[MUSIC] Welcome back to the Getting Smart Podcast. Excited that everyone's with us today. I'm your host, Nate McClellan. And today we are tackling a question that sits at the intersection of our innovation framework, and then the rapid rise of artificial intelligence, and how that impacts education. And the question that we're thinking about today is, how do we move from AI for efficiency to AI for human flourishing in education systems? So in our framework, we talk about these broader learning outcomes and effective learning models to reach these outcomes. And we know that to implement these effective learning models to allow every student to thrive, that role the teacher must shift. And so as within any new advance, the danger is making ineffective practices more efficient. And we don't want that to happen. The opportunity that we have is that emerging technology resates teaching and learning so that the role of an educator can shift to better meet the needs of all students. So in this process of shifting and changing and adapting to a new technology, we have to listen to educators as we redesign. So how is the role already changed with the use of AI tools and how might it change more? And these are the questions that new research from Ed III explores in their latest report, the emerging role of teachers in the age of AI. After serving over 1,000 educators to find out where the friction is and more importantly, where the whole blouse. So joining us today to discuss how we navigate this boundary of the human and the AI roles and the future of learning is the CEO of Ed III, Redis Ruff. And I'm so excited to have you here today. Ed III is a nonprofit that empowers educators on emerging technologies through online courses, the global community of practice, and research, and development, and Red and I have known each other for a long time. And had a lot of adventures together in the Ed world. And so, Rudy, welcome to the show. Excited to have you here today. Thank you, I'm glad to be here. All right, so my favorite question that I get to ask for every podcast participant, let's start with your own education because you have ended up as an educator and being an education world and doing a lot of interesting things. But in your K12 years, either in a school or out of school, what was your best educational experience? My best, I mean, like where were you highest engaged, and where did you have the highest level of learning? And what's the story behind that? Yeah, so I don't think I was the best kind of student in my K12 experience and I'll be honest. I don't remember much from my K12 experience because I think I spent most of my time socializing and enjoying things like field trips and sort of those hands-on learning experiences. So I would say like art class, but I'll be honest. The moment where I started becoming really meta-competitive and sort of like understanding learning for what learning actually is, is actually when I became a teacher through Teach for America. And when I became a teacher, I started realizing the experiences that I had in K12 were insufficient because I never learned how to learn. And so actually, I think the first moment I ever like realized that I know how to learn now is when I became a Teach for America teacher. So that I would say is-- and through the hands-on experiences, through teaching other people, through just sort of being immersed into the teaching experience without having much training to be honest, that I think was the most pivotal learning experience I've ever had my entire life. And that's actually what changed my entire perspective about teaching and education. That's so funny. It seems like I'm having this more and more of these hypotheses that every high school student should take some sort of education course so that they're actually meta-reflecting on what does it mean to learn? What does it mean to be taught well? All these kinds of pieces. No matter if you're going to go into education or not. So I too, when I started teaching, it was the first time I started to think about what does quality learning look like? So well, it makes sense. So now here we are a number of years later. And you are running this awesome org called Ed3, which is doing so many good things about helping teachers learn about AI and implement great practices in the classroom and bringing a bunch of people together doing the R&D around it. So you have this great project about what is the role of the teacher in the age of AI? Sort of a fundamental question that a lot of people are asking. So what's the genesis for this project? What-- how did it emerge? How did you all get involved in it? Yeah, so I've been in the teacher professional development space for about 15 years now. And so my mind is always on how are teachers impacted by any energy technology that's coming out. But if you remember in April 2024, the Pew Research Center report that I've detailed the current state of teaching in America, they reported that 80% of teachers say that they don't have enough time to get their work done, 70% report that their school is understaffed, and more than half would not advise the young person to become the teacher. That was really alarming for me. And teaching is such an unsustainable profession for those reasons. But when ChattyPT came out earlier in 2022, even before that study came out, I had already started writing about AI and thinking about how schooling and learning could completely change because of it. And I thought that report would potentially instigate people to sort of make the connections between AI and teaching. But it didn't really happen. And the worst part of that was that when it did start happening, when AI absurd becoming more popular, the education industry picked up AI as a means to either make things more efficient for teachers or to replace the teacher entirely. And I knew that both narratives were really short-sighted and would steer the industry in the wrong direction. So