Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Education Page: 2 of 2
2 pages.View a full description of this report.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Education
schools and libraries can obtain high-speed internet access
and telecommunications at affordable rates.
The National Science Foundation and the Department of
Education's (ED's) Institute of Education Sciences have
awarded grants to projects researching A-enabled
classroom technologies. In addition, ED's Office of
Educational Technology has released several publications
on topics relevant to Al in schools, such as learning
analytics and educational data mining, teacher preparation,
personalized learning, and student privacy.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (P.L. 114-95), which
reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, authorized the use of computer adaptive testing in
state student academic assessments mandated under the act.
This marked the first time Congress explicitly approved an
Al testing technique for widespread use in schools.
Congress has taken steps to address public concerns
regarding the privacy of students' personal information,
including concerns about education technology companies
collecting personally identifiable information (PII) from
students to maintain user accounts.
" The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974
(FERPA), as amended in 2013, limits the power of
schools to disclose students' education records but has
been criticized for weak enforcement mechanisms
against third parties that misuse student data.
" The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment of 1978
(PPRA), as further amended in 2015, requires schools to
notify parents and offer an opt-out choice if a third party
surveys students for marketing purposes.
" The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998
(COPPA) requires parental consent before websites
collect information about children aged 13 or under.
Many experts worry that current law, passed largely before
Al became a major policy consideration, is insufficient to
address today's cybersecurity threats. Bills introduced in
the 115th Congress, such as the Protecting Student Privacy
Act (S. 877), SAFE KIDS Act (S. 2640), and Protecting
Education Privacy Act (H.R. 5224), would affect how third
parties can access and use students' PII.
Selected Policy Considerations
Although most education policies are set at the state and
local level, Congress may consider oversight and legislative
actions on issues such as student privacy, teacher
preparation, product selection, and algorithmic
accountability.
Student Privacy. Like many digital services, A-enabled
education tools collect and store PII. In response to public
concerns about data security and privacy, activists created a
voluntary Student Privacy Pledge in 2014. Signatories
promise to place limits on the lifespan of stored data,
maintain reasonable security measures, and refrain from
selling data. Although President Obama and several
Members of Congress endorsed the pledge, critics haveasserted that the language is vague and the pledge is little
more than a publicity move. Meanwhile, 41 states have
enacted laws governing student data collection, use,
reporting, and safeguarding since 2013. Several of those
laws were modeled after California's Student Online
Personal Information Protection Act (SOPIPA). Congress
may consider whether such state efforts are sufficient or if a
federal law is needed.
Teacher Preparation. If Al technologies are adopted on a
broader scale, teachers face the task of not only learning to
use specific products but also integrating a range of Al
technologies into their lessons. Preparation programs
offered by teacher-certifying universities and institutes
might provide such training. In FY2018, ED's Teacher
Quality Partnership (TQP) competition plans to award
approximately $14 million in grants to these programs. If
Congress decides to support funding teacher preparation for
Al, options could include redirecting funds toward teacher
technology training and directing ED to develop best
practices for teacher technology competency.
Product Procurement and Support. Choosing products
can be a time- and energy-intensive effort involving
teachers, administrators, IT staff, and other school officials.
While some schools allow teachers to experiment freely,
others require IT staff to vet hundreds of privacy policies
and security measures. Some school districts have turned to
digital content consultants for guidance in selecting
products. To help schools gather research on educational
tools and strategies, nonprofits and federal agencies have
developed resources. For example, the State Educational
Technology Directors Association provides a best practices
guide for product procurement, and ED's What Works
Clearinghouse rigorously reviews the effectiveness of
educational products and practices. Despite these resources,
surveys indicate that peer recommendation is a more
prevalent basis for choosing products than research-based
evidence. A centralized platform to exchange information
and collaboratively troubleshoot problems might help
formalize inter-district communication and allow schools to
make wiser and less costly purchases. The Technology for
Education Consortium estimates that districts would
collectively save $3 billion per year on education
technology purchases simply by sharing price information.
Algorithmic Accountability. Parents and school
administrators may find it difficult to trust Al technologies
used to influence or make decisions about student learning.
Mistrust can stem from the refusal of companies to disclose
their algorithms, which they argue are trade secrets, or from
the "black box problem," which occurs when an
algorithm's complexity renders its processes inscrutable
even to developers. Options for Congress could include
holding hearings, conducting oversight, and considering
requirements to enhance transparency and accountability of
data use more broadly, as the European Union has sought to
do through the General Data Protection Regulation.
Joyce J. Lu, jlu@crs.loc.gov, 7-6044
Laurie A. Harris, lharris@crs.loc.gov, 7-0504IF 10937
www.crs.gov 17-5700
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Joyce, J. Lu. & Harris, Laurie A. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Education, report, August 1, 2018; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1228526/m1/2/: accessed July 8, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.