AI in Schools
EDUtech Day 2 meets the eve of two Friday submission deadlines
Digital Attitudes, 4 June 2026
Day two of EDUtech opens at the ICC this morning. Tomorrow is the 5pm filing day for the two consultation responses the procurement team has been drafting since Monday. The two reads land in the same hall before the floor closes.
Lodge takes the Innovation Stage at 11am, Liu and Luckin sit alongside Sue Keay at 11:30am
The Innovation Stage runs the Jason Lodge cognitive offloading panel at 11am today, picking up the UTS and UQ Loble and Lodge paper on the assessment design problem that the academic press has been pointing at since March. Thirty minutes later, Danny Liu (University of Sydney, Cogniti), Rose Luckin (UCL Knowledge Lab) and Sue Keay (chair, AI Standards Committee) take the same stage for a human-centred AI panel moderated by Tom Worthington. The session sits one stage across from the Tech Buyers Program 1:1 meeting tracks running through the morning. The Jason Lodge speaker page at Terrapinn, and the UTS release on the Loble and Lodge cognitive offloading paper.
Why this matters: For state Department of Education CIOs and university CIOs walking the floor today, the 11am to noon block is the academic baseline against which the morning's vendor pitches will be measured, because the Lodge cognitive offloading framework is the one the AGPPA NAPLAN call, the Learning First teacher survey, and the Catholic Schools NSW procurement conversation are all already pointing at. For vice-chancellors and deputy vice-chancellors (academic) deciding what the 2026 to 2027 institutional AI policy actually says, the Liu panel is the read of how the Cogniti constrained-agent model, now shared with over 60 universities, schools and other education providers per Sydney's own line, compares to the open-internet ChatGPT Edu and Copilot for Education seat licences pitched at the booths. For ed-tech vendors on the floor, the operational signal is that the 11:30am panel puts the Australian AI Standards Committee chair on the same stage as the institution-built tools, which means the next standards conversation is now an EDUtech conversation rather than a Canberra one.
Twenty four hours to file the OAIC code and the Senate failed promise submission
The OAIC Children's Online Privacy Code consultation closes at 5pm tomorrow, and the Senate Education and Employment References Committee's "Australian university graduates" inquiry, dubbed the failed promise inquiry by Senator Fatima Payman, closes for submissions at the same hour. The first batch of public submissions to the Senate inquiry, published in May, includes an anonymous UNSW Masters student arguing AI usage should not be tolerated, ICT engineer Nassar Zaytouni warning of "the systemic dilution of academic standards" and asking for curriculum rewrites focused on skills AI cannot replicate, and cybersecurity student Hamid Osmani noting that entry-level opportunities are declining with AI adoption. The OAIC code names schools and online education platforms as in scope, takes effect 10 December, and the industry consultation responses are read against the parent-consent platform pattern the OAIC's own consultation paper names as a failure point. The OAIC Children's Online Privacy Code industry consultation page, and the Future Campus AU read of the Senate inquiry framing, 20 April.
Why this matters: For school business managers and university CISOs filing the OAIC submission today, the operational question is whether the school's vendor stack (Compass, Sentral, Schoolbox, Canvas, Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, ChatGPT Edu, Copilot for Education) can demonstrate compliance with the under-18 data handling requirements the code will impose from December, and the under-18 best-interest assessment is the line the school's existing privacy collection notice will have to be rewritten against. For vice-chancellors and deputy vice-chancellors (academic) writing the Senate inquiry response, the first batch of submissions has already named the framing the institution will be answering against: AI adoption is dropping the graduate hire rate, the curriculum has not been rewritten for the skills AI cannot replicate, and the universities have not made the case that the degree certifies the work. For ed-tech vendors with a stand at EDUtech today, the procurement teams will walk back from the lunch break and will not have time tomorrow morning for a fresh pitch, which means today is the day the answer to both consultations has to land at the booth.
From Digital Attitudes: When the paperwork is the policy
The ANU TEQSA voluntary undertaking from 27 April is the template this week's submission deadlines should be read against. TEQSA did not legislate. It got a public university to sign a piece of paper handing the chancellor selection panel chair to the regulator, and the document now exists as a template the next time a public university stumbles on a governance question. The OAIC code that registers on 10 December will work the same way: not as legislation but as a set of obligations a procurement team enforces against a vendor contract. The essay at digitalattitudes.com.au.
Why this matters: For independent and Catholic school heads filing the OAIC submission today and the Senate inquiry submission tomorrow, the read is that the next time a school system stumbles on the Canvas-style supply chain question, the regulator will not need to legislate either, it will hand over a template and ask for a signature. For state Department of Education CIOs deciding what the 2027 to 2028 budget brief looks like, the paperwork as policy line is the one the Australian Framework for Generative AI in Schools, the AITSL Teacher Standards review and the Higher Education Standards Framework all sit on. For ed-tech vendors at the floor today, the operational read is that the contract terms a school signs in 2026 will outlive the legislative debates of 2027 and 2028, which means the booth conversation today is the procurement conversation for the next two years.
The thread today is that the floor opens at the ICC and the paper has to be on the regulator's desk by 5pm tomorrow. The Lodge cognitive offloading panel sets the academic baseline at 11am, the Liu and Luckin panel sets the procurement comparator at 11:30am, and the two consultation responses the procurement team is filing tomorrow will define what the 2027 vendor stack looks like. More on the operational read at digitalattitudes.com.au.