Can Schools Implement AI Without Burning Out Teachers?

A fictional exchange of letters which may be magical thinking, but maybe not

Dear Dr. Swearingen,

I am writing to share my perspective on your recent mandate from the Curriculum Office to integrate AI tools into our curriculum. While I understand the district’s desire to stay current with educational technology, I don’t believe your approach is possible. In fact, it may make matters worse. It borders on magical thinking. I believe we need to slow down and address several serious concerns before mandating anything. I don’t believe teachers should be given a hall pass, but I don’t believe they should be treated as technicians. We are professionals.

Frankly, the last two years have been the worst years of my teaching career. As you know, my school is not a high scorer on the standardized tests you require. Teachers like me in schools like mine need greater consideration because our students need so much more than we teachers can provide them with.

After opening your email requiring us to start integrating AI on the first day of school, I spent four hours trying to figure out how the new AI writing assistant would fit into my existing lesson plans. Instead of reducing my workload as promised, I found myself creating entirely new rubrics, trying to develop AI detection protocols that won’t convict students of plagiarism without determining their intent, and redesigning assignments I’ve refined over eight years of teaching using insights from my observations of students. This is what we were taught to do in our credential programs.

My bigger concern is what this mandate means for the children in this school. Just before last year ended, at least half of my students had used AI to complete their research projects on the Great Depression. When I asked them to discuss their learning, they couldn’t. They had turned in work they didn’t understand. I’ve used this assignment successfully in the past, but it’s obsolete now unless I forbid use of AI.

I’m also watching inequities emerge in real time. My colleagues agree that students from lower-income families, the majority of our students, are using free AI tools while the few others with more family income have access to premium versions with advanced features. This wasn’t an issue when everyone used the same library resources. Now I’m seeing a new kind of digital divide that I’m not equipped to address.

Please understand. I’m not opposed to technology. I’ve successfully integrated online collaboration tools, digital portfolios, and interactive simulations that enhance learning. But many of those tools supported the pedagogical approaches I know work for my students. Or at least they didn’t force me to change how I teach. With AI, I feel like I’m being asked to change how I teach without clear evidence that it improves learning outcomes and without adequate time to develop expertise in these new approaches.

I’m asking for three things: First, provide substantial professional development time (not just a one-hour workshop) for teachers to explore these tools together. Second, include classroom teachers in the decision-making process about which AI tools we adopt and how we implement them. Third, let’s pilot these programs with willing volunteers before requiring all teachers to use them.

My resistance isn’t about being stuck in the past. I’m too young to be old. I want to maintain the educational quality of learning experiences our students deserve. I hope we can work together to find a path forward that honors both innovation and effective teaching practice. This issue is so deep in our work that if we can’t work together, we will inevitable be at loggerheads. Our students will suffer the fallout.

Sincerely,

Ms. Jennifer Taylor

History Department

Anytown High School​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

*****

RE: Concerns Regarding AI Implementation in Our Classrooms

Dear Ms. Taylor,

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed letter. I have shared your letter with the Superintendent, other administrators, and the Board. We knew that AI was creating a big problem for teachers, but none of us were fully aware of the details of the dire straits you and your colleagues find yourself in. You’ve opened our eyes to the true scope of the problem, and we are forever grateful.

Your concerns reflect exactly the kind of professional expertise we need driving our AI integration—not following behind it. You’ve identified real problems that require real solutions like those you suggest, and on behalf of the Superintendent I want to outline how we can address them systematically.

Regarding Professional Development and Implementation Timeline

You’re absolutely right that meaningful integration requires substantial time investment. I’m proposing we rescind our mandate and shift to a two-year pilot model where participation is voluntary for Year 1. This year, we’ll provide monthly 4-hour professional development sessions (with substitute coverage) for interested teachers, plus token summer stipends for next year for deeper exploration. I wish we could do more.

Of course, we will have limited resources to pay for these opportunities, but it may be possible to defer maintenance on our bus parking areas for this purpose. There are other on-going expenses which we can look at. Rather than mandating AI use, let’s have volunteers become our in-house experts who can mentor colleagues when they’re ready to engage.