the portrait of the teacher project was ideated within a three, kind of like a Trojan horse, because we knew that it was absolutely important for us to understand how the role of the teacher would change. But it was catched in a larger aspiration that we're not just going to make more efficient what's already broken. We want to actually improve how our industry operates and how the teaching profession is coveted. And so that's really what the genesis of the project was, which is we really want to think about how will the industry change at large and how can we bring the teaching profession with it so that it becomes much more sustainable. But in a way that's not perpetuating the same status quo before. Right, right. And I appreciate this idea of not just efficiency and at the same time, not replacement. And perhaps the media writ large likes to talk about these big pieces, either it's just doing something that has already been done. We just make it make the things that don't work even more efficient or teachers are just going to be replaced. But of course, it's not as simple as that. So you structured this in these three different parts, I think, and so you've released part one and then you just released part two. So can you talk about the first couple of parts and then what's next? Yeah. So there is three research strands that we've identified that could potentially help us identify a larger set of tools and frameworks that will help any school or state basically identify what their portraits of a teacher, a person as a teacher are. So the first research strand is called between promise to practice. And we're trying to identify what role does AI have in education today and how our teacher is using it today. And how is the edtech ecosystem developing tools that will actually create the digital ecosystem for teachers to operate in? So for example, if edtech companies are only building lesson planning AI tools and that's all teachers will have access to and that's what the digital ecosystem will become, right? And that's what the industry will do. They'll just use AI for lesson planning. And so we're trying to basically map sort of like what are the current sort of state of AI utility right now and how what signals does that provide for where it might go? Then the second research strand is called the architecture of the teacher role and we're trying to identify like what are all the things that teachers do currently. And if we were to integrate AI into those responsibilities at many different intensity levels, how might that role change? What new roles might emerge? What roles might be completely automated, things like that. And then basically allow educators to sort of mess with some sort of visual that will allow them to actually see different sort of combinations of those responsibilities to create different personas. And then the third research strand that was just recently funded is called a science of artificial relationships. And the purpose of that is we know that AI companions are becoming a lot more ubiquitous among young people but also adults. And we know that's impacting the way that people are creating relationships with each other and with AI bots. And that's inevitably going to have an impact on how people learn, on how people form relationships, on how people connect with each other. And so what impact does that have on the way that teachers are forming relationships with students, the authority of teachers, the responsibilities of teachers and helping students understand these type of technologies. So that's the third strand. And basically all of that culminates into a set of frameworks and competencies and tools that will allow anyone to be able to generate their own personas or their own context. Right. So eventually it's a tool set. The ultimate product is a tool set that states could use, districts could use, schools could use to help inform what the future of educators look like in their particular context. Right. You're not trying to mandate or prescribe. You're trying to create a framework. No, it would be incredibly foolish of us to having that. There is one portrait of a teacher that everybody needs to aspire to, especially because there's one thing that we've realized, the portrait of a graduate oftentimes leads to this like process that you do with your community members that leads to like one set of competencies that every graduate should, you know,
to, whereas the portrait of a teacher, we're finding that that's actually not going to work because teachers work in an ecosystem that serves different needs for different students. And so there's probably going to be multiple portraits or multiple personas that we want. Yeah, we'll dig into that a little bit more because I'm super interested in the work, the report that was just released, you started talking a bit about these personas and we'll jump into that. But it feels like the major, you had a major conclusion that overall, in what you looked at with all these 1100 plus surveys, that the current use of AI is not really transformative, right? It's in the additive world. It's adding something. It might be replacing something like you said for lesson planning. It might be efficiency-based. Do you think this is going to change over time? Or is there a danger that it just stays in this status quo? I mean, we know that education's pretty immutable. It's hard to shift our sector. We know that. Is there danger there? Or is there an opportunity here? Probably both. We know that change is inevitable with AI because of how powerful AI is. I think a lot of people see AI as a tool, but it's really an infrastructural technology that's really getting embedded into a lot of our digital ecosystem without us even realizing it. And I think it's going to become so ubiquitous that it's going to just be like your phone or the internet where you just use it without even thinking about it. And so AI is going to absolutely transform a lot of things. I