Grading for Profit: The Troubling Implications of AI-Powered Essay Evaluation
In a recent Axios article, the adoption of AI-powered tools like Writable for grading student essays is portrayed as a time-saving innovation embraced by teachers. However, a closer examination of the motivations behind such tools raises concerns that go beyond the educational impact. While the article and subsequent commentary by Peter Greene on Curmudgucation highlight valid issues regarding the limitations of AI assessment and its potential to distort the writing process, they may be missing a more fundamental point: the monetisation of AI training data.
Education technology companies are always seeking new ways to improve their AI language models, which require vast amounts of diverse training data. By marketing tools like Writable to schools, these companies gain access to a treasure trove of student writing samples across various grades, subjects, and prompts. This data is immensely valuable for refining their AI models, but the question arises: are schools and students aware that their work may be used for this purpose?
Moreover, the business model behind tools like Writable raises ethical concerns. Schools and districts are essentially paying for the privilege of providing training data to these companies, under the guise of a tool that saves teachers time on grading. This commodification of student work and potential profiteering from student data warrant close scrutiny. Are adequate safeguards in place to protect student privacy and intellectual property rights?
As we delve into the Axios article and the broader implications of AI-powered grading tools, it's essential to consider not only the educational ramifications but also the underlying financial incentives driving their adoption. Transparency about data usage and robust student data protections should be at the forefront of any discussion about implementing such technologies in our schools.
What is commodification?
In Western capitalist economies, commodification is the process by which goods, services, ideas, and even human labour are transformed into commodities that can be bought, sold, and traded in the market. This process extends to various aspects of life, including education, where student data and intellectual property have become increasingly commodified. The adoption of AI-powered grading tools like Writable, as discussed in the Axios article, serves as a prime example of this phenomenon.
Under capitalism, the drive for profit and the accumulation of capital are the primary motivators behind all economic activities. Companies are constantly seeking new avenues to generate revenue and gain a competitive edge in the market. In the case of education technology companies, student data has become a valuable commodity that can be leveraged to improve their AI language models and, ultimately, their bottom line.
By packaging AI-powered grading tools as a solution to teachers’ time constraints, these companies have found a way to access vast amounts of student writing data whilst simultaneously generating revenue from schools and districts. This commodification of student work raises significant concerns about data privacy, consent, and intellectual property rights. Students and their families may be unaware that their educational outputs are being used to train commercial AI models, potentially leading to the exploitation of their labour and ideas.
Furthermore, the commodification of education through tools like Writable perpetuates the notion that learning outcomes can be reduced to measurable, quantifiable data points. This reductionist view of education undermines the inherent value of learning as a process of personal growth, critical thinking, and creativity. By prioritising efficiency and standardisation, these AI-powered tools risk diminishing the humanistic aspects of education that are essential for fostering well-rounded, engaged citizens.
The Axios article serves as a microcosm of the broader trend of commodification in Western capitalism, particularly in the realm of education. As we grapple with the implications of AI-powered grading tools, it is crucial to question the underlying economic incentives and power structures that drive their adoption. We must advocate for policies and practices that prioritise student well-being, privacy, and intellectual property rights over the pursuit of profit and market dominance.
What gives you the right?
In the United States, the rights of students to their unique creations in school settings are governed by a complex interplay of intellectual property laws, state regulations, and school policies. Whilst students generally maintain ownership of their original work, there are some exceptions and limitations to consider.
Copyright: Under U.S. copyright law, original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression are automatically protected by copyright. This includes literary, artistic, and musical works created by students. However, there are some exceptions:
Work made for hire: If a student creates a work as part of their employment or as a commissioned work, the employer or commissioning party may own the copyright.
Fair use: Educators and schools may use portions of student work for non-commercial educational purposes under the fair use doctrine.
Student privacy: The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of student education records. Schools must obtain written permission from parents or eligible students before disclosing personally identifiable information from education records, with some exceptions for legitimate educational interests.
School policies: Individual schools and districts may have policies in place that govern the use and ownership of student work. Some schools may claim a non-exclusive license to use student work for educational or promotional purposes, whilst others may require students to assign their intellectual property rights to the school.
State laws: Some states have enacted laws that specifically address student intellectual property rights. For example, California’s Student Online Personal Information Protection Act (SOPIPA) prohibits operators of educational websites, online services, and applications from selling student data or using it for targeted advertising.
Despite these protections, the use of student work to train commercial AI models without explicit consent raises concerns about the potential exploitation of student labour and ideas. It is essential for schools to be transparent about their data practices and obtain informed consent from students and their families before using their work for purposes beyond the classroom.
Students and their advocates should pressure schools and policymakers to establish clear guidelines and regulations that safeguard student intellectual property rights and prevent the unauthorised commodification of their work. This may include requiring companies to disclose their data practices, obtaining explicit consent for the use of student work in AI training, and ensuring that students retain control over the distribution and monetisation of their creations.