By Kara Boltz, Stephanie Erickson, Meg Heyssel, & Melissa Ligh
Introduction by Joe Essid, University of Richmond
School of Professional and Continuing Studies
In my course “Writing With and About AI,” I was delighted to enroll four local high-school teachers. Below, these high school educators share their perspectives, after reading two pieces about AI from The Atlantic and the third white-paper from the joint MLA-CCCC Joint Task Force on AI. Current statements from the task force ignore this vital group of educators, yet something needs saying by them, as AI very much influences work done in their classrooms.
These four writers responded to a discussion prompt, so their perspectives depend upon a few sources only, yet their initial reactions reveal much, describing a challenging population of students, some of whom lack basic literacy at grade level, others not literate at all in English, still others who lack literacy in technology or research. Meanwhile, many of these same students reflexively turn to AI to complete what many educators describe as state-mandated busywork.
From what our colleagues share below, many K – 12 school systems react in a scattershot and confusing manner, leaving policy up to teachers while blocking access to AI. Students, of course, prove clever enough to evade local attempts at such control. Faced with these hurdles to effective teaching, too many teachers are leaving the field. Others, including these contributors, see hope in a time when AI might help them with the constant and uncompensated busywork of K-12 teaching.
Where will these trends lead? Is meaningful change coming too slowly to make a difference, as one teacher claims? Instead of turning around a large ship, she notes that in her context, a better metaphor would be turning one that already sank.
The four points of view that follow echo conversations we have in our college writing classroom.
Keywords: Generative AI, LLMs, pedagogy, secondary education, working conditions, employment, plagiarism, future skills
Teaching Writing: The Difference Between Policy and Practice
Meg Heyssel
Yesterday, a student asked me how to spell the past tense of “shy,” as in, “He shied away from the wild animal.” She wondered if it should be spelled “shied” or “shyed.” First, considering this teen spends loads of class time staring into space or coloring, I was impressed she asked, but second, I wondered what AI might tell her in ten years. It seems to me, if I understand AI’s development correctly, that it only knows and learns what humans enter into its system. So if my student, and many others, misspell “shied,” using the “y,” could this change the future spelling of the conjugated verb? Furthermore, will capitalization disappear, thanks to current texting norms? Perhaps it is time to reflect on why grammar, punctuation, and spelling standards exist. Even more significantly, perhaps we need to focus on why we teach writing. When students are assigned writing, is it simple “symbol manipulation” (Bogost, 2022 ), or should we be aiming for something more inspirational, something that inspires critical thinking and higher-level learning, something that makes young writers want to hone their communication skills?
We, who have been in the business a while, have faced technology before. It is helpful to remember that “the web did not immediately create the kind of nightmarish scenario that people had predicted” (Horowitch, 2023), but today’s rapid technological advances seem to make time move ever faster. Good teachers – those who have always been good – search for ways to teach using the new technology without succumbing to the simple fear of Chat GPT cheating. Today’s writing teachers need leaders who aren’t frightened by change (even rapid change) and who are visionary. We need teacher-mentors who grasp why – and how – humans communicate, so we can use technology, not shy away in fear of it.
Education, with a capital E, is caught in a time warp of its own making. The speed at which Generative AI has developed has thrown institutions into turmoil, leading some to “believe they can keep teaching as if generative AI [doesn’t] exist” (Horowitch, 2023), with “[a]dministrators [wary] of announcing policies [that address artificial intelligence] that could age poorly” (Horowitch, 2023). “Educational institutions [are] accustomed to moving very slowly” (Horowitch, 2023). No wonder “[m]odernizing higher education is a formidable task” (Horowitch, 2023). However, classroom teachers are facing these challenges daily. We don’t need better policies; we need better teaching models.