think the question is, is that will our industry embrace a new model for transformation or will it cling to the systems that currently exist? So if we cling to what currently exists and we're still sort of really focused on standardized testing, we're really focused on 30 kids in a classroom and one to one instruction and didactic instruction and things like that, which is what most public schools currently are operating in. I think the AI conversation may lead us more to automation and more AI tutors that help kids a standardized test and potentially less humans in the loop. I recently wrote, I recently several months ago, I wrote a blog post about the equity conversation that we're having with AI about AI right now. How like, you know, AI is available in some areas and not in other areas and demographically it's, you know, disadvantaged students are not having access to like good AI tools and that's all, you know, true right now. But I think ultimately the equity conversation, if we continue this path that we're going down right now is in five years, maybe probably between five to 10 years, the equity conversation is not going to be who has access to AI. It's going to be who has access to humans because humans are going to be a lot more expensive than AI. And so that's where I see, you know, if we continue being mired by the current systems and don't think about transformation in a way that's actually changing the industry, I think we're actually going to get to a point where there's going to be so much automation, especially in low resource schools that we're just going to not have a lot of human the loop. But if we can start rethinking models for teaching and learning where we really like push our imagination for what students can accomplish, we raise the expectations for what adults and youths are able to actually do in the classroom and really focus on student-centered learning experiences that are more about immersive learning and emergent curriculum. Well, there's a ton of technology out there that's way more advanced than the LLMs that we have currently. Things like wearable AI technology that can actually go with you to adapt to learning experience and to create more personalized, you know, pathways that can basically allow students to be more practical in their learning and be more real world in their learning without sort of like being tied to a classroom. But those obviously require a lot of systemic changes and a lot of like assessment changes. But that I think would be way more interesting to think about. Right, it's sort of the idea of sort of the Alpha Schools premise, which Alpha Schools has been all over the news, but the concept, regardless of what people believe about Alpha Schools, the concept of how do you do the work better that is better served by AI to free up more time to do more real world experiences, more relationship building, more human connection. And I think the equity question is real. We're starting to see this percolate, as you said, as this idea that who gets the access to this human connected community connected time and it has to be everybody. It can't just be some people, but the tendency will be the more affordable way will be automated as much as possible because that's cheaper. Right. So I think that there's a real danger there that you're noting. And so that pivot's to to a nice segue into our next question is this idea of the teachers talked a lot about the most important pieces being relationships, connection, emotional attunement. There are all the skills of how do you connect with students seem to be the things that were maybe most important and also less likely to be disrupted, I think. So where do you see AI tools being designed or how can tools be designed to extend these? And maybe you touched on that in the last response, but if this is important, humans in the loop, how will AI actually enhance humans in the loop? Thinking on that? Yeah. So this is a really complicated question. We're complicated. Then I think it seems so we have this open response question about if AI could do everything. What remains truly human about a teacher? And we just got like I think we got over 700 responses where educators wrote like paragraphs of content about relationships and connections and it was like really beautiful to see. But the reason why I think it's complicated and the reason why it's going to be really controversial in the next even three years is because of the popularity of AI companion and because of the anthropomorphism of AI. So if we continue honoring human relationships and connections, which is what are severe respondents we're talking about, we can use AI tools to support difficult conversation and personalized connections through like conversation analysis, right? We can use time saving tools that can make more room for human connections. We can use AI tools that can help teachers notice better patterns about student emotional states, right? That's a really hard thing, especially in classrooms where there are students coming from different backgrounds and different developmental needs and different emotionally. And so like AI being able to like identify what teachers should be focusing on would be amazing, right? There's reflection tools and journaling tools that can help students become more self-aware. Translation tools are amazing to help with communication both with students and with families. And I'm sure there's like a ton of other examples here where like AI can really really empower educators and students to build those relationships. But the place that it gets really complicated is that as AI companions become their popular, we're going to start seeing people use AI to displace human connections. And that's not just vulnerable use, right? We're not just talking about like the folks that are more susceptible to like these parasocial relationships. But we're talking about your average happy, healthy youth and adults that are going to start