AI in Schools
Donovan says more tech will not fix the digital literacy slide
Digital Attitudes, 11 June 2026
The Thursday read is the operational answer landing on Australian school and university desks this week from three desks that name the same gap: the system has bought the tools, the system has not yet bought the skill, the policy, or the workforce model the tools were supposed to ride on.
Donovan tells schools more tech will not fix the literacy plan
Dr Jenny Donovan (CEO of the Australian Education Research Organisation) responded on Wednesday 10 June to the Education Minister's task on the NAP-ICTL 2025 results that landed two weeks ago (50 per cent of Year 6 students and 37 per cent of Year 10 students at or above the proficient standard, the lowest scores since the assessment began in 2005). Minister Jason Clare's line on the May release: "These results have been trending down for two decades. At the same time, more and more children have had access to digital technology and devices. Begs the question: what is going on here?" Donovan's line on Wednesday: "Students can become familiar with digital tools very quickly, but without deliberate instruction, that familiarity doesn't develop into the skills needed to evaluate information, think critically, or solve problems." The capstone: "Without that, new technologies, including AI, risk reinforcing superficial engagement rather than enhancing knowledge, skills and learning." The Educator K/12 on the Donovan piece, 10 June, and The Educator K/12 on the original NAP-ICTL release, 27 May.
Why this matters: For independent and Catholic school heads briefing the term 3 digital literacy plan against the line every parent will quote at the next information evening, Donovan's argument is the AERO answer to the "what do we do next" question, and the answer is that the next AI tool quote the procurement team puts on the leadership desk has to come with an explicit instructional design line for what the tool teaches, not just what it does. For state Department of Education CIOs running NSWEduChat, Corella, SA EdChat and ClassmAIte, the operational read is that the case the state's own platforms make to the Treasury brief (free, secure, available at scale) is the same case Donovan now publicly says is not the literacy plan on its own, so the next deployment paper needs the curriculum and assessment line drafted alongside the procurement line. For ed-tech vendors selling AI literacy modules and digital citizenship curriculum into Australian schools (the Common Sense Education AI Foundations module, the various Microsoft Elevate credentials, the Atlassian Foundation programs), the procurement question Donovan hands the buyer is whether the product develops evaluative judgement and feedback seeking, or whether it just trains the student to operate the tool, and the answer for most product sheets is the second.
Chelliah names the AI native teaching workforce gap from the UTS desk
Professor John Chelliah (chair of the academic board at The Institute of International Studies and adjunct fellow at the University of Technology Sydney Business School) published in HR Leader on Monday 8 June a piece arguing the Australian academic workforce model is not equipped for the AI native teaching environment that is now regulator approved practice. The exemplar Chelliah cites is the London School of Innovation receiving UK regulator approval for AI-tutor-delivered master's programs. His framing: "AI native-teaching is no longer a speculative future, it is now regulator-approved practice." The Australian read he names: the country treats AI as a compliance risk rather than an integrated capability, the academic profession needs to shift toward judgment, ethics, oversight and human connection while AI handles instruction and feedback, and institutions that fail to redesign roles now risk being uncompetitive by 2030. HR Leader on the Chelliah piece, 8 June.
Why this matters: For vice-chancellors and deputy vice-chancellors (academic) reading the TEQSA toolkit of 8 May, the Universities Australia 15 May TEQSA response, and the ATEC commencement on 1 July as one document, Chelliah's argument is the workforce side of the Higher Education Standards Framework redraft that the institution's AI assessment policy has not yet answered, because the institution's policy on staff and student AI use is not the same paragraph as the institution's workforce model. For TAFE NSW, TAFE Queensland and TAFE WA directors reading the VET to higher ed AI tooling conversation the SupaHuman and EduGrowth VET working group has been running, the operational read is that the role redesign Chelliah names (AI handles instruction and feedback, the human handles judgement and connection) is the conversation the VET stream has been having for six months and the higher ed stream is only just landing in HR Leader. For ed-tech vendors selling AI tutoring, AI lesson design and AI feedback products into Australian universities, the procurement signal Chelliah sharpens is that the buyer side is now publicly arguing the regulator approved comparator is overseas, which means the local product roadmap has to answer how a UK-style AI tutor-delivered award would pass TEQSA's risk frame, not just how the product fits inside the existing assessment workflow.
OAIC's Children's Online Privacy Code consultation closed Friday with a 10 December clock
The OAIC's 60-day consultation on the exposure draft of the Privacy (Children's Online Privacy) Code 2026 closed at 5pm on Friday 5 June. The final Code must be registered by 10 December 2026. The drafted requirements include a duty on entities to provide privacy education and training at least annually to all personnel who have regular or frequent access to children's personal information, and a duty to keep records of that training and provide them to the Commissioner on request. The Code's scope captures social media services, designated internet services and relevant electronic services likely to be accessed by children, which on the OAIC's own reading covers a long list of ed-tech products schools have already bought. The OAIC Children's Online Privacy Code page, and the Addisons read of the consultation timeline and substance.
Why this matters: For independent and Catholic school heads briefing the term 3 parent information evening, the Code is the document the school's own AI tool consent form and the school's own data sharing line will be measured against from December, because the annual privacy training line for staff with access to children's data is now also the parent facing assurance line the school's IT director will be asked to confirm in writing. For state Department of Education CIOs running the Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 stack alongside the state-built AI platforms, the operational read is that 10 December is the date the next vendor contract has to be re-papered against, and any product processing student data without a documented annual training plan is now sitting in a deadline gap. For ed-tech vendors selling student-data-touching products into Australian schools (the seat licence stack, the LMS, the AI marker, the AI feedback tool, the careers platform), the procurement line the buyer will run from December is whether the vendor can produce its own staff training plan on request, and the answer for most stacks is not yet in writing.
Search engine age check deadline lands on school accounts on 27 June
Under Phase 1 of the eSafety Commissioner's Age-Restricted Material Codes (registered 27 June 2025, in force from 27 December 2025), providers of internet search engine services must implement appropriate age assurance measures for account holders in Australia by Saturday 27 June 2026, sixteen days from this morning. The Code applies to Google and Microsoft (Bing). Acceptable age assurance methods are technology neutral and include parental confirmation, photo ID, facial age estimation, credit card checks, digital ID wallets and third party verification providers. A single breach can attract a fine of up to $49.5 million. For schools, every Google Workspace for Education account and every Microsoft 365 Education account a student signs into search with is in scope from the same date. Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer on the new online safety codes requiring age verification, and the Conversation read of the Code's school facing scope.
Why this matters: For state Department of Education CIOs reading the Google Workspace and the Microsoft 365 contract clauses against the WA, NSW and Queensland identity stack, the operational read is that the search account age verification line of 27 June is two and a half weeks away, and the question the procurement team has to answer this morning is whether the school's federated identity stack already passes age into the provider through SSO, or whether the school is leaving the check to the parent at first sign-in. For independent and Catholic school heads briefing the term 3 IT plan, the search engine age check is the first item the next parent information evening will be read against, because the parent question of "what does my child's school account actually do now" has a new 27 June answer. For ed-tech vendors integrating with Google or Microsoft sign-in into Australian school stacks, the operational read is that the age check is now the vendor's compatibility line too, and any product whose own SSO journey breaks under the new check is in a renewal conversation the procurement team did not have on the desk a month ago.
The thread this morning is that three desks landing the operational paper this week (AERO on the literacy plan, Chelliah on the higher ed workforce model, OAIC on the children's data code) are all saying the same thing about the same gap, with the eSafety search engine deadline on 27 June the first hard date the gap has to be closed against. More on the operational read at digitalattitudes.com.au.