As I predicted shortly after ChatGPT was released to the public, those with control of the purse strings in education would attempt to use it as a way of avoiding genuine reforms to address teacher workload. Whilst to an outside observer Gillian Keegan's recent comments on the utility of AI in teaching may seem reasonable, as someone with qualifications in both computer science and teaching (unlike Keegan) I find them at best misguided and at worst insulting.
Keegan starts off by saying:
"AI could have the power to transform a teacher's day-to-day work. For example, it can take much of the heavy lifting out of compiling lesson plans and marking."
This just shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of the technology and it's current capabilities as we will shortly explore further. Keegan subsequently goes on to state:
"This would enable teachers to do the one thing that AI cannot and that's teach, up close and personal at the front of the classroom."
This is the bit I find insulting. There's a sheer lack of understanding displayed here that it, quite frankly, embarrassing for someone in charge of the DfE. To anyone working in a school the idea that the only thing that teachers do that an AI chatbot cannot do is deliver pre-planned lessons is for the birds. Teachers do so much more which requires skill that cannot be replaced with current AI software: from designing appropriate curricula to the pastoral aspects of the job you're never trained for. I'd like to see ChatGPT resolve an argument between two year 8s over a chicken wrap! Additionally, as a result of Tory (and let's not forget, LibDem between 2010 and 2015) austerity, the public services that used to support children and families have been hollowed out often leaving teachers and school support staff as the last remaining public service to offer support for a whole range of issues beyond the primary business of schools: teaching and learning.
At the root of this is an absence of any consideration of TS5 of the teacher standards which states that teachers:
"Adapt teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all pupils"
AI in its current form can only do this in comparatively rudimentary ways such as by automatically updating when flashcards are shown to students based on past performance. There's a reason multiple studies have shown that students staying with the same teacher has a statistically significant positive impact on outcomes. The ability to adapt instruction to the needs of the student's in front of you is a key part of achieving good outcomes. Without doing this, students will struggle to make progress. Therefore, whilst an AI chatbot is able to produce a somewhat relevant first attempt at a lesson plan, the skill of the teacher is required to adapt it to the needs of their classes. It is not difficult to design a lesson. The hard part you learn in ITT is how to design one that effectively moves your students forward. We're a long way off AI being able to do this well and personally I suggest parents are unlikely to want this in future. Social media sites such as Tiktok already hold enough data to construct detailed profiles of our young people and the desirability of this is already regularly questioned. Would you want a future artificial teacher operated by a for profit company knowing your child as well as their human teachers currently should do? I wouldn't.
It's sadly not surprising anymore to see Keegan engaged in an activity, in this case pontificating about an issue she has very little understanding of, which make no difference to the real issues that face schools and their staff. As school staff we do our best, but there are no shortcuts. Only through properly funding state education and the public services such as CAMHS that should surround them will the needs of all children be adequately met.