relying on these tools to brainstorm responses to a text that might be difficult to answer or to have an outlet to talk to when you either can't afford a therapist or don't want a therapist or don't want to talk to human therapists. Those things are going to become a lot more ubiquitous and they're going to become a lot more popular for people. And when that happens, I think this question is going to become really, really hard. And so I don't know what the answer is necessarily to how we ensure that human relationships are elevated above robotic relationships. But that's one of the reasons why we have that third strand, which is a science of artificial relationships because we suspect this kind of human to AI relationship is going to impact learning and cognition. And it's going to change the way that teachers have to operate and the way that teachers have to respond to students. But in order to really understand that we're, you know, lodging an investigation and, you know, there are several months sort of like study to basically understand like what are the signals that are going to help us understand where this is all headed. Yeah, yeah, it's fascinating. I think about this a lot, especially in the light of more and more districts and systems saying, hey, no cell phones and schools and their son that are going as far as saying, hey, we're going to remove technology from schools. Yeah, the ocean that the young people and adults are going to swim in increasingly will be AI supported. AI will become the plumbing, right? I think it's not about, are you choosing to use AI or not? AI will just be part of the system just like the internet has become for sort of our generation, right? So, so I wonder a bit about what happens then, right? And so if every student has a companion outside a class and that companion is effective not only at the relationship piece but at the academic piece, what opportunities does that set up for the educators? And so maybe this is an important way to segue into this next question about personas is that he makes that there's some great sort of persona statements about that that a teacher isn't just one role and already we have this, right? You're certified in English or you're certified in science or you're certified in health or PE, whatever the case may be, but actually you actually take this in a different slant. You actually say that there's different role or responsibilities, approaches. Can you talk a little bit about that and what that might look like and how that may reshape how we think about teaching in the one teacher one classroom model? Sure, yeah. So, there's two big things that came out of this report. One was in that open response question, a lot of educators identified their role as not just being an instructional capacity, but actually doing a lot of other things like helping with career and obligation, helping students feel heard, helping students make connections with each other.
And so what we did was, and this is not, not, you know, an opinion of the project. This is just, you know, what we found from the data. We basically took all their responses and categorize them and bundled them into the types of roles that they were saying they would have in the future. And so a lot of these roles are not necessarily like subject roles, but they're almost like roles that help students navigate their world in different ways, whether it's navigating pedagogy, navigating their emotions, navigating their sense of self, navigating the work, the career choices, things like that. And that became like a really interesting throughline that we realize is going to actually impact the educator role more so than let's say a subject or sort of like a content expertise, because if AI can handle the content, then like adults can become that sort of much more nuanced perspective that can help students like make better choices in life. And so that's what we started seeing. And so what we realized was, and that was just from the data, and then what we realized was that, you know, when we're creating this portrait of a teacher toolkit, we really have to make sure that, you know, states and and and educational leaders who's ever using our toolkit are going to be able to identify a team of teachers or an ecosystem of roles that can can help ed students on a holistic level. And the truth is, teachers today are already performing a wide system of roles, right? And that's probably why teachers, you know, teaching is so unsustainable. But imagine if educators could specialize, you know, in a different type of expertise that changes like the temporal rhythm and the relationship architecture between students and teachers. And that I think becomes like something that we could potentially aspire to. And then also look at our current systems and sort of pull out things that we're currently doing that could, you know, fit into a different role that could bring on a different set of talent and expertise into the education ecosystem. Because right now most of the talent going into education are educators that have been trained to be teachers. But what if there was a different type of talent that could actually bolster the way that students are experiencing learning? Yeah. Yeah, you know, next said workforce that ASU has been thinking about this, right? About the different roles and not necessarily in relationship to AI. But I think there's a there, it feels like there's a there there. And I, you know, let's talk about a few. So you had something like a learning architect or a life navigator. And what's ironic that you brought up was that right now teachers are probably already doing these. They just all, they wear many, many hats, you know, you put on your life architect, your learning architect, or your life navigator, your learning architect. And then all these other hats, and they get stacked up and stacked up and you run around with your head cut off because it's too hard to do them all. And so what