AI can assist learning, but it cannot replace teachers, say school leaders

 As generative AI sweeps through education, a familiar anxiety has resurfaced in faculty rooms and school board meetings: Will the algorithm replace the educator? Sensational headlines have fueled this narrative, painting a future of robot-led classrooms and human obsolescence. Yet, a consensus is emerging from school leaders, educational researchers, and policymakers. Far from viewing AI as a substitute, they argue that the technology’s true value lies in its ability to assist—and that the human teacher is not just relevant, but increasingly indispensable. This stance is not Buddhism. It is a clear-eyed assessment of what AI can actually do versus what teaching fundamentally requires. The Irreducible Core: Relationships and Judgement. The primary argument against teacher replacement centres on the relational nature of learning. School leaders and academics argue that education is not merely a transfer of information, but a deeply human process built on trust, empathy, and mentorship. As a Harvard Educational Review article recently asserted, the future of shared humanity in schools depends on protecting student-teacher relationships; AI-equipped tools that simulate instructional exchanges risk replacing not just teachers, but the interactions and relationships that define a school. Dr Nicole Brownlie, a former school leader and lecturer in teacher education, articulates this clearly: “AI cannot know students. It does not see the quiet effort, emotional shifts, or teachable moments that shape real learning”. While a large language model can generate grammatically perfect feedback, it cannot contextualise that feedback with the knowledge that a student is coping with anxiety, financial hardship, or a recent confidence breakthrough. 

This "professional judgment" brings together experience, relational knowledge, and contextual insight that standardised data cannot capture. This is vividly illustrated in higher education practice. Students at Zhejiang University, comparing AI feedback to advisor feedback, noted that while the AI corrected their grammar and formatting, their professor asked a far more penetrating question: “Does your core argument actually hold up? Defining the Human Role in an AI-Shaped World. A major barrier to productive AI adoption, according to a 2026 convening of 40 policymakers and sector leaders, is that the debate is stuck in a false dichotomy: either AI will save education or destroy it. The Centre on Reinventing Public Education (CAPE) argues that the real risk is not that AI will replace humans, but that education will fail to define and protect what is most human. Leaders are therefore shifting the question. Instead of asking “What can AI automate?”, they are asking “What kinds of learning experiences do students deserve, and how can AI help make those possible?” This reframing positions belonging, purpose, creativity, and critical thinking as essential outcomes. AI can analyse data and personalise pacing, but it cannot foster a sense of belonging or model ethical courage. That remains the domain of the teacher. 

AI as Administrative Partner: While the teacher-student relationship remains sacred, school leaders are finding that AI is an invaluable partner in the administration of education. A proposed framework from researchers at the Australian Educational Researcher suggests a symbiotic collaboration: AI shoulders informational roles such as collecting, analysing, and visualising data, while educational leaders focus on establishing vision, managing conflict, negotiating with stakeholders, and identifying new opportunities. This division of labour is critical. Leaders report that by delegating data-crunching to AI, they reclaim time to actually lead—mentoring staff, building culture, and ensuring equity. Studies cited in a systematic review by Frontiers in Education confirm that principals who exhibit transformational digital leadership significantly increase teachers’ willingness and ability to use AI, not by mandating it, but by cultivating a positive culture and providing professional development. The Counterpoint: The "No Teachers" Model: The insistence that teachers are irreplaceable is tested by emerging models like the Alpha School in Texas, which bills itself as having "no teachers." Students spend two hours a day with AI tutors mastering core academics, spending the rest of the day on life-skills workshops led by  For some parents, this is transformative. However, the model has faced significant criticism. Former parents reported students were stressed by AI-set metrics, and experts like Stanford’s Victor Lee note the school’s refusal to allow independent research makes its efficacy claims "dubious". Crucially, even within this model, the human element crept back in. Parents noted that while guides encouraged independent problem-solving, there remains "a place for that teacher who understands the material" to jump in when a student truly struggles. The "no teachers" model inadvertently proved the rule: removing the teacher leaves a gap that software alone cannot fill.

What AI Does Well (And Why That Helps Teachers) School leaders are not anti-AI. They are pro-teachers. The argument for a possible spelling mistake is found. is paired with a strong argument for integration. Data suggests teachers who integrate AI save an average of six weeks per year, reinvesting that time in instruction and relationships. AI excels at what leaders describe as the "non-core" tasks: grading multiple-choice assessments, generating first-draft lesson plans, producing MATLAB code for engineering students, or offering Socratic-style questioning through chatbots. In medical education, AI assistants can instantly walk students through standardised diagnostic processes, but this pushes the instructor’s work to a higher level—helping students navigate ethical dilemmas and the uncertainty of human care. The Leadership Mandate: The consensus among school leaders is that navigating this shift requires active stewardship. Dr Brownlie emphasises that responsible leadership means ensuring AI supports teacher judgment, not overrides it. 

This requires involving educators in tool selection, allowing professional autonomy, and prioritising tools that reduce administrative burden rather than dictating pedagogy. UNESCO’s AI competency framework reinforces this, urging a "human-centred mindset" where control and accountability remain with the educator. The alternative—ceding curriculum design to tech vendors or allowing compliance policies to create a "chilling effect" on innovation—is a failure of leadership. Conclusion: The narrative that AI will replace teachers persists, but it is a myth that collapses under the weight of classroom reality. AI cannot replicate the judgment of a teacher who knows why a student is struggling. It cannot provide the "intellectual pushback" that sharpens a young mind. It cannot care. School leaders are not merely resisting change; they are drawing a crucial line in the sand. They are embracing AI as a powerful tool—a "tireless teaching assistant"—while fiercely protecting the irreplaceable core of education: the human relationship. As one researcher put it, technological change may be inevitable, but the warmth and depth of education remain a distinctly human choice.