From the very first sentence, it's clear that this recent Inside Higher Ed post suffers from one more bad case of AI fabulism. 

In the era of artificial intelligence, one in which algorithms are rapidly guiding decisions from stock trading to medical diagnoses, it is time to entertain the possibility that one of the last bastions of human leadership—academic deanship—could be next for a digital overhaul.

AI fabulism and some precious notions about the place of deans in the universe of human leadership.

The author is Birce Tanriguden, a music education professor at the Hartt School at the University of Hartford, and this inquiry into what "AI could bring to the table that a human dean can't" is not her only foray into this topic. This month she also published in Women in Higher Education a piece entitled "The Artificially Intelligent Dean: Empowering Women and Dismantling Academic Sexism-- One Byte at a Time."

The WHE piece is academic-ish, complete with footnotes (though mostly about the sexism part). In that piece, Tanriguden sets out her possible solution

AI holds the potential to be a transformative ally in promoting women into academic leadership roles. By analyzing career trajectories and institutional biases, our AI dean could become the ultimate career counselor, spotting those invisible banana peels of bias that often trip up women's progress, effectively countering the "accumulation of advantage" that so generously favors men.

Tanriguden notes the need to balance efficiency with empathy:

Despite the promise of AI, it's crucial to remember that an AI dean might excel in compiling tenure-track spreadsheets but could hardly inspire a faculty member with a heartfelt, "I believe in you." Academic leadership demands more than algorithmic precision; it requires a human touch that AI, with all its efficiency, simply cannot emulate.

I commend the author's turns of phrase, but I'm not sure about her grasp of AI. In fact, I'm not sure that current Large Language Models aren't actually better at faking a human touch than they are at arriving at efficient, trustworthy, data-based decisions.  

Back to the IHE piece, in which she lays out what she thinks AI brings to the deanship. Deaning, she argues, involves balancing all sorts of competing priorities while "mediating, apologizing and navigating red tape and political minefields."

The problem is that human deans are, well, human. As much as they may strive for balance, the delicate act of satisfying all parties often results in missteps. So why not replace them with an entity capable of making precise decisions, an entity unfazed by the endless barrage of emails, faculty complaints and budget crises?

The promise of AI lies in its ability to process vast amounts of data and reach quick conclusions based on evidence. 

Well, no. First, nothing being described here sounds like AI; this is just plain old programming, a "Dean In A Box" app. Which means it will process vast amounts of data and reach conclusions based on whatever the program tells it to do with that data, and that will be based on whatever the programmer wrote. Suppose the programmer writes the program so that complaints from male faculty members are weighted twice as much as those from female faculty. So much for AI dean's "lack of personal bias." 

But suppose she really means AI in the sense of software that uses a form of machine learning to analyze and pull out patterns in its training data. AI "learns: to trade stocks by being trained with a gazillion previous stock trades and situations, thereby allowing it to suss out patterns for when to buy or sell. Medical diagnostic AI is training with a gazillion examples of medical histories of patients, allowing it to recognize how a new entry from a new patient fits in all that the patterns. Chatbots like ChatGPT do words by "learning" from vast (stolen) samples of word use that lead to a mountain of word patter "rules" that allow it to determine what words are likely next.

All of these AI are trained on huge data sets of examples from the past.

What would you use to train AI Dean? What giant database would you use to train it, what collection of info about the behavior of various faculty and students and administrators and colleges and universities in the past? More importantly, who would label the data sets as "successful" or "failed"? Medical data sets come with simple metrics like "patient died from this" or "the patient lived fifty more years with no issues." Stock markets come with their own built in measure of success. Who is going to determine which parts of the Dean Training Dataset are successful or not.

This is one of the problems with chatbots. They have a whole lot of data about how language has been used, but no meta-data to cover things like "This is horrifying racist nazi stuff and is not a desirable use of language" and so we get the multiple examples of chatbots going off the rails. 

