Imagine a scenario where a teacher inputs her lesson plan into an AI tool on a Sunday night, receives a refined set of discussion questions, and enters the classroom ready. When a student questions the relevance of a question, she relies on her extensive experience to address the issue. This is something AI cannot provide. Over recent years, tools like ChatGPT have evolved from novelties to essential educational aids. Experts frequently emphasize the irreplaceable aspects of teaching such as mentoring and judgment, which AI cannot mimic. While AI can customize learning, it cannot substitute the bond between a teacher and student. California law now safeguards this relationship.<\/p>\n
In California’s community colleges, AI has transitioned from being just an “emerging technology” to intersecting with important state legislation. Recent legislative actions clarify that AI can assist but not replace educators as the primary instructors. This reinforces a known truth: AI supports, but teachers remain central. In practice, AI can be used as a research assistant rather than a replacement. For instance, instructors might use AI to create multiple-choice questions or draft rubrics, but the ultimate decisions remain human. This approach is in line with the state’s legislative intent to ensure qualified human instructors are responsible for teaching.<\/p>\n
AI should be viewed as a tool to assist in planning, not as a participant in live teaching. During a typical class, AI might suggest ways to introduce concepts or propose discussion prompts, but once class starts, the teacher’s expertise takes precedence. The U.S. Department of Education’s report on human-in-the-loop AI emphasizes the central role of educators in designing and evaluating tools. Teachers might explain to students that while AI helps brainstorm, it does not drive classroom interactions. This aligns with the law’s focus on genuine human engagement and helps students understand the role of AI in learning.<\/p>\n
California’s AB 2370 expects teachers to use professional judgment when incorporating AI, similar to evaluating textbooks. Before recommending AI tools, educators should test them for accuracy and alignment with learning goals. Teachers can engage students in evaluating AI-generated work, reinforcing expectations and demystifying AI. Educators might include an “AI Tools” section in the syllabus to specify allowed tools and conditions, linking these guidelines to the legislative requirement for qualified human instructors.<\/p>\n
Although legislation may seem removed from daily teaching, AI policy already influences student perceptions. Some students might think AI is prohibited, while others assume it’s mandatory. The law provides an opportunity for educators to have clear, human-focused discussions about AI use, helping students understand its role and limitations.<\/p>\n