you're positing is that maybe just maybe there's hope in that AI may allow us to free up more time to to spend on these important connection pieces. And this bigger hypothesis around there may be different roles for teachers. You may be the life navigator and that's the role you have where you may be the learning architect that's designing, learning experiences. You may be the community connector that's out there in the community building all these different pieces that are important for students. So there's this teaming effect. But greedy, what how do we how do we change the system? Right? I mean, schools of education are not set up to design in this way. So we need some so we need some brave new ed schools to step forward or existing ed schools to say, where we design in the role. And we also like licensure gets in the way. Like what is it? How does the what does the shift look like in your sort of future predicted state? What how do we get from now to then? I think you make a really like good point that I think a lot of people don't think about, which is when we think about school change, we often start with the school and we often think about like, well, how can you know, a school system change to basically adapt to this? But the truth is that the school system is like third or fourth in terms of like the changes that need to happen in order to make something like this happen. So like what you're talking about is really where we need to start, which is like how talent is created through ed schools, how talent is certified through certification system, how talent is developed and nurtured at the schools and then what type of roles actually exist. And so like I think the the main conversation or like the most important conversation is to actually start from like the the first principles here, right? Like what where are we actually creating talent for what reason? What kind of ecosystem is being created because of the talent that we're creating? And then the most important thing that drives a lot of educators and education systems is policy and certification, right? So like how are teachers being certified for what are they being certified, for what are they are schools willing to pay them for? So those are the conversation that I think will need to be had before a school can even start thinking about how do we actually change our, you know, internal ecosystem to like bring on more personas? Right. Yeah, you you wonder if there's it's almost sort of just like you can get additions to your teaching license or dendoms, right? So could you imagine that these different roles? However, a community defines them because you present a set of personas that could be modified for any particular ecosystem. That's the power of the toolkit. But you can imagine that add on, right? Yeah, one one like analogy that I was thinking about was are you familiar with like the difference between an MD and like I think it's called a DO. Yeah, honesty, pathy. I'm not familiar with the difference. I know that when I go to the doctor, they either have one of those initials or the other initials after they're going to be. Yeah, so the thing that I've learned is that oh, just have a medical degree, but they tend to be more holistic in the way that they approach medicine and they they think about like how does your headache connect with like the rest of your body and are there any sort of like, you know, natural remedies that can sort of like help with this and then also is there a way that we can prevent this from in the future, right? So it's like a more of a holistic thing and what people like a lot of medical professionals are starting to get certified in DO and they're starting to, you know, think a little bit more holistically about their patient, which is I think awesome because like I don't want to be prescribed prescribed medicine right away. I want to actually like understand the stem of the and the root of the the the cause of like why I'm experiencing something and then be able to avoid it in the future, whereas like what most doctors do is like I want to like stop your pain right now. Here's some medicine, come back to me, but happens yet, right? And so I wonder if we can think about that with with teacher roles in the short term, which is are there things that teachers can get certified in the short term as they're getting certified in like a specific like subject? Can they add, you know, an element of a life navigator into their certification or an element of the community connector into their certification so that we can start like thinking about how one teacher who has expertise in a subject area can get really well developed and have more expertise in another sort of relational concept. And then that gets distributed across a teacher team or across a school. And then those folks can sort of serve students better. I think in the short term, that might be like an interesting way to navigate it, but in the long term, I feel like there really does need to be like a differentiation between all the roles so that there can be like an ecosystem that supports one another. Right. I mean, imagine if what what happened if you and this is where AI, AI could be helpful here is that you have a particular student who has a particular set of needs and aspirations and goals and visions and they're going to still be connected to some content set, right? That's required. Probably if it's in the public sector, it'll be the standards and whatever the case may be. I don't think those are going away. And imagine if there was some tool that that would say, all right, well, for your particular reflective and vision and where you want to head, let's assign you a set of these teachers that have particular certification in these various what you called relational roles. I don't know what the bucket is, but something along those lines. And you know, you get a life navigator and you got a community connector and and then that builds your support team