Switch course ▾
Session 3. Ethical Principles and Dilemmas
Objective. Lead a staff group in discussing a school AI dilemma with a five-step protocol: set out facts, name who is affected, name the principles in tension, weigh at least three options and write a short decision record with a review date.
Ethics in a school is not a lecture; it is the habit of asking who might be harmed or left out before a decision is made. This lesson goes beyond the six ideas. It shows how to test a tool for bias with your own pupils' work in an hour, how to chair a discussion so that status does not decide the outcome, and how to keep a teacher's own judgement alive when a tool offers quick answers. These small habits make international principles real.
Key ideas
Six ideas in school words
- Bias: the tool may work better for some pupils than others, for example weaker Uzbek or stereotypes about villages. Fairness: pupils without a device or a quiet home are not left behind. Privacy: a child's information is used only for a clear purpose.
- Autonomy: pupils and teachers keep the right to think and choose; a tool should not quietly decide for them. Accountability: a named person answers for each use. Human oversight: a person can see, question and override what the tool does.
- These words appear in major texts: UNESCO's Recommendation on the Ethics of AI names principles such as human oversight and determination, fairness and non-discrimination, privacy and data protection, and responsibility and accountability. The OECD AI Principles name five. Read them as a vocabulary, not as a checklist to copy.
A dilemma is right against right
- An ethical dilemma is not a good choice against a bad one. It is two good aims that cannot both be fully met: safety against privacy, efficiency against fairness, protection against autonomy.
- Example: a tool that warns of a pupil in distress protects the child, but reads private messages. Naming both goods stops the argument becoming 'you do not care' against 'you are careless'.
- Most school AI cases do not need a philosophy lecture. They need a calm sequence of questions asked in the same order every time, so that the loudest voice does not decide.
A five-step protocol
- Step 1 Facts: what do we know, what do we only assume, what must we find out? Step 2 Who is affected: pupils, parents, teachers, and the people who are not in the room.
- Step 3 Principles in tension: name two, in a sentence each. Step 4 Options: at least three, always including 'do not do it', 'do a smaller version' and one you dislike.
- Step 5 Decide, record, review: choose, say what you give up, test reversibility ('can we undo this?'), and set a date to look again. If the decision cannot be explained to a parent in the school corridor, it is not ready.
Proportion and honest records
- Match the effort to the stakes. A tool that drafts a reading text needs a short chat. A tool that sorts pupils needs the committee, evidence and a pupil and parent voice. UNESCO's Recommendation calls this proportionality and do no harm.
- A decision record has seven short lines: date, decision, reasons, principle put first, what we gave up, who signed, review date. It protects the leader as much as the pupils, because later nobody has to guess what was decided and why.
- Beware ethics as decoration: a poster of values with no change in what the school does is worse than silence, because it teaches staff that the words are not meant.
The five-step dilemma protocol
Testing for bias with your own pupils' work
International texts warn about bias, but a school can check for it cheaply. Take ten pieces of anonymous work, from pupils who write in Uzbek, in Russian and in a second language, and from town and village classes, with names removed. Ask the tool for feedback or a score on each. Then a teacher reads the ten outputs side by side. Are the comments equally detailed and encouraging? Is the score related to the content, or to polished language or length?
Record what you see in a sentence, not in a statistic, because ten items prove nothing statistically; they show whether you have a reason to worry. If you do, bring in a second teacher and test twenty more. Never put pupils' names or identifiable work into a tool for this test.
Chairing the discussion and keeping judgement human
Dilemma discussions are easily won by the most senior or loudest person. Start with two minutes of silent writing, so everyone has an opinion on paper before anyone speaks. Give someone the role of speaking for the pupils who are not in the room and someone the role of devil's advocate. The chair summarises the two principles in tension before any option is voted on.
A second thread is the teacher's own judgement. When a tool offers a grade or a comment in seconds, it is tempting to accept it. Autonomy and accountability mean that the teacher reads, may disagree and signs. A good school rule says that the teacher never passes on an AI comment she would not say herself, and that an AI output is never given as the reason for a decision about a child.
Examples from the classroom
Ten pieces of work
Scene. At a school near Samarkand, Dilnoza, the methodist, tests an essay-feedback tool on ten anonymous essays: four from Uzbek-medium pupils, three from Russian-medium pupils and three from pupils writing in their second language. She finds that comments on the three second-language essays are shorter and less encouraging, even for good ideas. She reports this to the committee, which limits the tool to structure suggestions that a teacher rewrites and writes to the vendor.
Insight. A small, honest test with real work can show a reason to worry and change the decision.
Silent writing first
Scene. The staff of a Tashkent school discusses a chatbot for Grade 8 pupils. The head usually speaks first and others agree. Malika, the new chair, asks everyone to write one sentence on a card and to read them out in a random order. Three teachers raise concerns about pupils' private questions being stored, which the head had not thought of. The committee adds a data-retention condition before approval.
Insight. Silent writing before speaking prevents status from deciding the outcome.
The comment she would not say
Scene. Aziz teaches Grade 6 in Fergana and uses a tool to draft end-of-term comments. One draft says a pupil 'lacks motivation'. Aziz knows the boy has been caring for a sick grandfather. He rewrites the comment and later proposes a rule to the committee: no AI comment is passed on unless the teacher would say it to the pupil's face. The rule is adopted and appears in the acceptable-use policy.
Insight. Human oversight means the teacher owns every sentence that reaches a child.
Common pitfalls
- Treating a discussion as won because the senior person is convinced.
- Reading international principles as a checklist that proves the tool is ethical.
- Testing a tool for bias with real, identifiable pupil work.
- Passing on an AI comment about a child that the teacher has not read with care.
Run the Dilemma Protocol
- Open the Activity Kit: four SAMPLE dilemma cards from Zarafshon School, the six-principle table and the protocol sheet (5 min).
- Trios (20 min): take dilemma card 1. Follow the protocol in order, filling the sheet. One person keeps time, one speaks for the pupils who are not in the room, one writes.
- Trios (10 min): repeat quickly with card 3 or 4, but this time swap roles. Compare: did the same two principles clash?
- Whole group (5 min): each trio reports only step 3 (the two principles) and its chosen option, with one sentence of reason.
- Part B, trios (15 min): write the seven-line decision record for card 1, including what the school gives up and a review date, and a sentence you would say to a parent in the corridor.
- Offline fallback: cards, table and sheet are printed and the protocol needs only paper. If there is no printer, write the five step names on the board and copy the cards by hand.
Your facilitator will guide you through this activity in the session.
Questions to discuss
- Which two principles clashed most often, and did anyone refuse to give up one of them?
- Who spoke for the pupils who were not in the room, and what did they add?
- What did the 'smaller version' option change in the final decision?
Reflect
- Which ethical conflict about technology has your staff room already argued about?
- Whose voice is usually missing when such decisions are made?
- Which past decision would you now write a decision record for?
Try it tomorrow
- Collect ten anonymous pieces of pupil work and compare the tool's responses side by side with a colleague.
- In your next staff discussion, start with two minutes of silent writing and give someone the role of speaking for absent pupils.
- Add one line to your acceptable-use rule: no AI comment about a child is used unless the teacher would say it aloud.
Further reading and links
A dilemma is right against right; the same five steps in the same order, a decision record and a review date turn heated opinion into a decision others can follow.