PV’s new, mandatory AI literacy lessons, which are set to replace physical wellness periods during early outs for the rest of the semester, have been met with a heavy onslaught of student complaints.
The lessons were designed by PV’s Tech Department as a continuation of the district’s commitment to promoting digital literacy among students. PV Tech Coach Aimee Peters describes what they wanted to accomplish:
“Our goal is to help students better understand what AI is, where it shows up in their lives, and how to think critically about the information they’re receiving and the choices they’re making,” Peters said. “The lessons are being taught in Wellness classes because, since PE is a graduation requirement, Wellness has the most consistent enrollment across grade levels, and it allows us to reach the largest number of students.”
The expectation that everyone had to stay for these lessons—even those who didn’t have PE on the allotted days—has had students in uproar. Amidst the already staggering number of new initiatives and regulations at PV, these lessons have been regarded as yet another waste of time created by the disconnected administration.
However, despite the inconvenient timing of the lessons, promoting AI literacy itself is a good idea.
PV English teacher Robyn Samuelson comments on how AI literacy is necessary amongst developing minds. “The AI CEO of Microsoft estimates that within 12 – 18 months, most white collar tasks where people sit at computers will be fully automated by AI. Because there is no future without generative AI (unless war and collapse of infrastructure ensues), students face a dramatically changing and unpredictable world,” Samuelson said.
While it’s nice to have thorough conversations on AI, PV does not have the time to have them in the face of more present issues.
Student culture at PV has already embraced the use of generative AI as the primary means of doing worksheets and essays “efficiently.” This reality means that no well-thought-out lesson on the ethics of AI will reach the ears of students, since those who go into an assignment wanting to cheat do not care that such actions are unethical.
PV Senior Chiara Paul voices her concerns on the vague direction of the curriculum as it currently stands. “What it is trying to do is be like ‘here are the ethical ways to use generative AI’, but there are no ethical ways you can use generative AI. Generative AI is, in and of itself, unethical; it is bad for the environment, it uses up a ton of water, and it’s bad for your brain. It (generative AI) should be completely banned from this school,” Paul said.
Giving students a stake in the conversation can adequately address the issue. This means narrowing the scope of the lessons in the coming future onto generative AI—the AI students use most frequently and unethically—as well as making a clear conclusion against it.
Concerns like “What if I can’t write?” or “What if I can’t come up with ideas?” are common criticisms for a complete ban on generative AI within primary education, but such criticisms are flawed.
A heavy dependence on prompt generators is already pushing our environment to new limits. Additionally, the inability to imagine a world without constant access to ChatGPT disregards centuries of human innovation achieved without immediate, automated answers.
Outsourcing trial and error to whatever programs necessary comes from a place of insecurity and fear of failure. But human development, especially at the adolescent level, relies on these experiences to flourish. Thus, preserving the process of independent trial and error supports the very goal of primary education: giving students the mental tools for critical thinking, no matter the discipline.
PV’s motto of “committed to excellence” may unintentionally encourage a mindset focused on achieving results by any means necessary. Now more than ever, the district needs to clearly support critical thinking, trial and error and even outright failure if it pushes students towards improvement—instead of diverting attention toward initiatives that indirectly legitimize reliance on generative AI.
Certain teachers at PV have already put complete bans on generative AI in their classrooms. “Use of generative AI is prohibited in Public Speaking and AP Literature and Composition because growth in writing can only come from doing the work. Recruiting AI to complete writing tasks robs the developing mind of crucial cognitive lifting vital to intellectual robustness,” said Samuelson.
Change is not out of the question for the AI literacy lessons. “We’ve made a point to stay responsive to the feedback we’ve received from both teachers and students, and we’ve been adjusting the lessons as we go,” said Peters.
The intentions behind PV’s new curricular addition were well-founded from the beginning; however, its implementation now requires meaningful revision to align with those original goals.