Ostriches put their heads down to turn their eggs in nests on the ground. It looks like they bury their heads, but they do not. In fact, ostriches run from danger or drop and stay very still, camouflaging themselves. They are not dumb enough to stand in the open and hide their faces. Talented writing teachers are also not dumb: Generative AI is affecting the craft of teaching, but it does not change the art – or purpose – of teaching. Educational policy is at a cultural crossroads and finds itself unable to change gears and keep up, but good teachers are searching for answers and carefully turning the eggs.
Without a Paddle
Kara Boltz
As an educator, I cannot help but feel a little frustrated that the MLA-CCCC joint task force document regarding AI practices does not include K-12 educators. Theory is only meaningful when there are tangible resources to implement these ideas in actual classrooms; without strategies, teachers are left to fend for themselves and apply theory as best they can with no concrete direction on best practices. While there was a lot of good information about AI and some important topics for consideration as AI inevitably enters the classroom, many of the suggestions to implement responsible and ethical use in classrooms rely solely on educators’ willingness to do so and on their own initiative for training. Much of the professional development teachers receive is self-directed and self-selected; in my experience, opportunities and offerings are sparse, and it is up to the teacher to seek out, attend, and pay for much of the continuing education we receive. There is a trend, particularly in K-12 public education, that is reactive rather than proactive; the case remains the same with the complete neglect of the surge of AI.
Teachers who are committed to their craft and who are invested in their own learning are looking for ways to manage the tidal wave of AI approaching them, while others are content to implement zero-tolerance policies and spend their energy finding ways to police the use of AI in assignments. At what point are we doing more harm than good by avoiding the issue? According to Horowitch, we see a wide range of approaches to AI in classrooms, ranging from intentional inclusion of AI to flat-out ignoring its existence (2023). This gives me pause as I consider the ethical implications of students encountering such wide-ranging approaches. Is it right that some are getting the exposure and developing the skills necessary to use AI as a tool that will likely be necessary in the coming years when others are denied the opportunity to learn how to use it correctly?
The MLA-CCCC document places an emphasis on teaching critical thinking skills to help students responsibly use AI. It also calls for much self-reflection from students on their individual practices when it comes to using AI in their learning experiences. They came up with some important questions for consideration in terms of the ethical responsibilities and pedagogical practices in regard to AI. However useful this information may be, it does not address the very real issue of access to resources to provide this type of education, particularly in a K-12 setting. Who will have access to the training and materials to properly teach students to prepare them for a more AI centric world? Who will arrive on college campuses armed with the skills to use this tool effectively and responsibly and who will lack exposure? Who will be able to build on this practice throughout their experience in higher education, making them a strong contender in the job market, and who will be forced to play catch up? As we approach teaching the responsible use of AI, we must consider an equitable lens in which we are mindful of who has access to the tools and resources necessary to help education adapt to meet the needs of future, AI wielding students.
Freeing Teachers with AI
Stepanie Erickson
Several studies recently attempted to figure out why teachers are leaving the profession in droves. One scholar discussed the leading factors, teacher burnout and fatigue, with the top cause being the amount of tedious paperwork (Tomas 1680). As a teacher, I can attest to that finding. AI has the potential to reduce teacher burnout by handling repetitive administrative tasks, allowing educators to focus on personalized instruction and student engagement.
My first five years of teaching were spent as a special education teacher. The amount of paperwork that we had from collecting data for progress reports, conducting child studies, reviewing educational evaluations, to writing the actual Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) was exhausting. This is on top of our other responsibilities as collaborative teachers who co-teach classrooms with a general education teacher where there is a high population of students receiving services. Mollick writes that “AI is also good at summarizing data since it is adept at finding themes and compressing information” (112). If this capability could be harnessed to help with the writing of IEPs and progress reports, it would go a long way to take some of the tedious paperwork off of overburdened shoulders, leaving me more time to meet and work with students individually.