Creating Teacher-Led AI Committees

I want to establish and resource an AI committee at every school led by classroom teachers—not administrators—to evaluate tools, develop implementation guidelines, and create standards for what “good” AI integration looks like. As the curriculum administrator, I need to be closely involved with these committees to help me make budgeting decisions.

I think it may be possible to view these local AI committees as one choice from the menu of voluntary service work on school committees already a normal part of the teacher workload like the library book selection committee, sponsoring student clubs, running theatrical performances, etc. Some of this work is time demanding and requires a stipend (e.g., theater performances), but there may be room for reallocation of some funds. Because we will be opening discussions with AI providers, our AI committees will steer us in the right direction for a major capital outlay. We can’t afford to make the wrong decisions.

Would you consider applying to chair our newly designed district task force to lead the development of this initiative? We want a teacher in this position. We will hire a half-time teacher for the year to take their classes three days per week. This position would require the person to take on public-facing work, including attending Board meetings on occasion. I understand that this sort of work isn’t for everyone. After we discuss what it would entail, you’re under no obligation to apply, but if you choose not to apply, we would like you to be on the interview committee.

Addressing the Equity Challenge

Your observation about the digital divide is crucial. As I’ve said, I’m recommending we negotiate district-wide licenses for premium AI tools so all students have equal access. I’m unsure at this point of a timeline. Admittedly, this will involve considerable sums of money. However, having AI teams at each school will help us keep costs as low as possible.

We plan to search for available grants and local contributions from businesses to cover an interim period of capacity building which will undoubtedly stretch beyond our current budget until these new expenditures can be integrated. Your letter helped us understand that AI integration can’t be mandated. It must be developed, and as with any institution-wide change in the way we do business, development takes careful planning and resourcing. It also takes money.

At this moment, we are struggling to keep the district music program functioning, another top priority, and expensive as well. Taking resources from this work would not sit well with our community. Music and athletics are two important magnets that keep students from leaving school.

Preserving Authentic Learning

What if we try to reframe AI not as a replacement for traditional skills, but as a tool that makes higher-order thinking more accessible? The Board chair is very interested in this, especially for challenging schools like yours.

The Chair mentioned reading about an approach where students document their AI usage and demonstrate their own understanding through oral presentations or Socratic seminars. Because we in administration are basically in the dark about what might work, we need you and your colleagues to guide us on how to turn this situation around.

Assessment Innovation

Are teachers sanguine about a move toward more performance-based assessments which I have discussed with the Superintendent on previous occasions? We understand these assessments, while subjective, are naturally AI-resistant: collaborative problem-solving, live presentations, peer teaching, and project defenses.

These might align with our existing strengths and provide clearer evidence of student thinking than traditional written assignments in the age of AI. We are ready to listen and support our teachers in making changes that are beneficial and don’t lead us to bankruptcy and state takeover.

Resource Allocation

I’m rebudgeting for additional planning time and reducing other initiatives without diminishing our push for Music in Education. We can focus on AI integration thoughtfully without decimating the budget if we move forward carefully and draw on resources already available to us.

I’m hiring a part-time “AI Integration Specialist,” ideally a former classroom teacher with extensive AI expertise, to provide ongoing support at your school as a pilot rather than one-shot workshops. A colleague in a parallel position in another state told me about an excellent resource, Dr. Nick Potkalitsky, who might have some names of experts for us to interview. We are already aware that we need full-time support at each school. The budget won’t allow it this year.

Thank you so much for your letter. It catalyzed a number of fragmented conversations we have been having and made clear we need to act cohesively in an intentional manner. Your point about maintaining “educational quality and authentic learning experiences” should be our north star. AI should amplify excellent teaching, not replace it, definitely not cause problems for teachers. Let’s schedule a follow-up meeting to discuss these ideas.

I so appreciate teachers like you who push us to implement innovation responsibly rather than reactively. Unfortunately, we’ve been asleep at the wheel and are of necessity acting reactively. With the help of teachers like you, we can course correct and do what needs to be done for the children in the district.

With thanks and best regards,

Dr. Michael Swearingen

Curriculum Office Administrator

Anytown U.S.A Joint Unified School District

P.S. Would you be interested in presenting your concerns and our solutions at next month’s district leadership meeting? Your voice needs to be part of these conversations at all levels.​ As a volunteer or a paid member of the project, we need you involved. Thank you for all you do.

.