Rush to regulate AI at federal and state levels lacks educator insight

The rush to regulate Artificial Intelligence is staggering, mirroring the rapid pace of technological advancement itself. In just under six months, from President Biden’s initial executive order on AI in education to proposed state legislation, the landscape has shifted dramatically, further complicating matters for both students and teachers who are considering how to properly use this technology in the classroom.

The urgency to regulate raises several questions: Are we rushing into constraints before truly comprehending this transformative technology? Is it hard to get AI right for schools? Yes and yes. Do we need to plunge in and wall off AI before we even understand it? This human-based contributor says no.

Let’s rewind to the genesis of AI regulation. President Biden’s executive order in October aimed to foster equity and innovation in education. Yet, it triggered apprehensions within academia, notably due to the absence of key stakeholders — educators, researchers, and academics — in the policy discourse. This disconnect raises concerns about the alignment of regulations with classroom realities and their potential impact on marginalized groups. Despite these reservations, the order was enacted, leaving educators to navigate its implications.

We’ve seen this before, back in the days when stationary desktop computers were a “must-have” for every student, regardless of need. The current scenario echoes those past missteps. Crafting regulations without empirical evidence risks similar misalignments with real-world educational contexts. Just as we wouldn’t administer medicine without clinical trials, AI policies should not be created without the expertise of educators and researchers, with all stakeholder voices in the conversation.

So why weren’t students’ educational needs fully examined before several million heavyweight computers were shoved onto their desks? Did in-class computing solve the divide between technology haves and have-nots? There’s not much evidence to show that it did.

This one-size-fits-all approach is particularly problematic given AI’s rapid evolution, possibly resulting in outdated rules. Add in the distrust expressed by minority and underrepresented groups towards such policies — intensified due to historical research atrocities like the Tuskegee Experiment — and you have a strong level of skepticism against hastily implemented AI regulations. Equally important is ensuring equitable access to AI tools, avoiding exclusivity to resource-rich entities, and underscoring the need for diverse educator input to reflect varied student populations. The latter is a perspective too often overlooked across much of governmental policymaking.

Now, just as Biden’s order is settling in, we have proposed Maryland legislation about Artificial Intelligence. House

Bill 1271 would further intensify the complexities, potential pitfalls and concerns of governing policies. The bill’s requirement for state units to report AI tool procurements over $1,000, along with additional inventories and assessments, would pose significant challenges. It potentially affects faculty and students’ intellectual property rights and creates ambiguities for lower-cost AI tools vital for equitable education.

Add in the bill’s composition for an “Artificial Intelligence Subcabinet,” its potential administrative burdens, and the lack of educator involvement in crafting these policies, and you have several contentious items now sitting on lawmakers’ desks.

Between the federal executive order and this bill, plus other bills no doubt making their way through statehouses across the country, there are numerous questions about the future of AI in education:

Where is the voice of teachers, especially those from minority and underrepresented backgrounds? Why are our insights, born from in-the-field experiences, not being heard? Why is the government loudly proclaiming its decisions on AI are what’s best for all children, in all schools? Where is the research? Are the regulators sure they’re on the right path?

As we stand at the edge of a technology-driven revolution in education, it is crucial to ground our policies in data, historical context, and the diverse insights of educators. Teaching should remain the focal point of technological advancements, ensuring that AI complements pedagogy rather than overshadowing it.

Reflect on the image of an obsolete computer gathering dust in a classroom corner. There was a time when that machine was supposed to be the future of education. The way we’re treating Artificial Intelligence for learning — either as a mystery that may yield miracles, or an unmitigated disaster — is a reminder of those fraught times. Just as we’ve learned from past mistakes, let’s approach AI in education with greater foresight and inclusivity of teachers’ insights this time.