Tanriguden tries to address some of this. Under the heading of how AI Dean would evaluate faculty.

With the ability to assess everything from research output to student evaluations in real time, AI could determine promotions, tenure decisions and budget allocations with a cold, calculated rationality. AI could evaluate a faculty member’s publication record by considering the quantity of peer-reviewed articles and the impact factor of the journals in which they are published.

Followed by some more details about those measures. Which raises another question. A human could do this-- if they wanted to. But if they don't want to, why would they want a computer program to do it?

The other point here is that once again, the person deciding what the algorithm is going to measure is the person whose biases are embedded in the system. 

Tanriguden also presents "constant availability, zero fatigue" as a selling point. She says deans have to do a lot of meetings, but (her real example) when, at 2 AM, the department chair needs a decision on a new course offering, AI Dean can provide an answer "devoid of any influence of sleep deprivation or emotional exhaustion." 

First, is that really a thing that happens? Because I'm just a K-12 guy, so maybe I just don't know. But that seems to me like something that would happen in an organization that has way bigger problems than any AI can solve. But second, once again, who decided what AI Dean's answer will be based upon? And if it's such a clear criterion that it can be codified in software, why can't even a sleepy human dean apply it?

Finally, she goes with "fairness and impartiality," dreaming of how AI Dean would apply rules "without regard to the political dynamics of a faculty meeting." Impartial? Sure (though we could argue about how desirable that is, really). Fair? Only as fair as it was written to be, which starts with the programmer's definition of "fair."

Tanriguden wraps up the IHE piece once again acknowledging that leadership needs more than data as well as "the issue of the academic heart." 

It is about understanding faculty’s nuanced human experiences, recognizing the emotional labor involved in teaching and responding to the unspoken concerns that shape institutional culture. Can an AI ever understand the deep-seated anxieties of a faculty member facing the pressure of publishing or perishing? Can it recognize when a colleague is silently struggling with mental health challenges that data points will never reveal?

In her conclusion she arrives at Hybrid Dean as an answer:

While the advantages of AI—efficiency, impartiality and data-driven decision-making—are tantalizing, they cannot fully replace the empathy, strategic insight and mentorship that human deans provide. The true challenge may lie not in replacing human deans but in reimagining their roles so that they can coexist with AI systems. Perhaps the future of academia involves a hybrid approach: an AI dean that handles (or at least guides) the operational decisions, leaving human deans to focus on the art of leadership and faculty development.

We're seeing lots of this sort of resigned knuckling under in lots of education folks who seem resigned to the predicted inevitability of AI (as always in ed tech, predicted by people who have a stake in the biz). But the important part here is that I don't believe that AI can hold up its half of the bargain. In a job that involves management of humans and education and interpersonal stuff in an ever-changing environment, I don't believe AI can bring any of the contributions that she expects from it. 

 Arkansas state legislature is deeply worried about trans persons. Rep. Mary Bentley (R- 73rd Dist) has been trying to make trans kids go away for years as with her 2021 bill to protect teachers who used students dead names or misgender them (that's the same year she pushed a bill to require the teaching of creationism in schools).  

In 2023, Bentley successfully sponsored a bill that authorizes malpractice lawsuits against doctors who provide gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Now Bentley has proposed HB 1668, "The Vulnerable Youth Protection Act" which takes things a step or two further.

The bill authorizes lawsuits, and the language around the actual suing and collecting money part is long and complex-- complex enough to suspect that Bentley, whose work experience is running rableware manufacturer Bentley Plastics, might have had some help "writing" the bill. The part where it lists the forbidden activities is short, but raises the eyebrows. 

The bill holds anyone who "knowingly causes or contributes to the social transitioning of a minor or the castration, sterilization, or mutilation of a minor" liable to the minor or their parents. The surgical part is no shocker-- I'm not sure you could find many doctors who would perform that surgery without parental consent, and certainly not in Arkansas (see 2023 law). But social transitioning? How does the bill define that?