that would typically maybe be served by right now in the system, one advisor if you're lucky or a, you know, a career college counselor advisor that would be one for 200 kids, right? Like you, we just don't have a systems to do that well. So maybe these these added persona certifications could be interesting there. So several years ago, I traveled to Bali to Ubud to visit the green school. I don't know if they currently have this model, but back then this is how they described it. And I thought it was so brilliant. So for their high school starting in junior year, I believe, instead of assigning subjects and teachers to students, they actually allow the students to pitch for credits. And so what they do is they say to a student like you design a project for the next two years that you're going to work on and you have to pitch for physics credits, biology, credits, whatever. And you have to make sure that you actually like satisfy all of your credit requirements, but through your project. And once you pitch that that project with those credits, there's going to be an advisory committee that basically will assign you an educator that is an expert in that area of the project. Somebody who will be able to advise you from like a different perspective for with community building, another person that will advise you in this other area. Another person. And so basically if the team of educators that specifically advise on the success of that project, along with other students and other parents that basically become sort of embedded into that project over the course of two years. And then at the end of two years, you basically present this project and like what you've learned and how you've learned about and all that kind of stuff and how you've earned those credits. And what's brilliant about that is like obviously it's, you know, and
emergent sort of style where students get to choose your own project based learning adventure, but also because they get like access to experts that are going to actually help them navigate this like two-year journey in a way that is really adaptive and personalized and doesn't necessarily focus entirely on subject. So I thought that was a really interesting model. Yeah, and we, you know, you see that Jeff Co. Open School in Colorado, it's the public school that's been operating for 50 years, they do a similar thing with these massive portfolios and capstone projects and advisory groups. The question I always have is scale. How do you do that in a large system, large suburban urban system? How do you make sure that it's set up? And then that's again where I think that perhaps AI tools could help us with this. So you need the talent pool to be developed in a way that amplifies the skills that a lot of teachers are already doing, but maybe it is a lot more precise around it. And then some sort of tools to help reassign, reallocate, and create the best possible adult support teams for those individuals. So, all right, interesting. So I want to ask the hardest question here and to see what your prediction is. We've danced around this issue, but core content, ELA, math, maybe the sciences, whatever the case may be, is that increasingly going to be taught by AI and one-to-one systems like economy or an eye-ready or whatever, all these adaptive technologies that have been around and now are being super powered. We have some predictors out there that are starting to say that may be true. We haven't been able to really put a dent in our sort of broad-scale testing. If you're going to use that as a way a measure of success, is that going to happen? That's my first question. And then allow us teachers to do different things or will teachers always have a role in this core content? So, you know, some sort of measuring system is important, that the system's are important, but I don't think standardized tests are going to be the way of the future. And I certainly hope they're not. And so I think if they're not going to be the way of the future, then I don't think that automation and AI tutoring and things like that are going to be the dominant force in education. Ultimately, the goal is for students to have holistic experiences where they can learn about themselves and the world and others and build different foundational capacities for, you know, education. But in order to do that, I think we need to expand the way that we operate in education and the learning systems that we have. And I think AI can definitely help with that. Right. And I think it kind of, it comes back to this fundamental question of if we keep assessment and the system as status quo, AI will probably amplify the status quo. Right? And so if we are focusing on a single test score for students, then AI will be used more and more to help increase those test scores. If we rethink AI and assessment more broadly, which many, many people are thinking about like a broader idea of assessment, AI could potentially be used to draw out and amplify ways to meet the standards because it is important that every student is literate in both math and ELA, but that's really, really important. We're not there yet, but let's do it in a way that's more real time, more focus, more relevant, more contextualized, and have some ability to, hey, a student is doing this project. They're demonstrating proficiency in this particular standard, et cetera, et cetera, rather than a point specific test in a certain time of year that then the test get results, get released three months later and just have no impact on the students. So I just, I'm hopeful that we move towards the latter rather than the former, right? And then my last question then as we wrap this up is then, you have these other personas around moral guide or ethical steward, things that sometimes schools are a little bit hesitant to deal with, right? Because this is dealing with deep values and yet my personal opinion and my hopeful opinion is that this is the real work, right? We need people