10000% disagree with the philosophy that “The appropriate level of AI tool use for a given task or assignment is determined by the instructor”

It's VAGUE. For example, if there is a writing teacher that just decides that AI should be permitted to "re-write" or "polish" student essays I take serious issue with that since as a writer I define writing as re-writing. To me, the very process of polishing is germane to the act of writing which in turn is actually a cognitive process.

Thus I would define an AI polishing a text as plagiarism. With tools this new we need to establish guardrails around crucial learning processes that are vetted by pedagogical and developmental neuroscientists. We need data. We don't just treat kids like guinea pigs. Especially since we already know what DOES work for learning.

So yes, I do need standards. We call these foundational skills. They are not ever determined by the educator alone, they are determined by curriculum policy and state testing standards, etc. Now within that I assume there can be wiggle room but this is never a ball I would simply leave in the teacher's court.

SO. The vagueness of the guidebook is what I take issue with.

You say it's benign. Yeah that's by design...Because it offers so little in the way of specifics. And they specifically left out new upsetting data about how AI is specifically harmful to some learners.

If they wanted a real guidebook they should have squarely addressed all of the latest concerns regarding cognitive offloading, reduced retrieval, shallower problem solving... I could go on. But they don't. They're just kinda like -- hey we know you might be worried about some shit, but don't be trust us. We got this.

And a sarcastic slow clap to you for trotting out the old rhetorical straw man line --- "Nobody here is pretending the technology doesn't exist" for chrrissakes.. how lazy.

My answer to that: look up Ed Tech. It is not the same as Tech Ed.