"Social transitioning" means any act by which a minor adopts or espouses a gender identity that differs from the minor’s biological sex as determined by the sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous profiles of the minor, including without limitation changes in clothing, pronouns, hairstyle, and name.

So a girl who wears "boy" jeans? A boy who wears his hair long? Is there an article of clothing that is so "male" that it's notably unusual to see a girl wearing it? I suppose that matters less because trans panic is more heavily weighted against male-to-female transition. But boy would I love to see a school's rules on what hair styles qualify as male or female. 

Also, parental consent doesn't make any difference. Rep. Nicole Clowney keyed on that, as reported by the Arkansas Times:

“Is there anything in the bill that addresses the parental consent piece?” Clowney asked. “Even if a parent says, ‘Please call my child by this pronoun or this name,’ it appears to me that anybody who follows the wishes of that parent … that they would be subject to the civil liability you propose here. Is that correct?”

“That is correct,” Bentley said. “I think that we’re just stating that social transitioning is excessively harmful to children and we want to change that in our state. We want to make sure that our children are no longer exposed to that danger.”

In other words, this is not a "parental rights" issue, but a "let's not have any Trans Stuff in our state" issue.  

In hearing, an attorney from the Arkansas Attorney General's office observed that this was pretty much an indefensible violation of student's First Amendment rights, and the AF office wouldn't be able to defend it. According to the Times, Bentley agreed to tweak the bill a bit, but we can already see where she wants to go with this. 

The person filing the suit against a teacher who used the wrong pronoun or congratulated the student on their haircut could be liable for $10 million or more, and they've got 20 years to file a suit.

I'm never going to pretend that these issues are simple or easy, that it's not tricky for a school to look out for the interests and rights of both parents and students when those parents and students are in conflict. But I would suggest remembering two things-- trans persons are human beings and they are not disappearing. They have always existed, they will always exist, and, to repeat, they are actual human persons. 

I was in school with trans persons in the early seventies. I have had trans students in my classroom. They are human beings, deserving of the same decency and humanity as any other human. I know there are folks among us who insist on arguing from the premise that some people aren't really people and decency and humanity are not for everyone (and empathy is a weakness). I don't get why some people on the right, particularly many who call themselves Christians, are so desperately frightened/angry about trans persons, but I do know that no human problems are solved by treating some human beings as less-than-human. And when your fear leads to policing children's haircuts to fit your meager, narrow, brittle, fragile view of how humans should be, you are a menace to everyone around you. You have lost the plot. Arkansas, be better.

“Why do we say we need to import foreigners, even import them illegally, when you know, teenagers used to work at these resorts, college students should be able to do this stuff,” DeSantis said last week at a panel discussion with border czar Tom Homan, as first reported by the Tampa Bay Times.

Yep. Time to bring back child labor.  

It has been a trend for a few years now. Many states that have been busy whacking away at public education have also been getting rid of child labor laws. Some, like Arkansas, teamed up the gutting of child labor protections with laws set to kneecap public schools. Iowa removed protections that kept young workers out of more physically dangerous jobs while expanding the hours they could be asked to work. Missouri similarly shot for increasing working hours for teens. Minnesota said yes to teens working in heavy construction.

In fact, some states are so excited about bringing back child labor, they are willing to bypass parents to do it. You remember how many states require teens to get a permit signed by parents and/or school? Now Arkansas doesn't care to give parents a voice in this particular decision. Ohio's Senator Bill Reineke expressed a similar concern over child labor, arguing that kids who really want to work shouldn't be hampered because "they can't get their parents to cooperate with them." Parents--they only matter sometimes.

Some of the arguments for child labor are spectacular. In Iowa, Jessica Dunker, president of the Iowa Restaurant Association and the Iowa Hotel and Lodging Association testified.

“Nine o’clock for a 15 year old sophomore in high school, you know, I’m sure they’re doing something already and probably it’s a school opportunity,” she said, “but if it isn’t, having kids get the opportunity to work is important.

