not shape my day-to-day life. If I reaped any benefits from this embrace of technology, I have yet to discover what they are.

As I descended into a state of concern over my own sanity, everyone I talked to treated the expansion of these new technologies as inevitable. When I heard adults lament the loss of reading a physical book, playing outside, or speaking face-to-face, I also heard some kind of justification. “Well, that’s just how it goes.” “We have to adapt.” “This is the future.” Such responses left me feeling helpless. My future, it seemed, was to be miserable as technology engulfed me.

But this passive acceptance of a supposed inevitable technological change is the wrong response. And we are once again at a moment where we must refuse this mindset, particularly about AI.

AI’s negative effects have already begun to be documented. I’ll name just a few. First, AI blurs the real and imaginary. One teenager died by suicide after repeated interactions with an AI chatbot he had developed a relationship with. Second, AI steals from humans. It is no secret that AI companies exploit personal data and use individuals’ work without their permission. Third, AI destroys the planet. To keep AI up and running, companies need constant energy that results in unethical extraction of natural resources. And to top it all off, one AI researcher suggested that if the growth of AI continues without checks then “we are all going to die.” While some have rightfully suggested that we teach students responsible engagement with the digital world, this triad of abuses, and what’s seemingly at stake for humanity, leaves me wondering how we can teach responsible use of AI—a system that is innately irresponsible.

Paul Kingsnorth suggests that we interrogate the consequences of a particular technology and draw lines. For now, I think the responsible action for educators is to draw an AI line. Teachers do not need to bring AI into the classroom. They do not need to encourage student interaction with ChatGPT. Professors do not need to teach students AI “skills.” And no educator needs to support the expansion of AI across their school’s campus. Instead, adults must ask more questions: Why would this technology be valuable for students? Will this help students flourish in my class and after? How will AI form those who rely on it? Answering these questions will take time. To rush AI into the classroom or into daily life is to put student well-being at stake. And as Kingsnorth reminds us, refusal to accept certain forms of technology can “enrich rather than impoverish.” By refusing AI in educational spaces, students may, in fact, come out better on the other side. In my own experience, the embrace of technology by trusted adults in a trusted place led to more excessive use of those technologies outside of it. Unbeknownst to them, the effects were detrimental.

AI developers, just like anyone else in marketing and advertising, want us to believe that denying ourselves AI would be to deny a rich future filled with possibilities. But as a student, I bore the brunt of unquestioning technological embrace by the adults around me. Only within the last few years have I discovered what a beautiful life exists offline. I spend more time outside, with friends, and reading books. My relationships with myself and with others have vastly improved. I regularly tell my husband that my newfound, healthy relationship with food is nothing short of a miracle. And to think that eight years before I was born, Wendell Berry had already provided an exhortation to limit involvement with harmful technology. Indeed, all of this has been possible because I try (and often fail) to abide Berry’s wisdom. I aim to constrain my interactions with the digital and increase my interactions with the real.

Now, in my role as a teacher, I feel a deep sense of responsibility to my students because I was like them not that long ago. My tech-free classroom, prohibitions of AI, and handwritten exams may seem old-fashioned to them at first. But I have had multiple students thank me for asking them to put their phones away, focus their attention, and embrace opportunities to learn. I can only hope that this approach to education leaks into their lives. They, too, might look up from the screen in front of them and wonder what all they have been missing.

To deny students AI, then, is not to deny them a future. Perhaps, in fact, it is a way to invite them to live fully into the one before them.

Image credit: Thomas Malton, “Cambridge University: Great Court And Chapel” (1789) via Wikimedia Commons



Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Education

The Guardian view on special needs reform: children’s needs must be the priority as the system is redesigned | Editorial

Published

2 hours ago

on

July 7, 2025

By


Children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) must be supported through the education system to fulfil their potential as fully as possible. This is the bottom line for the families of the 1.6 million children with a recognised additional learning need in England, and all those who support them. It needs to be the government’s priority too.

There is no question that the rising number of children receiving extra help has placed pressure on schools and councils. There is wide agreement that the current trajectory is not sustainable. But if plans for reform are shaped around the aim of saving money by removing entitlements, rather than meeting the needs of children by improving schools, they should be expected to fail.

