Summer vacation hit, and like any well-meaning parent, I decided it was time to give my kid some “structured learning.” I figured, I’m a tech person, I have AI. How hard could it be to play teacher for a few weeks?
I grabbed three AI “Skills” to automate the entire process. First, I downloaded an open-source third-grade English textbook from GitHub. I used a document parser to extract the text and images. Then, I used Anthropic’s newly released teacher-specific Skills to generate the lesson plan, student materials, and observation templates. Finally, I used another Skill to generate the classroom PPT.
The entire process was flawless. In minutes, I had a perfectly formatted Word document detailing the lesson plan, complete with student handouts and classroom observation sheets. The PPT was ready to go. But then I actually read the lesson plan.
Generating a lesson plan takes seconds. Actually teaching it takes a soul.
The AI didn’t just spit out a few bullet points. It generated a comprehensive, professionally structured pedagogical document. It included objectives, step-by-step instructional strategies, timing for each activity, and—crucially—an observation template to assess student engagement and understanding in real-time.
It was at this exact moment that the humor of the situation gave way to cold, hard panic.
Most edtech discussions obsess over AI replacing teachers. They imagine a world where algorithms just beam facts into kids’ heads. But this experiment proved the exact opposite. AI didn’t replace the teacher; it perfectly outlined everything the teacher has to do. And doing all of that? It’s terrifying.
AI didn’t make teaching easier. It just held up a mirror to how impossibly hard it actually is.
The AI handed me the script, the props, and the stage directions. But it couldn’t stand in front of a room of distracted kids and adapt on the fly. It couldn’t read the room when a concept wasn’t landing. It couldn’t offer the patience and human connection that actual learning requires.
By giving me the perfect materials, AI stripped away my excuses. I couldn’t blame a lack of resources or bad planning. The only thing standing between my kid and a successful lesson was my own human effort—and looking at that observation template, I knew I didn’t have it in me.
We thought AI would replace teachers. Instead, it just made us realize we don’t want the job.
So, I did what any rational, defeated parent would do. I closed the perfectly formatted Word document, shut down the flawless PPT, and decided to just send my kid to a summer camp.
If you want to understand the future of education, don’t look at the AI that writes the tests. Look at the humans who still have to grade them. AI can automate the preparation, but the core demands of the profession—the observation, the adaptation, the sheer human endurance—remain untouched.
And honestly? That’s exactly why teachers are worth their weight in gold.
FAQ
Q: Doesn't this just mean the AI is doing the hard part?
A: No, the AI is doing the easy part. Generating a document is trivial. Standing in a room, reading a child's confusion, and adapting your explanation on the fly is the hard part. AI just outlined how much of that hard part exists.
Q: What's the practical implication for schools?
A: AI is a force multiplier for good teachers, not a replacement. It removes administrative friction, but it demands the same—if not more—human empathy and adaptability during the actual lesson.
Q: What's the contrarian take on AI in education?
A: AI might actually discourage people from entering teaching. By perfectly outlining the cognitive load required to manage a classroom, it might scare novices away before they even start.