If kids were allowed to work and compulsory school attendance was abolished, the jobs of choice would be at Chick-Fil-A and WalMart. And they would be fantastic jobs too, instilling in young people a work ethic, which is the inner drive to succeed, and an awareness of attitudes that make enterprise work for all. It would give them skills and discipline that build character, and help them become part of a professional network.

What if we were to be more intentional about creating opportunities for work for our kids, or simply to more closely disciple our children toward a full understanding of the role of their work in honoring God and serving neighbor? In our schools and educational systems, what if we stopped prioritizing “intellectual” work to the detriment of practical knowledge and physical labor, paving new paths to a more holistic approach to character formation?

 Florida has been catching up. According to the US Department of Labor Statistics, the number of child labor violations has tripled, even though just last year the legislature decided that 16 and 17-year-olds being home schooled could work any old hours.

The new bill, SB 918, would amends the applicable Florida statutes and would end pretty much any restrictions on 16 or 17-year-old employment-- number of hours, when those hours would fall, working on school nights--all night--those restrictions are all crossed out in the bill. Those teens would also lose any guaranteed meal break. Now 14 and 15-year-olds can get into the fun world of employment with barely any restrictions (and if they are homeschooled or cyber-schooled, none at all).

The bill was passed by Commerce and Tourism and goes up before the legislature next.

Teens putting in 20 hours a week (or more) are less likely to finish school. But teenagers also make for a compliant, cheap work force. At some point in the debate, someone is going to argue that some children are destined to be meat widgets anyway, so they might as well get to it. At the end of the day, some folks would much rather have access to cheap labor than foot the bill for an education that will just make the Lessers all uppity anyway. We'll see how this bill does and if Florida can catch up to other states in the child labor exploitation game. 

In the 1967 classic The Graduate, Dustin Hoffman was advised "one word: plastics." If it was remade in 2025, the one word would be AI.

Or the people who keep pitching the idea that AI can take over the difficult parts of student writing, like coming up with ideas, or writing a thesis, or maybe, you know, just have the AI write the assignment and then the student could do the rewrite. 

Relax, they say. It's just like when calculators arrived and math teachers freaked out.

Well, no, it's not. First, it would have to involved a calculator that gave the wrong answer a significant amount of the time. Second, there is no writing prompt that can be answered with only one correct essay. 

Content knowledge matters. This is so basic to education, and tech shortcuts do not change it. All aspects of learning rest on Knowing Stuff.

You can google for information all day, but if you don't Know Stuff, you have no way to sort the information wheat from the sludge-covered chaff. "Well, that's why students need the 21st Century skill of analysis and critical thinking," say the techphiles. But you cannot teach critical thinking and analysis like they are content-free skills, waves that exist without a medium through which to move.

My critical thinking skills are fine in areas where I have some content knowledge, or can connect the new information to knowledge I already have. I cannot apply critical thinking to areas in which I am completely ignorant and cannot connect to stuff I already know. As an adult, I have the advantage of having had years to learn lots of stuff, but children do not have that advantage.

Which is why the best thing we can do for small humans is give them the chance to learn stuff. I'm going to argue that it doesn't even matter what the stuff is. For years the Board of Directors here at the Institute were deeply interested in "work trucks"-- construction vehicles of all kinds. Now in second grade, we are deep in Pokemon territory. Do I love this for us? I do not. But they have absorbed a ton of information, and they have learned to organize and categorize large chunks of information in ways that they never could have if we had tried to teach organization without using something to organize. Plus a ton of vocabulary and math that they have picked up via these damned stupid delightful cards.

