Early Adopters: Who's Leading the Way in AI Policy and Implementation?
New research from CRPE on how early adopter districts and schools of education are approaching AI
Hola (as I write from a plane on the way to South America) and happy Halloween! This week, I’d like to share several new pieces of research and analysis on AI in education from my organization and some noteworthy developments in the news.
Who are the “AI early adopter” school systems?
Earlier this year, the CRPE team took nominations and surveyed school districts and charter management organizations at the forefront of AI exploration and implementation. Feast your eyes on the first (as far as I know) open database of AI “early adopters.” This database is by no means a comprehensive list (please send us any districts or CMOs we may have missed!), but it’s a great resource that we will keep building on. The database includes information on policy and guidance, use cases, and strategic initiatives.
What are some of the early trends among first adopters?
The CRPE team provided a first-run analysis chock full of data and examples from the early adopters. One headline: even among the early adopters, few school systems are taking a comprehensive approach to using AI to transform teaching and learning (but more is on the horizon—which we will write about soon). Take a peek at the findings!
What policies are districts adopting?
The Hingham, Massachusetts lawsuit I mentioned in the last edition (a family is suing a school district over their child being academically penalized for using AI) is now hitting national news. Whether and how school districts adopt an AI use policy—and the potential for related lawsuits—is suddenly a very hot topic. Most districts have held off, waiting for state or federal guidance, but this inaction will leave them vulnerable. To help, the CRPE team developed an AI and Education Policy 101 Guide as a resource for school districts. Meanwhile, we have said it before: states and the feds simply cannot leave this to districts to figure out! Districts need thoughtful policy leadership on AI in education, and they need it now.
What are schools of education doing about AI?
Teachers and principals will need professional training to navigate the complexities, risks, and opportunities of teaching and learning in the age of Generative AI. Again, putting everything on the backs of school districts seems absurd and destined to go badly. Schools of education could help—but are they even trying to prepare teachers for AI? The CRPE team conducted a survey of 500 schools of education and found the answer is mostly, no. The study found:
Schools of education are not likely to move quickly or at a large enough scale to train America’s future teachers in AI without a significant shift in faculty interest and capacity building.
With few exceptions, schools of education are just now beginning to put new AI training, curriculum, and coursework into place.
Many education schools are more focused on supporting faculty than on training future teachers and more focused on dealing with student plagiarism than on a broader vision of how AI could transform teaching and learning.
While education school leaders are generally optimistic about the positive potential of AI in education, faculty indifference or resistance could impede their ability to adapt, making it harder to prepare future K-12 teachers for the realities of AI.
Here are a couple of illustrative charts (Figures 3 and 4).
I am sure these findings will not shock anyone. Schools of education have been the bane of those who care about training teachers in fundamentals like evidence-based literacy strategies, let alone new technological innovations. While deans of those schools might see the opportunity and want to drive toward AI literacy, they also deal with the reality that faculty are incentivized to pursue obscure research interests over the pragmatic issues teachers will face in the classroom.
We found some notable examples of education schools (like our host institution, ASU) leading in educating and engaging faculty around AI. Still, it’s worth looking at the data and pondering an alternative strategy for preparing new teachers (and principals, for that matter). Do we need alternative programs? Credentialing? Or just more direct help for schools? The bottom line: if you were counting on schools of education to prepare the next generation of teachers for AI and lead research to inform what works, you’d be waiting a long time.
An Important and Complicated Issue: Teens and AI Attachment
In our increasingly murky world of deepfakes, “AI friends,” and more, I’m now convinced that the most serious risks AI poses for young people will arise from emotional attachment (and associated human manipulation), especially given the rising tide of youth mental health challenges. A recent New York Times article describes a heartbreaking teen suicide that may have stemmed from the teen’s attachment to an AI Chatbot. The mother of the teen told the Times: “I feel like it’s a big experiment, and my kid was just collateral damage.” There is a lawsuit underway against the tech company Character.AI. I’m sure we’ll see more about this complex issue in the news and the courts.
Final Words
“The thing that maybe we’re all suffering from is a lack of guidance from administrators…What should we be doing about this? I know some school districts have some policies, but they’re pretty vague and pretty unclear.”
-Chris Camille, a science teacher at Joyce Middle School in Woburn, as reported in this interesting Boston Globe article, which digs deep into the Hingham, Massachusetts lawsuit and associated policy questions.