What happens when artificial intelligence challenges the very foundations of education? In a thought-provoking Q&A, educational thinker Lee Crockett explored independent learning, human connection, the future of universities and why schools must be prepared to change.
We have been here before. When calculators arrived, educators worried that students would forget how to calculate. When Google became widely available, teachers worried that students would simply look up the answers. Now, with artificial intelligence, we are having similar conversations.
But is AI just another technological development, or is it something fundamentally different?
During a fascinating Q&A session with Lee Crockett, one message emerged repeatedly: people have not stopped wanting to learn. What is changing is the arrangement through which learning happens.
And that has some profound implications for schools.
Are We Creating Independent Learners or Dependent Students?
One of Crockett’s most challenging observations concerned the transition from school to university.
Students spend years in carefully structured environments. Teachers tell them what to learn, when to learn it, how to demonstrate their understanding and whether they have succeeded.
Then, just three months after leaving school, many arrive at university, where they are expected to manage their own learning.
Suddenly, the responsibility shifts.
Crockett questioned why we expect students to develop these independent learning skills almost overnight.
His argument was that independence should be developed gradually throughout schooling, with increasingly greater responsibility given to learners as they mature.
By Years 11 and 12, students should be capable of directing much more of their own learning, identifying gaps in their knowledge and evaluating their progress.
He offered a particularly powerful statement:
“By the time they leave us, they should no longer need us.”
That is quite a different goal from preparing students to pass their next examination.
It also raises an uncomfortable question: Have we built an education system that rewards dependence rather than independence?
When every learning activity is prescribed, every question has an expected answer and every achievement is measured externally, students may become very good at following instructions without becoming particularly good at learning independently.
Our Job Is Not Simply to Teach
When asked where schools should begin changing, Crockett did not suggest a new technology platform, timetable or curriculum.
He suggested a conversation.
Schools, he argued, are living systems made up of people. Changing a system on paper can be relatively straightforward. Changing the beliefs and behaviours of the people within it is much harder.
He posed a provocative question:
“If you taught it, and they didn’t learn it, have you done your job?”
Some teachers might argue that their responsibility is to deliver the curriculum and that learning is ultimately the student’s responsibility.
Crockett challenged that mindset.
His view was that the purpose of teaching is not simply to deliver information, but to facilitate learning.
That distinction matters enormously.
A teacher who sees their job as delivering content might measure success by completing the syllabus. A teacher who sees their job as facilitating learning might instead ask whether students can apply their knowledge, explain their reasoning and continue learning without assistance.
Of course, good teaching still requires clear explanations, structured practice and subject expertise. The challenge is ensuring that these approaches ultimately develop independence rather than permanent reliance on the teacher.
AI Forces Us to Ask What We Are Actually Assessing
Perhaps the most immediately relevant discussion concerned artificial intelligence in classrooms.
An audience member described the different approaches schools are taking. Some are introducing AI gradually, with clear expectations for different age groups. Others are allowing students to use it freely, while some teachers are returning to handwritten examinations and traditional assessments.
Which approach is right?
Crockett’s response was that it depends on what students are supposed to be learning.
Consider an activity where students must develop a set of questions.
If the purpose is to develop questioning skills, allowing AI to generate all the questions might defeat the purpose.
However, if the questions are simply a means of exploring another topic, AI assistance might be perfectly reasonable.
The important question is not whether students are using AI, but whether AI is supporting or replacing the thinking we want them to do.
This is a useful way of moving beyond arguments about banning or embracing AI.
Rather than having a single rule for every classroom activity, teachers can begin with the learning objective and decide which forms of assistance are appropriate.
Sometimes students need to work independently. Sometimes AI can provide valuable feedback or support. Sometimes working alongside AI may be part of the learning itself.
The difficulty is distinguishing between these situations.
Crockett also reminded the audience of the arrival of Google. Teachers once worried that students would simply search for answers, yet schools gradually adapted.
AI presents a more significant challenge because it can do much more than retrieve information. It can explain, analyse, generate, evaluate and increasingly perform tasks that previously required substantial human effort.
That means we must reconsider not only how students complete assignments, but also what those assignments are intended to measure.
Human Capabilities Must Become the Priority
Many schools already have ambitious mission statements.
They talk about developing critical thinkers, creative problem-solvers, effective communicators, responsible citizens and lifelong learners.
But Crockett questioned how consistently these aspirations influence what actually happens in classrooms.