If ministers did not already know this, the Save Our Children’s Rights campaign launched this week ought to help. As it stands, there is no policy of restricting access to the education, health and care plans (EHCPs) that impose a legal duty on councils to provide specified support. But ministers’ criticisms of the adversarial aspects of the current system have led families to conclude that they should prepare for an attempt to remove their enforceable rights. Christine Lenehan, who advises the government, has indicated that the scope of EHCPs could be narrowed, while stressing a commitment to consultation. Tom Rees, who chairs the department for education’s specialist group, bluntly terms it “a bad system”.

Mr Rees’s panel has had its term extended until April. The education select committee will present the conclusions of its inquiry into the Send crisis in the autumn. Both should be listened to carefully. But the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, and her team also need to show that they are capable of engaging beyond the circle of appointed experts and parliamentarians. Parents can make their views known through constituency MPs. Their voices and perspectives need to be heard in Whitehall too.

This is a hugely sensitive policy area. There is nothing parents care more about than the opportunities provided to their children, and this concern is intensified when those children have additional needs. Some positive steps have been taken during Labour’s first year. Increased capital spending on school buildings should make a difference to in-house provision, which relies on the availability of suitable spaces. Ministers are right, too, to focus on teacher training, while inclusion has been given greater prominence in the inspection framework. As with the NHS, there is a welcome emphasis on spreading best practice.

But big questions remain. Families are fearful that accountability mechanisms are going to be removed, and want to know how the new “inclusive mainstream” will be defined and judged. Councils are concerned about what happens to their £5bn in special needs budget deficits, when the so-called statutory override expires in 2028. The concerning role of private equity in special education – which mirrors changes in the children’s social care market – also needs addressing.

Schools need to adapt so that a greater range of pupils can be accommodated. The issue is how the government manages that process. The hope must be that the lesson ministers take from their failure on welfare is that consultation on highly sensitive changes, affecting millions of lives, must be thorough. In order to make change, they must build consensus.

  • Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.



Source link

Continue Reading

Education

How AI is Transforming Education in Africa

Published

2 hours ago

on

July 7, 2025

By


Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping industries across the globe, and education in Africa is no exception. From personalized learning platforms to AI-driven teacher training, the continent is witnessing a surge in innovative solutions tackling longstanding challenges. In this Q&A Insights piece, we dive into how AI is revolutionizing education, addressing questions from our iAfrica community about its impact, opportunities, and hurdles.

What are the biggest challenges in African education that AI can address?

Africa’s education sector faces issues like limited access to quality resources, teacher shortages, and diverse linguistic needs. AI can bridge these gaps in practical ways. For instance, AI-powered platforms like Eneza Education provide mobile-based learning in local languages, reaching students in remote areas with affordable, interactive content. Adaptive learning systems analyze student performance to tailor lessons, ensuring kids in overcrowded classrooms get personalized attention. AI also supports teacher training through virtual simulations, helping educators refine skills without costly in-person workshops.

“AI can democratize education by making high-quality resources accessible to students in rural areas.” – Dr. Aisha Mwinyi, EdTech Researcher

How is AI being used to improve access to education?

Access is a critical issue, with millions of African children out of school due to distance, poverty, or conflict. AI is stepping in with scalable solutions. Chatbots and virtual tutors, like those developed by Ustad Mobile, deliver bite-sized lessons via SMS or WhatsApp, working on basic phones for low-income communities. In Nigeria, uLesson uses AI to stream offline-capable video lessons, bypassing unreliable internet. These tools ensure learning continues in areas with limited infrastructure, from refugee camps to rural villages.

Can AI help with language barriers in education?

Absolutely. Africa’s linguistic diversity—over 2,000 languages—creates unique challenges. AI-driven translation tools, such as those integrated into Kolibri by Learning Equality, adapt content into local languages like Swahili, Yoruba, or Amharic. Speech-to-text and text-to-speech systems also help non-literate learners engage with digital materials. These innovations make education inclusive, especially for marginalized groups who speak minority languages.

What are some standout African AI education startups?

The continent is buzzing with homegrown talent. M-Shule in Kenya uses AI to deliver personalized SMS-based learning, focusing on primary school students. Chalkboard Education, operating in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, offers offline e-learning platforms for universities, using AI to track progress. South Africa’s Siyavula combines AI with open-source textbooks to provide math and science practice, serving millions of learners. These startups show Africa isn’t just adopting AI—it’s innovating with it.

What concerns exist about AI in education?

