This has been forced on the NYC public schools since the Bloomberg Administration. Schools were and are under intense pressure to get and keep graduation rates up and they couldn't just kick kids out like Bloomberg's favored charted schools. Programs by which kids would sit in front of computers and go through computer based training modules. Instead of a teacher they'd have a lower paid aide in the room or a teacher in charge of a far greater number of students. The adult would trouble shoot the system but not teach.

This was cheaper and pushed kids through the system but it's not education. Only recently are we starting to see some pushback on this type of garbage but it's a prime example of tech that was meant to be used as an "extra" instead being used to cut costs and remove those pesky teachers

This is not strictly tech but we've seen a push from ed "reformers" towards scripted lessons. This is a favorite of private charter schools, organizations like Teach For America, content and curriculum providers, and yes code.org. There was even training where a teacher had an earpiece during the lesson and an observer would correct the teacher if they went off script.

Content providers love this because it streamlines things to a least common denominator but it certainly isn't education. Charter schools love this because they can hire untrained, unprepared "teachers" who can just follow the scripts. Since the charters can just kick kids out before standardized tests and they can drill and kill for test prep they look good but again, it's garbage education.

Is it really a big step to go from bad scripted lessons to bad AI teachers?

Online or cyber charters are another example. Online schools with hundreds of kids per teacher. Lots of tech, little learning. Just look them up.

If you've read my blog you know I'm not a fan of CS50 but the latest news of them using AI TAs is another example of a level of non-teacher hubris that could easily lead to a way to replace teachers.

Instead of addressing fundamental problems with CS50's design or delivery, they're implementing AI TAs so that students can get more help in the class. Adding an additional resource is, in general a good thing but the real answer would be to look inwards and fix the problems with the course and then also develop additional tools.

Do you really think that someones going to push for a version of CS50 - probably focused on HS which is made up of videos from David Malan, the charismatic front man, and computerized AI TAs. No teachers necessary. There was a push for this during the MOOC explosion. It'll happen again. If not with CS50 then with something else.

The AI TA also brings up tons of questions ranging from how the feedback from the students will then feed into future classes to the issue of students engaging with automatons rather than people and is that, when it gets to a large scale, healthy?

I do fundamentally agree with Pat in that AI will not be able to replace teachers in terms of effective education which is why I don't think we'll see teacher replacement in the "elite" private schools. The rich will provide for their kids and foist the money saving experiments on "other peoples kids."

Unless there are major changes in the way teaching and teachers are perceived in this country there is no doubt in my mind that there will be attempts to replace teachers with AI - it won't improve education but it will enrich donors and reduce municipal budgets.