He referred to educational frameworks such as the Australian Curriculum, where general capabilities, including critical thinking and intercultural understanding, are intended to be developed across subjects.
The difficulty, he suggested, is that schools often return their attention to subject content and examinations, leaving those broader capabilities in the background.
His argument was not that subject knowledge is unimportant.
Rather, knowledge should help develop the human capabilities that students will need throughout their lives.
Instead of treating critical thinking as an additional activity, schools should ask how mathematics develops critical thinking, how science encourages curiosity and how literature strengthens communication and understanding.
This also raises questions about assessment.
If we claim to value independent learning, creativity and problem-solving, where is the evidence that students are developing these capabilities?
And if we never assess or meaningfully recognise them, how much do we really value them?
Will Universities Have to Change Too?
An audience member raised a practical concern.
Schools might want to develop independent, creative learners, but universities still have admissions requirements. Parents expect examination results, and schools are judged on academic performance.
How can schools change if universities do not?
Crockett argued that higher education is already experiencing considerable disruption.
He described universities experimenting with portfolio-based admissions, where students demonstrate their capabilities, interests and achievements rather than relying entirely on examination grades.
He also discussed emerging models of lifelong university enrolment.
Instead of attending university for three or four years and then leaving permanently, learners might maintain a relationship with an institution throughout their working lives, returning to develop new skills as industries change.
It is an intriguing possibility.
If AI continues to transform employment, the idea that a qualification obtained at 21 will provide all the knowledge required for a 40-year career becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
However, these examples should be understood as emerging approaches rather than evidence that traditional university admissions or degrees are disappearing everywhere. Examination results and formal qualifications remain essential in many institutions and professions.
Nevertheless, Crockett’s broader point is worth considering.
Should schools organise the entire educational experience around preparing students for a university system that may itself be changing?
Perhaps preparing students to become adaptable, independent learners is a more sustainable long-term objective.
The Music Industry Offers an Important Lesson
One of the most memorable analogies from the discussion involved the music industry.
Music has moved through numerous formats: vinyl records, cassette tapes, CDs, digital downloads and streaming services.
Each transition disrupted existing businesses and changed how people accessed music.
But something important remained constant.
People still loved music.
They still wanted to discover songs, listen to their favourites and share music with others.
What changed was the arrangement.
Crockett argued that education is experiencing something similar.
“No one is falling out of love with learning.”
AI is making it possible for people to explore unfamiliar subjects, receive explanations and develop new skills in ways that were previously much more difficult.
The desire to learn has not disappeared.
But the traditional arrangement, in which a subject expert delivers knowledge to a group of learners in a classroom, is no longer the only way to access expertise.
That does not mean teachers are becoming irrelevant.
It means their role may become more focused on the things that technology cannot easily replace: building relationships, inspiring curiosity, recognising individual needs and helping students develop sound judgement.
The danger is that schools become so attached to the existing arrangement that they lose sight of the purpose it was designed to serve.
How Do We Make Students Curious Again?
One audience member raised a particularly important concern.
Adults who have spent much of their lives without AI can find it extraordinary to use these tools to explore new ideas.
But some young people appear increasingly reluctant to think deeply, preferring immediate answers or effortless completion of tasks.
How do we encourage curiosity when students can ask AI to do the thinking for them?
Crockett’s answer was surprisingly simple.
Be curious about their world.
He encouraged teachers to take a genuine interest in what young people enjoy, whether that means gaming, online communities or other activities.
Sit with them. Ask questions. Let them explain something. Allow them to become the expert.
His argument was that curiosity creates relationships, and relationships create opportunities for learning.
When students feel that adults are interested in their world, they may become more interested in the experiences and ideas that adults have to share.
This was also where Crockett emphasised the importance of conversation, storytelling and dialogue.
He spoke enthusiastically about Socratic seminars, where students explain their reasoning, defend their positions and respond to questions.
Rather than relying entirely on written assessments, he suggested that these conversations could provide meaningful evidence of learning.
There is something particularly relevant about this in the age of AI.
A student can ask a chatbot to produce an essay, but explaining and defending an idea in a thoughtful conversation requires them to engage with that idea.
It does not eliminate every assessment challenge, but it provides another way to make thinking visible.
Compliance Is Not the Same as Engagement
Crockett also challenged the way schools structure learning activities.
When students are given tasks that feel like exercises in compliance, they naturally look for the easiest way to complete them.
And adults do exactly the same thing.
He pointed out the irony of teachers criticising students for using AI to complete assignments while using AI themselves to prepare lesson plans and other routine work.