You can't acquire knowledge and skill second hand, nor can you do it in a vacuum. Of all the AI-for-student-writing advice I read, the most maddening may be "Have the AI write a rough draft and then have the students rewrite." How the hell does someone who has not written know how to edit a piece of writing? And how do you edit a piece when you have no idea what the author meant to say (or, in fact, the author is incapable of intent)? How do they develop the skill of figuring out what they think about a topic by having the AI spit out some topics for them? The only way this could be worse would be if the topic assigned was something the students had no knowledge of at all.

This kind of thinking puts product over process, but it also shows a failure to fully understand the product itself, like a builder who has built a house but neglected to put a foundation under it. 

Knowing Stuff is inescapably important. Writing requires thinking about stuff. Critical thinking is thinking about stuff. Evaluating sources and materials involves thinking about stuff. And you cannot think about what you know nothing about. And neither google nor ChatGPT can change that.

The executive order has finally been signed, and it clarifies... nothing. Lord knows I have often beefed with the department and prayed it would improve, but this is definitely not that.

A photo op with children as a prop. The bulk of it is a bunch of bullshit about the many failings of education and a made-up number about what we've spent ($3 trillion? Really? Can I see the back of the envelope you got those figures from?). The actual meat of the order is this paragraph:

The Secretary of Education shall, to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.

If I were someone from Team Dismantle The Department, I would call this pretty weak sauce. Like that whole "maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law" thing-- within those limits the list of things they can do is fairly short. I can't believe I'm sending you to something from the Education Reform Now people, but these are crazy times, and they have a pretty handy quick explainer about who can legally do what. And it's not much.

Of course, that's within the restrictions of law, and under the current regime's legal theory of "Whatever Dear Leader Wants To Do Is Right And Legal And Anyone Who Disagrees Is A Traitor Who Should Go To Jail," "maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law" is meaningless tissue paper.

The regime also has at hand its favored tool for gutting departments-- firing everyone and making the department functionally non-functional (as someone on social media noted, when you remove 30% of the parts of a plane, it does not fly 30% slower). Trusk has already gutted the Civil Rights wing of the department as well as the Center for Education Statistics, which among other things ends the NAEP test that Trusk cited as proof that US education is sad. NCES would also be needed to come up with the numbers that Title I and IDEA would use to distribute funds, so that's another wrinkle.

The regime has made its basic talking point "Look at all the money we spent on this department, and we didn't get higher test scores." This is a misdirection. This post from Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX 29th)--

"We're going to send education back to the states" is also a baloney talking point-- the states already have responsibility, control, and most of the funding for education. Some would just like to exercise all that without any accountability to anyone. Also, some folks would like to be free of paying taxes to educate Those Peoples' Children.

We still don't know exactly what Trusk and McMahon are going to attempt specifically. Turn IDEA and Title I into block grants (then slowly zero them out) per Project 2025? Use the money to force compliance with MAGA culture panic edicts? Move some of the programs to other departments? Put Wells Fargo in charge of the college loan portfolio (after they buy a $100 million membership at a Trump golf course)? Cut the department to three people, let it fall apart, and declare victory? Cut IDEA and Title I funding to $1.50? Plenty of those things would be illegal, but that just means a fight in the courts, the results of which are double uncertain--uncertain they'll fall correctly, and uncertain that Trusk will pay any attention to the court ruling.

We don't really know any more than we did before the executive order, other than he's saying more loudly that he wants the department gone. So discussion continues to center on conjecture about what would result if X happened

That's stressful, because the one thing we know is that whatever he does, it will be bad-- bad for education, bad for students, bad for the country. 

The Freedom Foundation is more than a think tank. We’re more than an action tank. We’re a battle tank that’s battering the entrenched power of left-wing government union bosses who represent a permanent lobby for bigger government, higher taxes, and radical social agendas.

The Freedom Foundation has a proven plan for bankrupting and defeating government unions through education, litigation, legislation and community activation ... we won’t be satisfied with anything short of total victory against the government union thugs.

"Democrats and union bosses are grasping at straws because teachers finally have a real choice," Walters said. "My office will always communicate with educators about their options, no matter how much it upsets the political establishment."