While AI could significantly reduce paperwork in special education, its benefits extend into general education as well. As I have moved into the role of general education teacher, the amount of work is not lessened, but different. When discussing how AI can improve job requirements, Mollick wrote, “AI has the potential to automate mundane tasks, freeing us for work that requires uniquely human traits such as creativity and critical thinking” (125). We spend so much time assessing, teaching, then reassessing for student learning. If there was an AI that could assess student learning and give detailed feedback about student needs, teachers would be able to spend more time creating targeted lessons that address student deficits. As AI continues to evolve, its ability to assist with lesson planning will likely improve. While my experience with ChatGPT has shown that its current lesson plans are somewhat repetitive and lack depth, techniques like chain-of-thought prompting, as Mollick describes, can help generate more engaging content. With further advancements, AI could become an even more valuable tool in personalizing instruction and reducing the burden of data analysis for teachers. Furthermore, if AI could help with analyzing student data, it could also help create a variety of flexible groupings. This would be helpful when working with small groups that have similar skill deficits for more targeted instruction or mixing ability levels to allow for more peer tutoring.
AI has the potential to revolutionize education by alleviating some of the many burdens teachers face, leaving them free to focus on students. While current tools still have limitations, their ability to analyze data, streamline administrative tasks, and support lesson planning shows promise. As AI continues to evolve, how can educators and developers work together to ensure that these tools are truly beneficial for teachers and students alike?
The Decline of Public Education, AI, Institutional Inertia
Melissa Ligh
In my Teacher Ted Talk, I Teach Screenagers (2017), I commented that technology will not replace educators, but educators who do not know how to use technology effectively will be replaced by those who do. This statement holds even more truth today, particularly in relation to AI.
As recent college graduate Rose Horowitch (2023) wrote, “You are not going to lose your job to AI—you are going to lose your job to somebody who understands how to use AI.” While every form of automation brings a level of disruption to the workers’ lives, generative AI has already been integrated into nearly every tool we use, and according to 2022 International Federation of Robotics (IFR) statistics, “the number of new industrial robots installed worldwide reached an all time high of 517,388 in 2021 and over the past six years robot installations have doubled” (Li et al., 2023). These findings support the need for employees “to acquire new skills to better achieve human-AI teaming.” While some may be hesitant to adopt AI due to fear of job replacement, skepticism about AI’s shortcomings, or loss of control over their teaching, AI’s prowess for complex tasks and decision-making make it a necessary tool for future success.
By embracing AI, we can harness its potential to augment human capabilities, improve efficiency, and drive innovation, ultimately leading to a more prosperous and sustainable future. Unfortunately, as Horowitch (2023) also claims, educational institutions are slow to adapt—from my experience an understatement. If public education does not rapidly evolve to integrate AI effectively, it risks becoming obsolete, declining simply because its systems are misaligned with the world into which students graduate. In the last five years, while AI has become more powerful, in my school district kids have less technology available to them than did my students in a different district 13 years ago. While this gap may not be indicative of all schools, it indicates a larger problem. The National Education Technology Plan (NETP) 2020 emphasised the need for students to develop online collaboration and digital communication and the ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) developed similar standards; however, I work in a district that recently removed Gmail from high school students and other educational tools like Canva. Students are forced to use Google slides for presentations because they have few approved alternatives. Furthermore, I have spent years developing online educational games to engage my students, but I can no longer use the software on my school computer. How can we claim to prepare students for the technological demands of the future when we do incorporate technology effectively into the curriculum? AI has only widened this gap, because many schools are simply not allowing it; therefore, we cannot teach students how to use it wisely.
Educators who embrace technology and AI will find work—but likely outside of public education. The private sector, with its agility and ability to implement technological advancements quickly, is where many tech-savvy, innovative educators will thrive. This shift, however, raises serious concerns about equity. The gap between the haves and have-nots will widen as wealthier families may turn to private education and advanced AI-assisted learning tools, leaving underfunded public schools further behind. Eventually, we may see the middle class vanish, since the share of adults in that category fell from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2021 (Kochhar & Sechopoulos, 2022). Such changes can result in education becoming another domain where economic privilege dictates opportunity. This is not just frustrating; it is infuriating. The slow, bureaucratic nature of public education makes meaningful reform feel like trying to turn around a ship already sunk to the bottom of the ocean—by the time changes are implemented, they are already irrelevant.
