Artificial intelligence has swept through all industries but one of the most concerning is that of the education sector. AI in education refers to digital tools using algorithms to help with learning and testing. It is essential to distinguish between the use of AI as a helpful tool and a qualified teacher; human contact is obviously vital in every aspect of a child’s upbringing, including school where knowledge and values are essentially delivered by teachers.
Over 5,000 students attend Barton Peveril, a sixth-form college in central Hampshire, which has recently developed its own generative AI model, named Barton AI. The aim of this model, according to the college, is to support student learning, enhance teaching, and promote digital literacy. Students have taken issue with the AI’s implementation and use. To better understand their concerns, I spoke with the anonymous owner of a social media account named No to Barton AI.
AI for lunch, not lessons
They have garnered almost 1,000 followers campaigning against Barton’s AI. They explained that at first it started simply. Barton AI could answer simple questions such as “what’s on the lunch menu?” and its use was completely voluntary. This changed in the 25/26 academic year where Barton AI was introduced more prominently, being implemented for academic purposes homework, coursework and marking.
Teachers even began utilising it to mark creative subjects such as photography and graphics, threatening art’s core principle of being created and critiqued by people instead of being replaced by artificial intelligence.
A new branch Barton PD AI was then designed to replace the pre-existing personal development programme; this is a replacement for interactions directly with tutors, and health and wellbeing experts at the college, again removing the human aspect of very human topics. The use of AI for therapy is widely regarded as a bad idea, as they are built for analytical tasks, so it needs to be watched closely.
Models have been known to stigmatise certain conditions and enable dangerous behaviour in users. In the case of Barton AI, courses were generated for topics such as sleep, hygiene, organisation and study skills, all inherently human topics to be presented to students posing as factual and researched information.
No to Barton AI
The No to Barton AI campaign resulted in several meetings led by staff being held at the college, which received mixed responses from students. Some were happy their voices had been heard and that the meeting was constructive; others felt that their arguments were shut down by the college.
One of the main arguments against the use of AI is the data centres it relies on and their impacts. Data centres require rare earth minerals for their microchips, which leads to harmful unsustainable mining. They also require a large amount of clean water to cool electrical components, an issue considering a quarter of the world lacks clean water.
At these meetings, the college compared the impacts of AI data centres to using Netflix and TikTok. Although these platforms do utilise data centres, they are not being built at the rate and scale that companies such as Open AI and Oracle are constructing them for the use of artificial intelligence. It was also felt that because Netflix and TikTok are platforms students use in their free time and for leisure, the college was essentially guilt-tripping students and not taking these issues seriously.
The administration suggested the students form committees to campaign harder, which acts as a strategy to dissuade students from continuing, as they already have busy academic lives. Barton’s personal development AI has since been suspended temporarily due to the campaign.
Stronger guidelines for AI
Of course students use AI as well and the proportion of students using AI tools such as ChatGPT has jumped from 53% to 88% from 2024-25. The way students are using AI varies from note taking and explaining concepts all the way to writing whole essays. AI tools need to be used as their name implies, to aid education and not replace it. Generating whole pieces of work should be discouraged by schools enforcing rules and using AI checkers, realising also that in most cases it is not an acceptable alternative to a teacher.
I believe the government should be enforcing stronger guide lines upon schools as the website currently states: “Schools and colleges can set their own rules on AI use, as long as they follow legal requirements around data protection, child safety, and intellectual property.” This is not enough for what maybe the biggest technological advancement of the century.
In the case of Barton and the universities of Falmouth and Staffordshire, it is nevertheless clear that it is a useful tool for both teachers and pupils. In the UK, teachers work more intensively and longer hours than many careers, being expected to work ‘reasonable additional hours’ to fulfil their professional responsibilities.
It’s no surprise that 76% of teachers are using AI tools but problems arise when both groups over-use this facility, characterised by the teacher’s use of AI for marking even creative subjects and the students’ eagerness to use it for writing essays.
Both are at the best unhelpful but at the worst morally and creatively questionable. .
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
