With the rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), teachers have been thrust into a new and ever-shifting classroom reality. The public, including many students, now has widespread access to GenAI tools and large language models (LLMs). Students sometimes use these tools with schoolwork. School boards have taken different approaches to regulating or integrating tech in classrooms. Teachers, meanwhile, find themselves responding to these paradigm shifts while juggling student needs and wider expectations AI raises.

     There are many questions about the purpose of education, including questions around academic integrity and how education can uphold fairness and equity. Questions include: How can students successfully navigate the use of these tools safely, effectively and ethically? How can schools prepare students for the future as organizations and institutions scramble to determine how to respond to or integrate aspects of AI? Will harnessing AI’s potential impact critical thinking and other cognitive skills? Teachers are uniquely positioned to help guide students as they grapple with the existential and social implications of AI alongside practical concerns for their own and students’ futures. Teachers cannot face this complex challenge alone — they need support and to feel skilled and empowered to fulfil this important role.

      There’s a growing international consensus echoed by calls to action that teachers are essential players as learners develop AI literacy. Despite growing resources, the development of AI technology continues to outpace implementation support and essential training for teachers. This widening gap between teacher competencies and the demands of an AI-infused classroom is unsustainable. This is not merely about keeping pace with technology; it’s about equipping teachers to guide the next generation in a world transformed by AI. By empowering teachers with skills and confidence in AI use, they can continue to guide students and shape students’ critical and responsible engagement with this technology.

      Teachers cannot do this alone. Successfully integrating AI into education requires a concerted and collaborative effort from all stakeholders within the educational ecosystem. Together, these partners can help establish clear, strategic mandates for AI integration and dedicate robust funding for essential tools and comprehensive training and research to foster innovative spaces where educators and researchers can experiment and study practices. Research is needed to assess the broader effects of AI use, for example, on critical thinking and cognitive offloading, to evaluate and understand the impacts of this technology in education. Supports are needed to ensure that AI adoption is not haphazard, but strategic and equitable across all jurisdictions.

    Implementation should also consider teacher burnout and the existing responsibilities that teachers carry. What can be removed, and what robust supports can be provided so teachers can take this on without compromising their wellbeing or effectiveness? It’s time for policymakers to recognize that investing in teachers is one of the most powerful ways we can invest in our students and in a better future for all of us.

     With the rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), teachers have been thrust into a new and ever-shifting classroom reality. The public, including many students, now has widespread access to GenAI tools and large language models (LLMs). Students sometimes use these tools with schoolwork. School boards have taken different approaches to regulating or integrating tech in classrooms. Teachers, meanwhile, find themselves responding to these paradigm shifts while juggling student needs and wider expectations AI raises.

     There are many questions about the purpose of education, including questions around academic integrity and how education can uphold fairness and equity. Questions include: How can students successfully navigate the use of these tools safely, effectively and ethically? How can schools prepare students for the future as organizations and institutions scramble to determine how to respond to or integrate aspects of AI? Will harnessing AI’s potential impact critical thinking and other cognitive skills? Teachers are uniquely positioned to help guide students as they grapple with the existential and social implications of AI alongside practical concerns for their own and students’ futures. Teachers cannot face this complex challenge alone — they need support and to feel skilled and empowered to fulfil this important role.

      There’s a growing international consensus echoed by calls to action that teachers are essential players as learners develop AI literacy. Despite growing resources, the development of AI technology continues to outpace implementation support and essential training for teachers. This widening gap between teacher competencies and the demands of an AI-infused classroom is unsustainable. This is not merely about keeping pace with technology; it’s about equipping teachers to guide the next generation in a world transformed by AI. By empowering teachers with skills and confidence in AI use, they can continue to guide students and shape students’ critical and responsible engagement with this technology.

      Teachers cannot do this alone. Successfully integrating AI into education requires a concerted and collaborative effort from all stakeholders within the educational ecosystem. Together, these partners can help establish clear, strategic mandates for AI integration and dedicate robust funding for essential tools and comprehensive training and research to foster innovative spaces where educators and researchers can experiment and study practices. Research is needed to assess the broader effects of AI use, for example, on critical thinking and cognitive offloading, to evaluate and understand the impacts of this technology in education. Supports are needed to ensure that AI adoption is not haphazard, but strategic and equitable across all jurisdictions.

    Implementation should also consider teacher burnout and the existing responsibilities that teachers carry. What can be removed, and what robust supports can be provided so teachers can take this on without compromising their wellbeing or effectiveness? It’s time for policymakers to recognize that investing in teachers is one of the most powerful ways we can invest in our students and in a better future for all of us.

    The security risks faced by Parliaments, legislatures, elected representatives, and the officials who support them, differ greatly according to their evolving national and local circumstances, among other things. For some, the biggest security risks may stem from disruptive protesters and cyber criminals, but terrorism may pose the most concerning risks for others. In fact, threat actors differ enormously in their intentions and capabilities, which also change over time.

    Given that risk is a product of threat, vulnerability, and impact, it follows that ultimately there are only three ways to reduce security risk — namely, by reducing the threat, reducing the vulnerability, or reducing the impact (or some combination thereof). Reducing the threat element of security risk is difficult, especially in the case of determined and capable threat actors. Responsibility for reducing threats tends to lie mainly with national law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies. That said, parliaments and other organisations can contribute to threat reduction through deterrence — in other words, by influencing the intentions of threat actors. Carefully crafted security-minded communications can convey a discouraging message to potential attackers, to the effect that they should expect to confront professional security measures and face a substantial risk of being caught. For instance, a parliamentary website might advertise that visitors will undergo ‘airport-style screening’, without explaining precisely what that entails. The public should be reassured by such message, whereas some threat actors might be deterred.

Paul Martin. Parliamentary security: an introductory guide.

Internet: <www.cpahq.org> (adapted).

    The security risks faced by Parliaments, legislatures, elected representatives, and the officials who support them, differ greatly according to their evolving national and local circumstances, among other things. For some, the biggest security risks may stem from disruptive protesters and cyber criminals, but terrorism may pose the most concerning risks for others. In fact, threat actors differ enormously in their intentions and capabilities, which also change over time.

    Given that risk is a product of threat, vulnerability, and impact, it follows that ultimately there are only three ways to reduce security risk — namely, by reducing the threat, reducing the vulnerability, or reducing the impact (or some combination thereof). Reducing the threat element of security risk is difficult, especially in the case of determined and capable threat actors. Responsibility for reducing threats tends to lie mainly with national law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies. That said, parliaments and other organisations can contribute to threat reduction through deterrence — in other words, by influencing the intentions of threat actors. Carefully crafted security-minded communications can convey a discouraging message to potential attackers, to the effect that they should expect to confront professional security measures and face a substantial risk of being caught. For instance, a parliamentary website might advertise that visitors will undergo ‘airport-style screening’, without explaining precisely what that entails. The public should be reassured by such message, whereas some threat actors might be deterred.

Paul Martin. Parliamentary security: an introductory guide.

Internet: <www.cpahq.org> (adapted).

    The security risks faced by Parliaments, legislatures, elected representatives, and the officials who support them, differ greatly according to their evolving national and local circumstances, among other things. For some, the biggest security risks may stem from disruptive protesters and cyber criminals, but terrorism may pose the most concerning risks for others. In fact, threat actors differ enormously in their intentions and capabilities, which also change over time.

    Given that risk is a product of threat, vulnerability, and impact, it follows that ultimately there are only three ways to reduce security risk — namely, by reducing the threat, reducing the vulnerability, or reducing the impact (or some combination thereof). Reducing the threat element of security risk is difficult, especially in the case of determined and capable threat actors. Responsibility for reducing threats tends to lie mainly with national law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies. That said, parliaments and other organisations can contribute to threat reduction through deterrence — in other words, by influencing the intentions of threat actors. Carefully crafted security-minded communications can convey a discouraging message to potential attackers, to the effect that they should expect to confront professional security measures and face a substantial risk of being caught. For instance, a parliamentary website might advertise that visitors will undergo ‘airport-style screening’, without explaining precisely what that entails. The public should be reassured by such message, whereas some threat actors might be deterred.

Paul Martin. Parliamentary security: an introductory guide.

Internet: <www.cpahq.org> (adapted).

    The security risks faced by Parliaments, legislatures, elected representatives, and the officials who support them, differ greatly according to their evolving national and local circumstances, among other things. For some, the biggest security risks may stem from disruptive protesters and cyber criminals, but terrorism may pose the most concerning risks for others. In fact, threat actors differ enormously in their intentions and capabilities, which also change over time.

    Given that risk is a product of threat, vulnerability, and impact, it follows that ultimately there are only three ways to reduce security risk — namely, by reducing the threat, reducing the vulnerability, or reducing the impact (or some combination thereof). Reducing the threat element of security risk is difficult, especially in the case of determined and capable threat actors. Responsibility for reducing threats tends to lie mainly with national law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies. That said, parliaments and other organisations can contribute to threat reduction through deterrence — in other words, by influencing the intentions of threat actors. Carefully crafted security-minded communications can convey a discouraging message to potential attackers, to the effect that they should expect to confront professional security measures and face a substantial risk of being caught. For instance, a parliamentary website might advertise that visitors will undergo ‘airport-style screening’, without explaining precisely what that entails. The public should be reassured by such message, whereas some threat actors might be deterred.

Paul Martin. Parliamentary security: an introductory guide.

Internet: <www.cpahq.org> (adapted).

    The security risks faced by Parliaments, legislatures, elected representatives, and the officials who support them, differ greatly according to their evolving national and local circumstances, among other things. For some, the biggest security risks may stem from disruptive protesters and cyber criminals, but terrorism may pose the most concerning risks for others. In fact, threat actors differ enormously in their intentions and capabilities, which also change over time.

    Given that risk is a product of threat, vulnerability, and impact, it follows that ultimately there are only three ways to reduce security risk — namely, by reducing the threat, reducing the vulnerability, or reducing the impact (or some combination thereof). Reducing the threat element of security risk is difficult, especially in the case of determined and capable threat actors. Responsibility for reducing threats tends to lie mainly with national law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies. That said, parliaments and other organisations can contribute to threat reduction through deterrence — in other words, by influencing the intentions of threat actors. Carefully crafted security-minded communications can convey a discouraging message to potential attackers, to the effect that they should expect to confront professional security measures and face a substantial risk of being caught. For instance, a parliamentary website might advertise that visitors will undergo ‘airport-style screening’, without explaining precisely what that entails. The public should be reassured by such message, whereas some threat actors might be deterred.

Paul Martin. Parliamentary security: an introductory guide.

Internet: <www.cpahq.org> (adapted).

    The security risks faced by Parliaments, legislatures, elected representatives, and the officials who support them, differ greatly according to their evolving national and local circumstances, among other things. For some, the biggest security risks may stem from disruptive protesters and cyber criminals, but terrorism may pose the most concerning risks for others. In fact, threat actors differ enormously in their intentions and capabilities, which also change over time.

    Given that risk is a product of threat, vulnerability, and impact, it follows that ultimately there are only three ways to reduce security risk — namely, by reducing the threat, reducing the vulnerability, or reducing the impact (or some combination thereof). Reducing the threat element of security risk is difficult, especially in the case of determined and capable threat actors. Responsibility for reducing threats tends to lie mainly with national law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies. That said, parliaments and other organisations can contribute to threat reduction through deterrence — in other words, by influencing the intentions of threat actors. Carefully crafted security-minded communications can convey a discouraging message to potential attackers, to the effect that they should expect to confront professional security measures and face a substantial risk of being caught. For instance, a parliamentary website might advertise that visitors will undergo ‘airport-style screening’, without explaining precisely what that entails. The public should be reassured by such message, whereas some threat actors might be deterred.

Paul Martin. Parliamentary security: an introductory guide.

Internet: <www.cpahq.org> (adapted).

    The role of the police in a healthy democracy is radically different from their role in authoritarian societies. In autocratic regimes, the police serve mainly to protect not the people, but the regime. The police are therefore typically politicized, with appointments being part of the patronage system that rewards regime loyalists. Police officers spend a great deal of time spying on the populace to unmask political opposition; crime against citizens is less of a concern. Abuse and corruption are usually rife, because police are not held accountable for their actions. Rather, political leaders tolerate abuses by the police in return for police loyalty to the regime.

    By contrast, in democratic societies the primary mission of the police is to protect citizens against crime and disorder, including illegal or corrupt behavior by officials. In democracies, police have carefully circumscribed roles that require close and positive relations with ordinary citizens. The use of arms and pursuit of criminals are rare and take up only a tiny fraction of police time. Instead, police officers spend the vast bulk of their time building relationships with the community through patrols, community-enhancing activities, and listening to citizens. The goal of democratic policing is to build a web of relationships between the community and the police that helps to control crime by making police aware of the persons and activities in the communities that they are assigned to protect and by inclining citizens to trust and cooperate with police. This also achieves the primary goal of making citizens feel secure in their daily activities, thereby fostering a climate that encourages increased legitimate business activity, investment, and planning for the future.

Michael D. Wiatrowski and Jack A. Goldstone. The ballot and the badge: democratic policing. In: Journal

of Democracy, Volume 21, Number 2. Internet: <muse.jhu.edu>  (adapted).

    The role of the police in a healthy democracy is radically different from their role in authoritarian societies. In autocratic regimes, the police serve mainly to protect not the people, but the regime. The police are therefore typically politicized, with appointments being part of the patronage system that rewards regime loyalists. Police officers spend a great deal of time spying on the populace to unmask political opposition; crime against citizens is less of a concern. Abuse and corruption are usually rife, because police are not held accountable for their actions. Rather, political leaders tolerate abuses by the police in return for police loyalty to the regime.

    By contrast, in democratic societies the primary mission of the police is to protect citizens against crime and disorder, including illegal or corrupt behavior by officials. In democracies, police have carefully circumscribed roles that require close and positive relations with ordinary citizens. The use of arms and pursuit of criminals are rare and take up only a tiny fraction of police time. Instead, police officers spend the vast bulk of their time building relationships with the community through patrols, community-enhancing activities, and listening to citizens. The goal of democratic policing is to build a web of relationships between the community and the police that helps to control crime by making police aware of the persons and activities in the communities that they are assigned to protect and by inclining citizens to trust and cooperate with police. This also achieves the primary goal of making citizens feel secure in their daily activities, thereby fostering a climate that encourages increased legitimate business activity, investment, and planning for the future.

Michael D. Wiatrowski and Jack A. Goldstone. The ballot and the badge: democratic policing. In: Journal

of Democracy, Volume 21, Number 2. Internet: <muse.jhu.edu>  (adapted).