It’s astonishing how much has already changed in the world of Generative AI since 2022, when Ian Bogost (2022) published “ChatGPT Is Dumber Than You Think.” Bogost argued that AI should be seen as a toy, not a tool, and while I appreciate the sentiment, I no longer agree. AI already actively reshapes industries, employment, and social constructs. His observation that “ChatGPT and the technologies that underlie it are less about persuasive writing and more about superb bullshitting” is interesting, but let’s be honest—it snapshots an early moment in AI history, and BS has a long, often productive, history (Frankfurt 2005). Given the visible changes in AI output since Bogost wrote his article, the technology has already changed how we work and learn. Leadership in public education should face this reality by becoming more proactive instead of reactive, insuring that students acquire future skills. Technology has improved efficiency on many levels for my own work. Within the span of an hour I can send an email to 20 parents, post an announcement for my 120 students to view, grade 120 quizzes, text a few parents, develop a quiz for the next day, and even have 10 minutes for online shopping. AI promises the next leap in productivity. Through various software applications, teachers can quickly type in standards, objectives, considerations for differentiation, and within minutes have several lesson plans to choose from. Other platforms can provide feedback to students’ writing, so instead of spending eight hours grading 100 essay papers on a Sunday, I can turn to AI to provide initial feedback and grades so I can spend more time conducting one on one or small group instruction to those that need it most, or even online tutoring, but if the technology isn’t available to me and my students alike, we face a huge disadvantage.
Digital literacy, AI best practices, coding, data analysis, plus tools to employ them should be foundational in our curricula. Extensive training for educators can help them use AI effectively within the classroom. Otherwise, teachers with tech experience may jump ship for higher salaries or choose to enter a new field. This is already happening; according to NEA between 2010 and 2019 the number of public educators dropped significantly, and according to the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of new teacher hires is projected to be 18% lower in 2030. Couple this with dropping test scores (according to the Nation’s report card) and antiquated curriculum, we have a reason to pause.
While I do not worry about AI replacing my career as an educator, I recognize that it may change my employer. Educators who embrace AI will continue to teach— and more efficiently, but not necessarily within the current public school systems. Educators must not fear AI; they can learn to harness it to remain relevant in an evolving world. If public education cannot keep up, students will find education elsewhere—and AI itself may become the teacher.
References
Bogost, I. (2022, December 7). ChatGPT is dumber than you think. The Atlantic. www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/chatgpt-openai-artificial-intelligence-writing-ethics/672386/
Frankfurt, H.G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton University Press.
Horowitch, R. (2023, August 7). Here comes the second year of AI college. 7 August 2023, The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/ai-chatgpt-college-essay-plagiarism/674928/
Kochhar, R. & Sechopoulos, S. (2022). How the American middle class has changed in the past five decades. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades/
Lieberman, M, & Riser-Kositsky, M. (2024, 24 July). Private school enrollment is on the rise. What’s going on? Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/private-school-enrollment-is-on-the-rise-whats-going-on/2024/07.
Li, C., Zhang, Y., Niu, X., Chen, F., & Zhou, H. (2023). Does artificial intelligence promote or inhibit on-the-job learning? Human reactions to AI at work. Systems 11(3), 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11030114
Ligh, M. (2017, April 11). Teacher talk: I teach screenagers. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKxIGxBWAGU
MLA-CCCC Joint Task Force on Writing and AI (2024). Working paper 3: Building a culture for generative AI literacy in college language, literature, and writing. https://aiandwriting.hcommons.org/working-paper-3/
National Center for Education Statistics. The nation’s report card. U.S. Department of Education, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
Tomas, M. A. S. (2024). Factors influencing fast turnover of teachers: Impact on personnel’s satisfaction. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 24(02), 1676–1685. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.24.2.3507