that have moral grounding, adults at a moral grounding and that are the ethical stewards of decision making in the world, et cetera. In an AI rich world, does teaching of these skills become even more important? And it does become absolutely core, just like ELA and math is core. Yeah, I think we know the answer. It's a loaded question, Rudy. It's a loaded question, but I want to conclude on a loaded question. And, you know, the truth is, like, ethics is subjective in this age where, you know, some people think something is ethical and other people think something else is ethical. And I, I think this is also going to be a really complicated place because AI, as we know, is flooding media with misinformation and things that are convincing people of, you know, situations or, you know, events that are potentially not good for the world, they're convincing people that they are good for the world, right? Or that some leaders are good for the world or that some, you know, practices are good for the world. And so I think that's where the ethics conversation is going to really break down. And so I think what we first need to do going back to the graduate schools of education is really helping teachers identify, you know, a code of ethics that is going to be true to them. And that is then going to, I think, influence the way that students operate. And I don't think this like conversation of ethics is ever going to be a clean conversation because humans are flawed and everybody thinks in different ways. And so I, you know, I think this is going to be one of those things where like, yes, the ethical, steward conversation is going to be really important, but like ethics itself is like pretty complicated. And so yeah, I think it's just going to be one of those things where we're going to have to rely on, you know, sort of mass consensus to get us to a good place. But there will be pockets that will probably continue being, you know, a little bit more controversial. Yeah. No, no, for sure. Always, right? And then that's just the world we live in. And as you and I talked about a lot and other conversations is, it is going to be hard more and more important to address these issues because it's going to be harder and harder to determine what's true. And no, it's not true. And this media soaked world. I read a stat yesterday that now over 30% of websites that are on the internet are have been AI generated and or AI supported in their generation. And that's only it's only going to get more and more. And that we know that that then influences sort of the brains of humans, right? And so, all right, we got to wrap your reading awesome conversation. They're we're going to put all the links into the resources. What's the what's the your best use case in terms of this thing? It's produced. You're going to reproduce the third part, which is going to be really interesting around this artificial relationships. You're building out all these tools that people can interact with. What do you what do what in the best case scenario? What do you hope people will take away from this? For educators, I'm hoping it's going to help them see more possibility for what their role could be and help them get rejuvenated for their profession and start approaching the profession in potentially different ways. The purpose of this is also a grassroots movement. So it's not just about empowering leaders, but it's empowering educators on the ground, which is why we have a public group called the brain trust that anyone can can join and get internal updates on. And the other thing is, you know, once we do deliver these these tools, we do want statewide efforts to recognize the importance of identifying how the teacher role is going to change and then basically build their personas to then cascade into districts and schools and then for graduate schools to also consider that. So the goal is changing of perspectives and then doing something about that essentially. Yeah, yeah, that's great. Well, I encourage everyone listening to to go to the websites and put that in the show notes that people can quickly find it. I think it's a super useful tool reading and thanks for putting it out there. Here's I have just a couple really brief conclusions and it's around hope because I'm thinking a lot about hope these days is that from this conversation, I think that hope is AI making that the teaching profession stronger and more desirable, right? So we have. So it's number one. Number two, hope is that AI allows everyone to have access to humans in the future and teams of humans that will support thriving and learn our thriving, right? And then maybe number three is hope is rethinking how to how do we amplify the existing talent and all the multiple hats that teachers work and put sweat equity into every single day into the teaching profession in a more in a more intentional designed way to help rethink how teams of adults are working with young people in a way that's sustainable, manageable and amplifying the talents that they already have. So those are my sort of three takeaway messages from today and just really appreciate the work of that three year work and leadership there and thanks for taking the time this morning to come talk. Thank you for having me and I totally agree with your helps. Okay, have a great day. You too. Thanks for tuning into the Getting Smart Podcast today. We want this podcast to be actionable and insightful and a great way to learn about what's next on learning. In order to stay on the cutting edge, we need people in the field to tell us what they're hearing, what they're wanting and what they're needing to learn more about. Got a topic or a guest in mind? Send your recommendations to me,
[email protected] and if you like what you're hearing, don't forget to leave a review on Apple podcasts or subscribe wherever you listen. Feel free to share the podcast on social media using the hashtag GS Podcasts. Thanks so much. [Music]
PodcastTranscript AI