AI Changes Teacher Contracts Amid Evolving Education Landscape

The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) is prompting significant shifts in how teachers perform their jobs, influencing hiring practices, evaluations, lesson planning, and student assessments. Despite this transformative potential, many school districts have yet to adapt their labor contracts to reflect these changes. Most public school teachers are unionized, and their contracts typically outline their work conditions in great detail. As AI tools become more integrated into education, it is anticipated that contracts will need to address issues such as compliance with district AI policies and protections against misuse of AI technologies.

Currently, only a small number of districts have created comprehensive policies regarding the use of AI in education. This lack of clear guidelines complicates contract negotiations, as seen in districts like Ithaca, New York, and Orange County, Florida, where discussions have stalled over concerns that AI could replace teachers, undermine professional judgment, or misjudge teacher effectiveness. The need for clarity in contract language regarding AI is becoming increasingly urgent.

Robbie Torney, senior AI director at Common Sense Media, emphasized that while teachers have historically navigated the challenges posed by new technologies in the classroom, there is currently a lack of guidance on the potential pitfalls of AI. “Unfortunately, some of these issues might not actually even be on teachers’ radar,” he noted. In response to the growing implications of AI, the National Council of Teacher Quality (NCTQ) is set to begin analyzing AI-related contract language in the coming year. The focus will be on how AI can enhance teacher recruitment, retention, and instructional capacity.

Heather Peske, president of NCTQ, expressed that as discussions around AI evolve, there will likely be increased protections for teachers against its misuse. “We will see more protection being put in place to guard against the misuse of AI, particularly in ways that could damage teachers — either their reputations or their actual work with kids,” she stated. Currently, research from RAND Corporation indicates that only about 10% of school districts have established policies on AI usage among teachers, with even fewer addressing its implications for hiring, training, and evaluation.

In districts where AI-related policies have been introduced, these often arise from negative experiences. For instance, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, implemented one of the first contracts addressing non-consensual digital manipulation and deepfakes. This initiative was partly a response to an incident where a teacher was recorded without consent, leading to altered material being circulated online. Brant Osborn, president of the St. Tammany Federation of Teachers and School Employees, highlighted the necessity for protections, stating, “Once we were at the table, we considered other things we’d seen and tried to imagine the future and what other terrible things could happen.”

The contract now includes provisions for teacher privacy and outlines disciplinary procedures surrounding the unauthorized use of a teacher’s likeness in digital media. Since the introduction of this contract, the district has not faced deepfake-related issues. Nevertheless, Osborn acknowledged that updates to AI policies often occur reactively, only as problems arise.

In the larger context of teacher rights and protections, discussions are emerging around how AI might affect intellectual property rights. Osborn mentioned that many teachers currently sell their lesson materials online without concern. However, the existing contract language on academic freedom and intellectual property has not been updated since the early 1990s. “We probably need to spruce that up,” he added.

Both the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association have begun developing initial guidelines for teachers regarding AI usage. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, warned that without proactive measures in contract discussions, there could be broader implications for educators. “If we don’t figure out how to harness [AI in contracts] and how to have educators lead it, it’s not just going to be about some job loss; it’s really going to be about the machine taking over from human beings,” she expressed.

During its annual convention, the NEA voted to create model collective bargaining language that encompasses fundamental topics such as job protections, data collection, and ethical AI use. Teacher contract negotiations in Ithaca faced challenges this summer partly due to union demands for language preventing the district from employing generative AI to replace teaching roles. Meanwhile, district officials expressed caution against imposing limits on a rapidly evolving technology. Robert Van Keuren, Ithaca’s chief investigative officer, remarked, “We know it’s going to be big, but we don’t know how big — and it really isn’t up to us.”

Educators across the nation are still grappling with the implications of AI in their work environments. Adam Aguilera, a middle-grades English/language arts teacher in Evergreen, Washington, highlighted the need for immediate training on AI technologies for teachers. “School districts are implementing these kinds of AI tools, not only for instruction and curriculum, but also for surveillance and camera systems in buildings,” he explained. Aguilera emphasized that training on AI should be prioritized in teacher contracts to ensure safety and efficacy in the learning environment.

The situation has reached a point where educators and administrators must consider the broader implications of AI on teaching and learning. Osborn described the current landscape as a potential “crisis” in education, where the focus should extend beyond merely preventing cheating to ensuring that AI does not harm students.

In Illinois, the Rockdale 84 district has adopted a collaborative approach to managing AI-related issues in the workplace. While its current contract does not impose specific limits on AI, it has established a committee composed of union and district representatives to advise the school board on the adoption and training related to AI tools. The agreement acknowledges the potential of such technologies to enhance educational outcomes while respecting the rights and professionalism of teachers.

As the landscape of education continues to evolve with the integration of AI, the necessity for clear, comprehensive contract language addressing these changes has never been more critical. The educational community is at a crossroads, and the decisions made today will shape the future of teaching and learning in the digital age.