The underlying behaviour is similar: using a tool to complete a task more efficiently.
The difference is whether the task itself provides an opportunity for meaningful learning.
If students are genuinely curious about a problem, AI can become a powerful tool for exploration.
If they simply want to finish an assignment, AI can become a shortcut around the thinking.
This suggests that schools need to pay closer attention to the relevance and purpose of the tasks they set.
Not every lesson can be an exciting independent project. Students still need to practise essential knowledge and skills, including tasks that require persistence and repetition.
But if the entire educational experience becomes a series of activities to complete, we should not be surprised when students focus on completion rather than understanding.
Should We Ban Devices from Classrooms?
The conversation eventually turned to another contentious issue: removing devices from schools.
Crockett resisted a simple answer.
He was neither in favour of unrestricted access nor blanket bans.
Instead, he proposed a practical question:
“Is there an educational purpose in that device being present at this point in time?”
If there is, the device may have a valuable role.
If there is not, perhaps it should be put away.
He described asking school leaders attending conferences to leave their phones outside the room unless they had a genuine reason to remain contactable.
The reaction, he explained, demonstrated that adults struggle with device dependence just as much as young people.
This is an important reminder that responsible technology use is not simply a student behaviour problem. It is a wider social challenge.
Schools have a responsibility to teach students when technology is useful, when it is distracting and when human interaction deserves their full attention.
There are also legitimate safeguarding, wellbeing and age-related considerations that may justify restrictions.
The central point is that device policies should have a clear educational and pastoral purpose, rather than simply being a reaction to frustration.
Teachers Still Matter – Perhaps More Than Ever
Despite his criticism of traditional educational structures, Crockett was emphatic about the importance of teachers.
He described teachers as the essential connection between the education system and the learner.
Policies, examinations, curricula and technologies all influence education, but teachers are the people who work directly with young people.
They can notice when a student is struggling.
They can encourage someone who has lost confidence.
They can introduce an idea that changes the direction of a student’s life.
And they can create the conversations that help students make sense of the world.
Crockett reflected on the importance of making a difference to even one teacher, because that teacher may go on to influence hundreds or thousands of learners.
He also offered a more personal reflection about the value of the present moment.
Every interaction between a teacher and a student is an opportunity that cannot be repeated in quite the same way.
His message was to treasure those moments rather than allowing the pressures of systems, administration and constant change to obscure their importance.
What Should Schools Do Next?
The discussion leaves us with several practical questions worth taking back to our own schools:
- Build independence gradually. Are students taking increasing responsibility for their learning as they move through the school, or are we continuing to direct every step?
- Start with the learning, not the technology. Before deciding whether AI is permitted, identify the thinking and skills the task is intended to develop.
- Make human capabilities visible. If we value curiosity, critical thinking, collaboration and problem-solving, how are we developing and recognising them?
- Create more opportunities for dialogue. Can students explain their thinking, justify decisions and respond thoughtfully to questions?
- Make learning meaningful. Are students genuinely engaging with problems, or simply completing tasks to satisfy requirements?
- Teach responsible technology use. Are we helping learners make informed decisions about when to use technology and when to put it away?
- Question existing arrangements. Which school practices continue because they support learning, and which survive primarily because they are familiar?
None of these changes requires a school to abandon its curriculum or examinations tomorrow.
But they do require a willingness to reconsider what success looks like.
Final Thoughts: Learning Is Not the Problem
Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of Crockett’s discussion was his optimism.
He did not present AI as an inevitable disaster for education, nor did he suggest that technology would solve every problem.
Instead, he described a period of profound uncertainty and extraordinary opportunity.
Education has always changed, but the speed of technological development is making it increasingly difficult to rely on familiar structures.
The challenge is not simply to introduce AI into existing lessons.
It is to ask whether our educational arrangements are still the best way to help young people develop the knowledge, independence, curiosity and human capabilities they need.
And perhaps that brings us back to the most important idea from the entire conversation.
The goal of education should not be to make students dependent on excellent teachers forever. It should be to help them become excellent learners who can thrive without us.
AI may change the arrangement.
But the human desire to learn, connect, question and understand remains as important as ever.
This article is based on a live Q&A with educational thinker Lee Crockett. The transcript has been edited for clarity, with themes organised and expanded for readability. Quotations have been selected from the supplied transcript, and some wording may reflect transcription inaccuracies. The article also includes editorial interpretation rather than representing every statement as Crockett’s exact words.
