Aug 2026· Improving Schools· 0 citations· 23 references
TL;DR
Applying Critical Policy Analysis and Jencks’ framework of educational opportunity, the study shows that policy silence is not the absence of governance but a governance choice, one that shapes how access, responsibility, and fairness are determined.
Abstract
This study examines how policy silence functions as a governance mechanism in the context of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in K–12 education. While existing research has focused on how districts regulate or integrate AI, far less attention has been given to what happens when formal guidance is delayed, incomplete, or unresolved. Drawing on a single-district qualitative case study of a Texas public school district, the analysis uses interviews and document analysis as primary data sources, while student survey data provide descriptive context regarding patterns of AI access and guidance. Findings show that policy silence actively redistributes interpretive authority to educators and school leaders, shifting responsibility for ethical and instructional decision-making onto individual classrooms without corresponding institutional support. This redistribution produces uneven enactment and may contribute to disparities in student access, guidance, and learning opportunities. Applying Critical Policy Analysis and Jencks’ framework of educational opportunity, the study shows that policy silence is not the absence of governance but a governance choice, one that shapes how access, responsibility, and fairness are determined. Equitable AI integration requires policies that pair clarity with support for professional judgment, positioning AI governance as central to contemporary school improvement.
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly embedded in higher education, empirical evidence on how institutional governance shapes its equitable and responsible implementation in South African universities remains limited. This study examined how institutional policies and governance practices influence the i...
R. Lumadi· International Journal of Stu...· 0 citations
Course-level AI governance is shaped by the interaction of assessment design, authorship expectations, course purpose, AI adjacency, and instructor discretion, and variation is best understood as an outcome of delegated digital governance whose educational value depends on clarity, justification, and alignment with the...
It is concluded that effective AI governance requires institutionally grounded arrangements that ensure AI supports, rather than undermines, the educational mission of higher education.
Tian-Zi Sun, Mark Joseph D. Pastor· American Journal of Educatio...· 0 citations
The theoretical side of the study extends the Center-Periphery Theory to the realm of AI governance studies, while the practical side draws attention to the need for inclusive policy frameworks, digital accessibility, and ethical governance of AI in the context of socially sustainable digital transformation and protect...
Altantuya Dashnyam, Ariungerel Tseden-Ish, Burmaa Natsag et al.· International journal of res...· 0 citations
Background
Research-policy partnerships are widely used to support evidence-informed reform, yet how evidence actually shapes policy and practice in low-income education systems remains poorly understood. This article asks how, and under what relational and institutional conditions, evidence generated by Research on Im...
M. Araya, Pauline Rose, D. Tiruneh et al.· Evidence & Policy: A Journal...· 0 citations
This study synthesizes fragmented research on artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education governance and identifies key gaps for future research and policy and provides a useful lens for interpreting institutional adaptation.
Xinyi Jiang, Zuraidah Abdullah· Frontiers in Education· 3 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.