Plan for AI use in schools must be national, says Productivity Commission
The government should develop a single online national platform of AI lesson plans to take pressure off teachers and ensure students in less affluent areas don’t fall behind.
A national approach to artificial intelligence in the classroom would ensure students in smaller states and territories do not fall behind those in large, well-resourced jurisdictions that have become early adopters of generative AI tools and chatbots.
The proposal by the Productivity Commission for national AI tools would also allow the government to control “risks” associated with its use in schools, such as data privacy and biases, citing in its latest report the potential for such tools to produce misinformation about Indigenous peoples’ history.
The commission’s approach to a “more productive school system” would also include a national online bank of teaching plans and curriculum materials to be used by both government and non-government schools across the country to ease teacher workloads and help remote educators teaching “out of field”.
In its interim report into “building a skilled and adaptable workforce” ahead of next week’s economic roundtable, the commission warned that “stagnating” NAPLAN scores “may limit growth in future generations’ productivity potential”.
The commission says the federal government “should play a more active role in the development and implementation of advanced edtech tools” – which includes generative AI tools – and “help spread the benefits nationwide”. This includes creating a framework to assess new and existing tools and putting them forward for nationwide use.
While South Australia, NSW and Queensland have each developed a generative AI chatbot for government school teachers and/or students, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the ACT are developing policies for off-the-shelf tools rather than developing their own.
“A national approach can help to future-proof the school system. Without it, the gap between early adopters and others could widen further. The current wave of GenAI tools is likely to be just the start of advanced edtech. As technology develops, new and improved tools will enter the market,” the interim report says.
“The early-adopting jurisdictions, either through their increased resources or willingness to experiment, may be more able to integrate the new tools, compounding their technological advantage,” it adds.
A national AI tool would “also allow school leaders and governments to create controls to combat risks such as biases and data privacy”.
Risks with “off-the-shelf” GenAI products include that they are “not specifically designed to foster critical thinking” and that “GenAI tools and the way they are trained have particular implications for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.”
The commission, referencing a Macquarie University research paper, states: “They have the potential to produce and perpetuate misinformation about Indigenous peoples’ history and contemporary lives.”
The commission also recommended the federal government invest in a “single online national platform that houses a comprehensive bank of high-quality, curriculum-aligned lesson planning materials” considering increased demands on teacher time had caused them to leave the profession or “sacrifice preparation”, and teacher shortages had forced educators to teach subjects beyond their formal qualifications.
Teachers are also required “to account for a wide range of abilities when planning lessons” – those falling behind, those meeting expectations and those well ahead.
“Without access to high-quality lesson plans, teachers can spend a considerable amount of time searching for and creating their own materials,” the interim report noted.
“Teachers who are sourcing materials that fail to meet the standards set in the Australian Curriculum will place their students at a disadvantage, which can be compounded when materials are not adapted for local contexts, or do not provide additional guidance or scaffolding for both under and over-performing students.”
The commission said the “influence” of the four national schooling organisations in Australia – ACARA, AERO, AITSL and Education Services Australia, which seek to promote consistency in the Australian school system – “can be limited” despite the “substantial resources” they provide.
“Ultimately, state and territory governments are responsible for school education, including decisions over how to implement national initiatives such as the Australian Curriculum,” the commission says.
In tertiary education, the commission recommended a national database of academic credit, co-ordinated by the new Australian Tertiary Education Commission, which would allow students to search whether a particular TAFE qualification, for example, has previously been used to obtain credit for a university degree.
“Entry assessments that identify a prospective student’s skills can mitigate quality concerns,” the commission says.
Universities Australia chief executive Luke Sheehy said he agreed a “national system for recognising prior learning and transferring credit is essential to give Australians more options, greater mobility and less red tape”.
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout