Reflections on AI in Education 

As I build more content for my new venture, Al for Teachers Today, I've noticed the

pushback against Al growing louder. It's made me pause, reflect, and dig deeper. Rather

than digging in my heels or rushing to defend one side, I've tried to hold space for multiple

perspectives. Because when it comes to Al in education-or really any transformative

technology-the truth is rarely binary.

Life isn't black and white, or even just shades of gray. It's vibrant, messy, full of color and

dimension. The Al debate mirrors that complexity perfectly.

The Extremes We Keep Hearing

On one end, there's the breathless hype: Al will save education, personalize learning at

scale, replace outdated systems, and usher in a golden age of efficiency. It will "replace

everyone," automate the drudgery, and free humans for higher pursuits.

On the other, the deep fear: Al is soulless, a threat to genuine thinking, a destroyer of

creativity, empathy, and the human soul of teaching. It will erode skills, spread

misinformation, and ultimately harm children more than help them.

These poles dominate headlines and heated threads. But most of us live somewhere in the

middle-excited by possibilities, wary of pitfalls, and trying to figure out how to move

forward responsibly.

Where I Stand (For Now)

My position is simple: feet on the ground, ready to adapt. I'm not planted stubbornly in the

sand, refusing to listen when critics raise valid points. I'm open to new evidence, new tools,

and new ways of thinking as they emerge.

The pushback I've encountered hasn't discouraged me-it's sharpened my work. It forces

me to be more careful about what I create and publish. Interestingly, it's also made me a

more thoughtful consumer of others' content. When someone challenges Al's role in

classrooms, I don't dismiss it; I examine it. That friction is productive.

The Rising Premium on Real, Embodied Experience

One idea that's stuck with me lately: if you truly buy the hype that Al will automate away

most cognitive and creative labor, then invest in things that stay stubbornly human-like

travel and in-person adventures.

Airlines could become premium precisely because they deliver what screens can't: the feel

of takeoff, the taste of street food in a new city, the serendipity of getting lost with

strangers. 

(And yes, the recent online banter between Elon Musk and Ryanair's CEOcomplete with jokes about buying the airline and putting a "Ryan in charge"-only

underscores how travel remains a very human domain, full of personality, friction, and realworld stakes.)

In education, this translates to the same principle. The value of experiences that build

character, empathy, resilience, and judgment is skyrocketing. Al can support those thingsthrough simulations, personalized feedback, or scaffolding-but it can't replace the

irreplaceable: a teacher who sees a student's spark, a group project where disagreement

turns into growth, or the quiet thrill of figuring something out together in a shared physical

space.

The Tool vs. The Thought: A Pendulum in Motion

Did I use Al to help shape these reflections? Absolutely-I drafted, refined, and sparked

ideas with it. But did it originate the core thoughts? No. The questions, the analogies, the

stance-they're mine.

Could I have outsourced the thinking entirely? Sure. And I've done that in the past-leaning

too hard on tools for quick outputs, skipping the deeper wrestling. That's part of learning.

Progress rarely moves in a straight line or rests perfectly balanced in the center. It swings

like a pendulum: we push something to its extreme, feel the costs, then swing back toward

intention and restraint.

Recent reports and discussions echo this oscillation. Some highlight real risks: overreliance

can shortcut cognitive development, weaken critical thinking, reduce active engagement,

and even undermine teacher autonomy. Others point to thoughtful upsides: personalization

at scale, freeing educators for deeper mentoring, and support for diverse learners. The

difference lies in design-tools that challenge rather than spoon-feed, policies with

transparency and human oversight, and educators/students as active partners.

Moving Forward with Eyes Open

I'm grateful for the pushback. It keeps me honest. It reminds me that the goal isn't to "win"

the Al debate-it's to build something useful for teachers and students in this evolving

landscape.

My hope for Al for Teachers Today is simple: practical, balanced guidance that helps

educators use these tools thoughtfully-amplifying human strengths rather than

diminishing them.

Where do you sit in this colorful spectrum? What's the most compelling piece of pushback

you've encountered lately? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Let's keep the conversation going-adaptively, curiously, and humanely.