Bargaining for the future: How St. Paul educators are keeping humans in control of AI

When the human resources director in St. Paul, Minn., said she couldn't promise that jobs wouldn't be cut because of artificial intelligence, Leah VanDassor, president of the Saint Paul Federation of Educators, immediately recognized a new front in collective bargaining: protecting educators' jobs from so-called AI replacements.

"As the leader of our union, I have to protect against that in our contract," she says.

The issue was a flashpoint in a negotiation that would make SPFE one of the first locals in the country to win explicit AI language in a K-12 contract-language that insists, in writing, that human educators, not algorithms, must stay at the center of teaching and learning.

In an era of uncertainty, with Department of Homeland Security officers upending the lives of students and their families, the added protections offer educators and their communities a measure of reassurance. When things feel chaotic, having explicit contractual safeguards is no small thing.

'We need to have humans working with humans'

VanDassor had been watching AI creep into classrooms for a while, often with little discussion and even less transparency.

In reading, for example, the district adopted a phonics curriculum called the University of Florida Literacy Institute Foundations program-known as UFLI, pronounced "you fly"-with a built-in AI component. Educators are required to give a spelling test and feed the results into the AI tool, which then groups students based on their errors and suggests instruction. One member told VanDassor, "Well, that's my job. I know who these kids are. I could create lessons based on what that's telling me, and that's my critical thinking." What bothers VanDassor even more is that using the system is mandatory.

At the same time, she's clear that the union isn't anti-technology. She knows AI can make work less cumbersome and free up time to spend with students. "We understand that AI can be very helpful," she says. "We're fine with that."

But that's precisely why they wanted guardrails: Tools that support educators are one thing; tools that replace their professional judgment are another.

"Our whole thing was, we need to have humans working with humans," VanDassor says. "We're not working in a factory where we're trying to shave seconds off the production line. We're making sure people come to school and are educated by other people with critical-thinking skills."

From AFT guardrails to St. Paul contract language

When SPFE decided to bargain over AI, VanDassor called Rob Weil, the AFT's director of field programs for the educational issues department and the CEO of the AFT's National Academy for AI Instruction. He sent "pages and pages and pages" of suggested contract language built, in part, from the AFT's "Commonsense Guardrails for Using Advanced Technology in Schools."

Those guardrails, developed by the AFT's Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the Classroom, start from a simple premise: Advanced technology is powerful and here to stay, but "technology will never, and should never, replace human interaction," Weil says. To achieve that, he says, including AI job protections in collective bargaining is necessary.

"Everybody's guardrails always say we have to keep the human in charge and the human quality of our schools," he says. "OK-bargain it. Put it in the contract."

For years, districts have maintained that technology is a management right, meaning any and all decisions around it are the sole domain of administrators. Management makes decisions about things like which laptops to buy, and that's the end of the conversation. That may work with hardware, Weil says, but "that's your mother's technology." AI, he argues, "is a whole different ballgame" because it touches every aspect of educators' work.

That's why the SPFE contract includes a full section on collective bargaining, arguing that AI is now actively shaping what happens in the classroom and that, as a result, it's not just an equipment decision. It's now a working-conditions issue, and that's squarely in the union's purview.

"When AI shows up, we demand bargaining," Weil says. "If it's affecting the way you teach, that's not about management rights, that's about your job."

What SPFE won

With the AFT's guidance, the St. Paul local initially proposed strong language: The district would not be allowed to "eliminate or reduce the positions, hours or compensation" of bargaining-unit members because of AI. "That's directly saying, 'You can't fire us in favor of AI," VanDassor says.

In the end, what remained was narrower language: The district "shall not eliminate bargaining unit members as an immediate and foreseeable result of adopting" AI technologies. While the phrase still provides some protection against direct job loss tied to a new AI program, it still leaves room for the district to shrink staffing through attrition. When someone retires, the district can choose to hire AI instead of a human.

"That's not great, but this is where we could get to," VanDassor says. "We got our foot in the door, and it's a start. We'll build on it next time."

SPFE also won language that ensures "teachers are directly involved in the selection, procurement, implementation and assessment" of any new tool, but the local's clearest win came around evaluation and discipline. The contract says educators cannot be disciplined, involuntarily transferred or non-renewed based solely on AI-generated data or metrics.

"There has to be a human involved in any kind of disciplining of an educator," VanDassor says.

The union also pushed for notice, training and ongoing support when the district adopts new AI tools, but the issue there is that no one is quite sure how to provide it. "It's just so unsure what we're going to see in the future," she says, "whether that's next semester or in five years."

Unions and districts are charting new territory

That uncertainty is not unique to St. Paul.

School districts nationwide are attempting to keep up with the lightning speed of AI development. By default, that entails learning about AI and implementing it at the same time-the proverbial building-the-plane-while-flying-it.

Teachers are currently getting little, if any, professional development related to AI, though some are plunging in headfirst, and their students are using it regularly. That's why the AFT, working alongside New York City's United Federation of Teachers and lead partner Microsoft Corp., with founding partners OpenAI and Anthropic, launched the National Academy for AI Instruction-a $23 million initiative that will give all 1.8 million AFT members free access to AI training and curriculum, beginning with K-12 educators. Based at a state-of-the-art bricks-and-mortar facility in Manhattan, the academy is designed to close the gap in structured, accessible AI training. Perhaps most importantly, it offers a national model for AI-integrated curriculum that keeps educators firmly in the driver's seat.

The AFT is also investing in professional learning through Share My Lesson, including AI Educator Brain webinars and other resources that help educators use AI to reduce paperwork and tailor instruction while keeping "human-centered educational practices" front and center.

Bargain the human into the loop

SPFE's contract aligns with the AFT's broader push: to ensure that AI "enhances education while protecting the rights and well-being of students and teachers," and that through collective bargaining, educators secure the training, infrastructure and ethical oversight they need.

As VanDassor puts it, "We're trying to make sure people are coming to school and they're being educated by other people who have critical-thinking skills and are using their brains to make those decisions."

In an AI era, that's exactly what the AFT is bargaining to protect.

[Melanie Boyer]