While the potential is huge, concerns linger. Data privacy is a big one—students’ personal information must be protected, especially in regions with weak regulations. There’s also the risk of over-reliance on tech, which could sideline human teachers. Affordability is another hurdle; AI solutions must be low-cost to scale. Experts emphasize the need for ethical AI frameworks, like those being developed by AI4D Africa, to ensure tools are culturally relevant and equitable.

“We must balance AI’s efficiency with the human touch that makes education transformative.” – Prof. Kwame Osei, Education Policy Expert

How can policymakers support AI in education?

Policymakers play a pivotal role. Investing in digital infrastructure—think affordable internet and device subsidies—is crucial. Governments should also fund local AI research, as seen in Rwanda’s Digital Skills Program, which trains youth to build EdTech solutions. Public-private partnerships can scale pilots, while clear regulations on data use build trust. Our community suggests tax incentives for EdTech startups to spur innovation.

What’s next for AI in African education?

The future is bright but demands action. AI could power virtual reality classrooms, making immersive learning accessible in underfunded schools. Predictive analytics might identify at-risk students early, reducing dropout rates. But scaling these requires collaboration—between governments, startups, and communities. As iAfrica’s Q&A Forum shows, Africans are eager to shape this future, asking sharp questions and sharing bold ideas.

Got more questions about AI in education? Drop them in our Q&A Forum and join the conversation shaping Africa’s tech-driven future.

Got more questions about AI in education? Drop them in an email to ai@africa.com and join the conversation shaping Africa’s tech-driven future.



Source link

Continue Reading

Education

What are EHCPs and why is Labour bracing for a backlash over its overhaul plans? | Special educational needs

Published

3 hours ago

on

July 7, 2025

By


As the government braces for a backlash over its plans to overhaul special needs education in England, we look at why the system is in such desperate need of reform and what parents are so worried about.

What is special needs education?

It is designed to support children and young people with special educational needs or disabilities (Send) who may otherwise struggle to access the national curriculum at school or study at college.

Provision under the current system was set out in the Children and Families Act 2014, which defines a student up to the age of 25 as having Send if he or she “has a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special education provision to be made for him or her”.

Examples of Send include emotional and behaviour difficulties, autism, attention deficit disorder, communication and mobility difficulties.

Why is the system in England in need of reform?

Parents, campaigners, councils and politicians are in agreement that the current system is failing children and has been for years. Families and campaigners say waiting times for assessment are too long and children’s needs are going unmet, with many pupils out of school because the specialist support they need is unavailable.

Local councils, meanwhile, have built up debts running into hundreds of millions of pounds that have pushed many authorities to the brink of bankruptcy as demand for specialist support has rocketed while the system has long been underfunded. The government says it inherited a system “on its knees”.

Costs are huge. Funding for Send pupils in England increased by £4bn (59%) between 2015 and 2024, taking total funding to £12bn in 2025. However, it is still insufficient to meet demand, hence the government’s desire to overhaul the system.

What are EHCPs and why do they matter?

Education, health and care plans were introduced under the 2014 legislation – replacing the old system of “statements” – and provide Send pupils with a legal entitlement to the specialist educational support they need in order to secure the best possible outcomes across education, health and social care.

A report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found the number of schoolchildren with EHCPs increased by 180,000 (71%) between 2018 and 2024 to the point where almost 5% of pupils in England now have EHCPs.

They provide for children with the highest needs and local authorities are legally bound to cover the cost of the provision set out in a child’s plan. For families desperate to get their children the support they need, EHCPs provide some statutory certainty in a system that is overstretched and underfunded.

What is the government planning?

We don’t yet have any firm details, and that is part of the problem. The government’s proposals for change are expected to be set out in a schools white paper that is due to be published in October.

What we know so far is that ministers want to build greater inclusion in England’s mainstream schools, so they are able to offer the right expert support to meet children’s special needs.

The government’s hope is that, in meeting more children’s special needs in mainstream, fewer will need to go to specialist schools that are oversubscribed, often independent and as a result extremely expensive.

Why are parents and campaigners concerned?

Although they agree the system is not working and is in urgent need of reform, they are worried that the government’s changes could make things a whole lot worse for children with Send.

From families’ point of view, one of the most concerning proposals the government is understood to be considering, is restricting access to – or even abolishing – EHCPs that more than 600,000 children and young people rely on for individual support.

The education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, questioned over the weekend, failed to reassure anxious parents that EHCPs would be protected and retained within the new system. The most she could offer was that no decisions on EHCPs had yet been made.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending