There has been a huge conversation about students’ use of artificial intelligence (A.I.) in education, but what about teachers’ use of A.I.? Schools need to have a serious conversation with their staff and craft A.I. policies to ensure that these technological advancements are being used correctly and properly.
I understand teachers are human and face “burnout” issues similar to those plaguing their students. For some, A.I. may aid in most areas of their work: not just automated multiple-choice tests, but in creating lesson plans using Gemini, Grok, Claude, ChatGPT or other platforms.
As use expands, A.I. may be used to generate high-stakes feedback, and even draft the very testimonials intended to personally vouch for a student’s character. This use of A.I. would constitute an abuse: when the person meant to mentor the student begins to outsource their own perspective to an algorithm, the fundamental contract of education begins to crumble.
To draw the line between proper and improper use requires a differentiation between structural A.I. and relational A.I. Students and administrators might agree that utilizing technology to manage logistics, for example, to build the structure of a classroom, to generate quizzes on the periodic table or to draft a lesson plan for a substitute teacher, is acceptable becausethese uses are structural. They do not alter the core educational experience; rather, they provide clarity and can be used to deter teacher turnover and provide diversity and timeliness in lesson materials.
Relational tasks — instances where a teacher utilizes their individual judgment and empathy as the primary product, including high-stakes grading of essays and writing letters of recommendations — however, should remain the work of the teachers instead of being outsourced to an algorithm.
Shalhevet administration should lead this charge by proposing a structured and consistent A.I. policy for faculty, as many schools have for students. This policy would codify the distinction between structural and relational labor: while educators may be permitted to utilize A.I. to streamline administrative logistics and lesson formatting, the use of generative A.I. should be strictly prohibited for high-stakes assessments, personal feedback and letters of recommendation. Teachers who violate the policy should face consequences to be determined by the administration.
As we develop deeper relationships with A.I., we must decide whether the teacher’s role is that of a facilitator or a witness. If we allow machines to handle the most personal elements of the job, we will likely lose the very human, relationship-driven mentorship that makes education meaningful.
