For the last eight months I have been screeching, loudly, for the need to revise content standards, skills frameworks, and educational policy because of generative AI’s invasion of education.
We in education must be prepared for the widespread use by students and teachers of generative AI platforms such as ChatGPT, Bard, Claude and newly launched Perplexity. But as you would expect, technology is moving faster than we are.
It will not be enough to create policies and practices that operate under the premise that students will be accessing generative AI platforms through their devices. With the arrival of on-device AI, those platforms and their capabilities are being directly built into the device. How, exactly, do you block or even control access to ChatGPT when ChatGPT is baked into the word processing and presentation software that everyone has pre-installed on their mobile or computing devices?
Microsoft Copilot Is Already in Use
Several school districts, most notably Wichita Public Schools, are testing the use of Microsoft Copilot among teachers. The nearly 5,600 teachers in the district have access to Copilot via their Microsoft 365 account, so accessing the tool is as easy as opening the AI-powered Edge browser. Teachers are using the software for a variety of tasks, the most exciting of which (to me) is for the creation of customized curriculum, including the creation of PBL-style projects.
Stepping back a bit, you can use the checklist created by chipmaker Qualcomm to understand the benefit of on-device AI as opposed to accessing a gen AI tool such as ChatGPT via the web or an app. According to Qualcomm, the benefits of on-device AI are:
- Privacy
- Performance
- Personalization
- Cost
- Energy
Benefits to School Districts
The significant operational issues that school districts face in the adoption of generative AI relate to cost and privacy.
Most of the platforms have age restrictions, with 13 being the youngest that a user can access them with parental permission. There is also the privacy issue of underage users inputting personal information into an application that may use it for training purposes, which means it becomes public.
The cost of using gen AI tools is recurring and likely to climb. The Khanmingo personal tutor from the Khan Academy costs $35 per year per student. The subscription version of ChatGPT is $20 per month per user. The upgraded version of Perplexity, which competes with Copilot, is $20 per month. The basic version of Claude is free, but the unleashed version is $20 per month. Bard is free for now.
Equity issues arise when costs appear. Well-heeled parents or school districts will find the funding to equip their learners with the best tools. Poor parents or districts – not so much.
If you bake generative AI into the actual tools themselves (word processing, spreadsheets, presentation) then those costs are embedded in the purchase or licensing of the software that is preinstalled on every device. If you bake generative AI into that software, which lives behind robust district firewalls, privacy issues are mitigated.
For more ideas, check out this overview of use cases.
What Will On-Device AI Do in the Classroom?
The new Google Pixel phone will enable users to summarize important points, which means students could use it to take and summarize notes. Microsoft Word and PowerPoint, enriched with Copilot, will enable students to use the software to write drafts and revisions and create a sources list. According to Forbes, on-device AI will enable users to make real-time translations (a boon for second-language instruction) without an internet connection.
Most notably, on-device AI will allay the fears of parents who are rightfully concerned that their children are using software that is poorly understood and highly unpredictable. Telling a parent that their child will be trained to use Microsoft Word and PowerPoint that are enriched by AI is an easier task than telling parents that their child will be given free reign to use ChatGPT to create images and texts governed only by their imaginations.
The Hard Part: Next Steps
We must create more pilots, ideally one per district, modeled after what is being done with Copilot in Wichita. How technology is rolled out effectively and ethically is context dependent. What works in Wichita may not work in Napa or Tampa.
More importantly, we have to think about our revisions to skills frameworks, content standards, and educational policy in a new light. We have been mentally prepared to police the use of generative AI by students who access it via the web or app. We have not been thinking about the more complex issue of policing its use if it is baked into the very apps they use to complete their schoolwork.
Come See Us In Action
On Feb. 3, the staff of New Tech High Center for Excellence will be offering a series of workshops on generative AI at the Napa County Learning Innovation Summit. Following a keynote by author/superintendent Michael McDowell, our staff will provide K-12 educators and administrators with insight on AI tools, techniques and strategies, with personalization being a throughline. This will also mark the launch of our AI-focused professional development.
David Ross (@davidPBLross) is the retired CEO of the Partnership for 21st Century Learning and the former Senior Director of the Buck Institute for Education (now PBLWorks). David was an 11th grade American Studies (History and English 11) team teacher. David created curriculum design templates, exemplary projects, rubrics for critical thinking and collaboration, and project management techniques.
