Several years after the release of Chatgpt, which raised ethical concerns for education, schools are still struggling to adopt artificial intelligence.
The share of last week of the Trump administration included the one who advanced the “AI management”.
The Order of the White House underlined his desire to use AI to Boost learning across the countryOpen discretionary federal subsidies for the training of educators and also report federal interest in teaching technology in schools from 12th year.
But even with a new executive decree, those interested in integrating AI into schools will turn to states – not the federal government – for leadership on how to achieve it.
So, states intensify for schools? According to some, what they leave aside their political directives in terms of AI speaks volumes about their priorities.
Return to states
Despite the accent put by President Trump on “leadership” in his decree, the federal government has really put the states in the driver's seat.
After taking office, the Trump administration canceled the federal order of the Biden era on the artificial intelligence that had has highlighted potential technology damage Including discrimination, disinformation and national security threats. He also put an end to the educational technology office, a federal source of orientation key for schools. And that hampered the civil rights office, another basic agency to help schools navigate in the use of AI.
Even as part of the Biden Administration plan, the States should have directed school attempts to teach and use AI, explains the Reichty, founder and partner of Foresight Law + Policy Advisers. Now, with the new federal direction, it's even more true.
Many states have already entered this role.
In March, the Nevada published orientation council schools in the state on how to integrate AI in a responsible manner. He joined the list of More than half of the States – 28, including the territory of Puerto Rico – which has published such a document.
These are voluntary, but they offer schools a critical orientation on how to navigate the net traps that AI increases and to ensure that technology is used effectively, according to experts.
Directives also send a signal that AI is important for schools, explains Pat Yongpradit, which directs Teachai, a coalition of advisory organizations, state and global government agencies. Yongprait organization Created a toolbox He says that it was used by at least 20 states in the development of their directives for schools.
(One of the groups of the Teachai management committee is iste. Edsurge is an independent editorial room that shares a mother organization with iste. Find out more about Edsurge Ethics and Policies here and supporters here.)
So what's in advice?
A recent Examination by the Center for Democracy & Technology have found that these state directives are largely agree on the advantages of AI for education. In particular, they tend to underline the usefulness of the AI to stimulate personal learning and to make heavy administrative tasks more manageable for educators.
Documents also agree on the dangers of technology, in particular threatening privacy, weakening the skills of critical thinking for students and perpetuating biases. In addition, they underline the need for human surveillance of these emerging technologies and note that the detection software for these tools is unreliable.
At least 11 of these documents also address the promise of AI to make education more accessible to disabled students and learners in English, discovered the non -profit organization.
The biggest point to remember is that the red and blue states have published these orientation documents, explains Maddy Dwyer, political analyst of the Center for Democracy & Technology.
It is a rare flash of the bipartisan agreement.
“I think it is super significant, because it is not only a state that does this work,” explains Dwyer, adding that this suggests radical recognition of the problems of biases, confidentiality, prejudice and lack of reliability of AI results between states. It is “encouraging,” she said.
But even if there was a high level of agreement between state orientation documents, the CDT argued that the states have – a few exceptions – key subjects missed in AI, in particular how to help schools to navigate Deep in depths And how to bring communities to conversations around technology.
Yongpradit, from Teachai, does not agree that they were missed.
“There is a risk bazillion” of AI appearing all the time, he says, many of them difficult to understand. However, some show a robust community commitment and at least one is addressed to depths, he said.
But some experts perceive greater problems.
Does silence say a lot?
Rely on states to create their own rules on this emerging technology raises the possibility of having different rules between these states, even if they seem to be largely agree.
Some companies would prefer to be regulated by a uniform set of rules, rather than having to deal with different laws to the other, known as Leichty, political provident +political advisers. But in the absence of fixed federal rules, it is useful to have these documents, he says.
But for some observers, the most disturbing aspect of state directives is what is not in them.
It is true that these state documents agree on some of the fundamental problems with AI, explains Clarence Okoh, principal lawyer of the Center on Privacy and Technology at the Georgetown University Law Center.
But, he adds, when you really explore the details, None of the states are attacking police surveillance In schools of these advice on AI.
Across the country, the police use technology in schools – as facial recognition Tools – To follow and discipline students. Surveillance is widespread. For example, an investigation by Democratic Senators on Student Supervisory Services led to a Goguardian document, one of these companies, affirming that About 7,000 schools across the country used products Of this company only in 2021. These practices aggravate school inequalities in prison and accelerate inequalities by exposing students and families to a greater contact with the police and immigration authorities, estimates Okoh.
States have introduced legislation that Broaches Ai Surveillance. But in the eyes of Okoh, these laws do not do much to prevent rights violations, often illustrating the police of restrictions. Indeed, it only points to one specific bill this legislative session, in New YorkThis would prohibit biometric surveillance technologies in schools.
Perhaps the directives of the State of the State closest to the question of the question are the Alabama, which notes the risks presented by the technology of facial recognition in schools but does not directly discuss the police, according to Dwyer, of the Center for Democracy & Technology.
Why would states underestimate this in their directives? It is likely that states legislators are only focusing on generating AI when they reflect on technology, and they did not weigh the concerns of surveillance technology, speculates Okoh, from the Center for Privacy and Technology.
With a changing federal context, it could be significant.
During the last administration, there was an attempt to regulate this trend of police students, according to Okoh. For example, the Ministry of Justice came to a colony With the school district of Pasco County in Florida to assert that the district has discriminated against, using a predictive police program who had access to Student filesagainst disabled students.
But now, civil rights agencies are less ready to continue this work.
Last week, the White House also published an executive decree “reintegrate common sense school discipline policies“, Target what Trump calls” preferential racial policies “. These were supposed to fight what observers like Okoh understand as punitive Overwhelmed black and Hispanic students.
Combined with a new emphasis on the civil rights office, which is investigating these issues, the discipline decree makes it more difficult to challenge uses of AI technology for discipline in states that are “hostile” to civil rights, says Okoh.
“The rise in AI surveillance in public education is one of the most urgent challenges of civil rights and human rights with which public schools are confronted today,” Okoh told Edsurge, adding: “Unfortunately, the State AI advice largely ignore this crisis because (States) were (too) distracted by Baubles de Shiny.”
