Policy vacuum leaves Arizona schools, districts to make their own tech and AI rules, expert says

During the COVID-19 pandemic, schools had to bridge the so-called digital divide. They had to make sure every student had a laptop at home and internet access so they could all learn remotely.

Now, as AI makes its way into the classroom, that landscape is shifting. Communities across the country are moving to put in restrictions on screentime in the classroom and limits on AI use.

New York City Public Schools — the nation’s largest school district — is implementing screen time limits in schools, banning the use of generative AI for students through eighth grade and restricting its use for older students to vetted programs.

Janice Mak, associate director of Human Centered Technology Futures at Mary Lou Fulton College for Teaching and Learning Innovation at Arizona State University, says what they’re doing is a lot more nuanced than headlines might make you believe.

Full conversation

JANICE MAK: They are actually taking the time to take a year pause. They’re doing some intentional pilots, which I think is really an important approach to really make sure that they’re collecting the evidence space to make the right decisions.

You see Connecticut and North Carolina recently as well, taking this nuanced approach to distinguish, like Connecticut is distinguishing between personal-use devices versus those used for educational purposes. We see North Carolina really focusing on the purposeful use of technology.

So while we do see some states and some districts taking the approach of blanket screen time limits, yeah, the direction is really becoming more nuanced, and really the focus on purposeful use of intentional use of educational technology in classrooms for active learning.

LAUREN GILGER: That makes a lot of sense. You survey, right, teachers, districts, sometimes students, it sounds like, on this kind of technology — how they use it, how it helps them, hurts them, etc. What do they say?

JANICE MAK: Yeah, I would say actually, there are there’s a mix. There’s definitely concern. So I’ve had students talk about their concerns around, they don’t want it to replace their own thinking. It’s about agency, it’s about trust, so those are a lot of things I’m hearing from students. But at the same time, you know, the research is really showing that we it really depends on how it’s implemented in the classroom. So it really has to do with the design of the and the pedagogy and how it’s implemented, the extent to which these tools can benefit student learning.

So, there are some really interesting things, projects that I’m a part of, which are, you know, designing like a SyllaBot, a syllabus helper at ASU, and what we do is though, we design it based on the learning sciences, on a body of literature, we focus on user groups, we get user feedback, and then we iterate. And so, I think there’s intentional ways to go around designing tools that can be of use, but there’s also, you know, remembering that there’s not one tool that’s going to solve it for everybody. We have to design for learner variability.

LAUREN GILGER: Right. So, I mean, yeah, the initial I think reaction in schools was, this will replace students actually learning and and help them cheat, right? But you’re saying there are ways that that you’re working on firsthand that are ways to use this technology in good in good ways. Do do teachers and students see that as well? Are they also excited about the opportunity here?

JANICE MAK: I think they are, and then there’s also, I think it’s interesting, there’s one case in particular that I think of, where we heard from a teacher who was piloting a tool with her class and her students, and they found themselves almost interrogating the technology, and so using it as an opportunity to critique it in a sense. It was a way to even bring in AI literacy, AI evaluation into the classroom.

LAUREN GILGER: So, let’s talk about the equity issue in this as well, because as you mentioned, like during the pandemic, it was about access. It was about getting federal dollars so that every kid could have a laptop, right, because they needed it.

But now it seems like that conversation has maybe shifted, right? Like, now you’re seeing the equity conversation around technology in parenting and schools flip, where it’s like if you have a family where the parents both have to work all the time, those kids are going to be on a screen all the time or dealing with AI much more often. And it’s the the kids from those more wealthy, affluent families that are going to have more restrictions. The districts full of those kids are going to have more restrictions. Is that what you’re seeing at the local level in schools, too?

JANICE MAK: I’m not really seeing that, but I can say, for example, we do have a state requirement that requires schools to establish policies that limit students’ use of devices during the school day. But it still allows teacher-directed educational uses, and it does allow and recognizes situations, including emergency medical needs, but really what we’re seeing is more about establishing boundaries about when and why personal technology is being used.

So Tolleson Union has had actually has a great, interesting example, because they really approached it as an implementation question, and so rather than simply saying that like phones are bad, let’s ban them, the district actually piloted different approaches, and so they tested them and they found that, as you know, the lock box approach at Sierra Linda High School showed the most promise, and so they’re ultimately adopting those, so they put their phones away, students put their phones away during class, but then regain access during designated times.

But the important thing to remember is that Tolleson is not a technology-free district, so they still have district-issued laptops, they still have instructional technology, and they still have guidance around generative AI, preparing students to use AI responsibly. So that’s, I think there’s a distinction there, so they’re not saying, “We don’t want students to use technology.” They’re saying, we want to distinguish between a personal device that can interrupt learning, and a technology that, you know, teachers in our districts and our schools are deliberately and intentionally selecting to advance, you know, learning outcomes.

LAUREN GILGER: Sure. Do you think that this district-by-district, almost school-by-school, maybe even classroom-by-classroom sometimes approach to dealing with technology, AI in particular, is the best approach? Would it be better if there were actual policy, regulation guidelines from the state level, even the federal level?

JANICE MAK: Yeah, so the I think every level has its own function. Arizona, for example, is very local control, and so there is a state policy, but then schools, each, and districts are coming up with their own policies. But federally, we have, you know, broad protections and rights, you know, have been established, and then the state sort of establishes those expectations and equity, safety, accountability, and then it’s up to the district to establish implementation and the procurement, and then the schools and teachers are the ones making those instructional decisions within those guardrails.

And so I think ideally the system and the layers and the macro, micro, and meso all work together. But really thinking that one level can solve the whole problem is not is not the approach either, and so really ...

LAUREN GILGER: Is that approach happening, Janice? Like, are you seeing policy come down or is it more the other way around right now, almost coming from the bottom up?

JANICE MAK: Yeah, so I would say based on my some research that I’ve done recently, the state level is simultaneously dealing with, as we’ve seen, cellphone bans, screen time debates, and then also AI, a lot of them are working on AI guidance.

And so districts right now themselves, because they’re seeing students use it, teachers use it, districts oftentimes are in the position of coming up with their own guidance and their own approaches, because that’s what happens in these times of rapidly emerging technology. Oftentimes we see policy vacuums, we see sometimes some lags in the research, so I mean there’s a lot of work being done in the field right now, but that’s kind of where we are now. Yeah.

LAUREN GILGER: OK. Janice Mak directs the Lab for Human-Centered Technology Futures at the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College for Teaching and Learning Innovation at ASU. Janice, thank you very much for coming on. Thanks for talking about this, I appreciate it.

JANICE MAK: Thank you.