Your approach outlined here is reasonable and well argued. If AI is to be a part of the classroom then, yes, I agree your approach is far better than the ad hoc mess most districts find themsevles in. It is certainly better than allowing Anthropic or OpenAI tell us how to use it for classroom use.
But here's my concern - Why is humanity so determined to embrace a dystopian future that no one wants? I disagree that AI has a place at all in classroom instruction. The classroom, the school should be the balm to AI. AI is anathema to all human thought and creativity. We are outsourcing our minds and talents to AI. Open pit strip mining of our humanity. Assimilation is surrender. As educators we need to reject AI and design lessons and instruction that minimize - in fact all together reject - its use. AI is to the minds of our students as cigarettes are to their lungs. As a teacher, I do not wish to be the 2020's version of those 1940's medical advertisements telling the public that smoking makes you more attractive and is good for you. "4 out of 5 teachers agree - Claude is your friend!" AI is antithetical to the human connections and student centered engagement that needs to occur in a classroom. We can't invite the AI creativity vampires through our classroom door.
I refuse to accept this battle is over. AI for classroom use is terrible pedagogy and diminishes our students creativity by reducing education to a frictionless world where thought, insight and effort are obliterated. I'm 30 years into my career and, as you stated, I've been a part of mindless PD, several waves of the "next big thing" in education as well as a constant parade of digital gradebooks and new LMS systems. And I agree that AI is different, far more impactful than any thing before. The difference is that all of the changes and shifts that I have experienced in my career up to this point were tailored to the classroom and anchored in educational research. I am not speaking to the qualitative benefits of each of those initiatives. Some were beneficial, many others were a complete waste of time and taxpayer money. Either way, thinking back I can make an argument that all of those initiatives, at the very least, had a veneer of educational intent. AI has no educational concerns at all. In fact, it is an attempt to replace human effort and cognition. Don't take my word for it. Read the transcripts of Andressen, Altman and Thiel. They want to claim human thought as a market for profit. Imperialism of the mind. If a tool is designed not to develop human thought but to replace it and profit from it, how can any educator or school argue that the tool has a place in a classroom, in a curriculum? You can't.
But, as you said, the battle is likely already over. It's here to stay. School boards and central administrators are seeking out experts, funding committees and, I have no doubt, creating observation rubrics to collect data on teacher integration of AI tools. I realize I am, at this moment, on the back of a donkey charging at windmills. Good. AI is antithetical to education and human creativity and it has no place in the classroom. AI companies are desperate to find any profitability at all for their tools and the American education system, always a sucker for the new shiny thing despite a lack of any evidence pointing to its positive utility, seems to be sliding into their noxious embrace. It's a Faustian bargain. It will damage the profession, dilute instructional practices and, worst of all, limit our students potential and creativity. I want no part of it.
Damm Straight! Too much is top-down. Goodlad's famous statement, "All innovation is blunted at the classroom door," is so true. Other nations with excellent education systems have highly trained teachers who are given the autonomy and resources to meet high expectations, which is largely ignored in the US. Teacher collaboration is the key to adopting anything new, from the "science of reading" to AI.
The argument here isn’t that AI shouldn’t be used in classrooms. It’s that integration without investment usually turns into compliance instead of transformation.
Curious how others are seeing this play out in their schools. And yeah, I know the gigantic problems in public education that I'm pointing out here, and in many ways, to many folks, seem insurmountable.
Your approach outlined here is reasonable and well argued. If AI is to be a part of the classroom then, yes, I agree your approach is far better than the ad hoc mess most districts find themsevles in. It is certainly better than allowing Anthropic or OpenAI tell us how to use it for classroom use.
But here's my concern - Why is humanity so determined to embrace a dystopian future that no one wants? I disagree that AI has a place at all in classroom instruction. The classroom, the school should be the balm to AI. AI is anathema to all human thought and creativity. We are outsourcing our minds and talents to AI. Open pit strip mining of our humanity. Assimilation is surrender. As educators we need to reject AI and design lessons and instruction that minimize - in fact all together reject - its use. AI is to the minds of our students as cigarettes are to their lungs. As a teacher, I do not wish to be the 2020's version of those 1940's medical advertisements telling the public that smoking makes you more attractive and is good for you. "4 out of 5 teachers agree - Claude is your friend!" AI is antithetical to the human connections and student centered engagement that needs to occur in a classroom. We can't invite the AI creativity vampires through our classroom door.
I refuse to accept this battle is over. AI for classroom use is terrible pedagogy and diminishes our students creativity by reducing education to a frictionless world where thought, insight and effort are obliterated. I'm 30 years into my career and, as you stated, I've been a part of mindless PD, several waves of the "next big thing" in education as well as a constant parade of digital gradebooks and new LMS systems. And I agree that AI is different, far more impactful than any thing before. The difference is that all of the changes and shifts that I have experienced in my career up to this point were tailored to the classroom and anchored in educational research. I am not speaking to the qualitative benefits of each of those initiatives. Some were beneficial, many others were a complete waste of time and taxpayer money. Either way, thinking back I can make an argument that all of those initiatives, at the very least, had a veneer of educational intent. AI has no educational concerns at all. In fact, it is an attempt to replace human effort and cognition. Don't take my word for it. Read the transcripts of Andressen, Altman and Thiel. They want to claim human thought as a market for profit. Imperialism of the mind. If a tool is designed not to develop human thought but to replace it and profit from it, how can any educator or school argue that the tool has a place in a classroom, in a curriculum? You can't.
But, as you said, the battle is likely already over. It's here to stay. School boards and central administrators are seeking out experts, funding committees and, I have no doubt, creating observation rubrics to collect data on teacher integration of AI tools. I realize I am, at this moment, on the back of a donkey charging at windmills. Good. AI is antithetical to education and human creativity and it has no place in the classroom. AI companies are desperate to find any profitability at all for their tools and the American education system, always a sucker for the new shiny thing despite a lack of any evidence pointing to its positive utility, seems to be sliding into their noxious embrace. It's a Faustian bargain. It will damage the profession, dilute instructional practices and, worst of all, limit our students potential and creativity. I want no part of it.
Come on Sancho. Let's go find a windmill.
Right on.
Damm Straight! Too much is top-down. Goodlad's famous statement, "All innovation is blunted at the classroom door," is so true. Other nations with excellent education systems have highly trained teachers who are given the autonomy and resources to meet high expectations, which is largely ignored in the US. Teacher collaboration is the key to adopting anything new, from the "science of reading" to AI.
The argument here isn’t that AI shouldn’t be used in classrooms. It’s that integration without investment usually turns into compliance instead of transformation.
Curious how others are seeing this play out in their schools. And yeah, I know the gigantic problems in public education that I'm pointing out here, and in many ways, to many folks, seem insurmountable.