I very proudly teach a useless subject at a high school in the South Bronx: English. Please do not argue that English is useful because it develops communication skills, which employers are known to value. If I wanted to teach employable writing, I would coach students in writing grant proposals and emails, not short stories or memoirs. When a child, frustrated at the opacity of a Toni Morrison novel, wants to know when she will ever use this, I reply, 鈥淵ou might never! And that鈥檚 OK, because you鈥檙e a human being and you have more important things to be than just useful.鈥�
As educators respond to the rise of artificial intelligence, we seem to be forgetting how important the useless parts of being human are. We are fixated instead on the utilitarian aspects of education, particularly on forming students to thrive in an AI-augmented workplace. I was recently forwarded a unit plan on ethical AI use that proclaimed, 鈥淪tudents who are well-versed in AI tools 鈥� will be better equipped to thrive in the workforce of the future.鈥� I wondered if the unit author gave any thought to how or if these machines could help students be good humans. It seems we are stumbling over ourselves to prepare children for a world shaped by Silicon Valley鈥檚 inventions, when our first duty is to support students鈥� human development.
It鈥檚 fine to worry about what skills help students make a living. But life is about more than just work. We are all seeking to know the truth about the world and ourselves. We wrestle with questions about living well, coping with loss, and our very identities. These parts of living raise questions that linger with us when we can鈥檛 sleep, after the workday is over. It鈥檚 an educator鈥檚 job, in all subjects, to help students develop these parts of themselves.
Sometimes, the humanizing power of education becomes evident in students who do everything they can to avoid the classroom. One young man comes to mind who was in the hallway more often than in class. The first time I told the class to write a memoir about something that mattered to them, he put his head down. That gesture suggested to me that he was uncomfortable choosing his own subject.
When we conferenced later, he revealed some things about himself: He loved boxing and felt that it channeled his anger in a positive direction. Together, we asked some questions to build his memoir. Did he know where his anger came from? Could he think of moments where it controlled him or when he could control it? When did he see that boxing was changing him? Writing a memoir invited him to examine his life.
I imagine few of my students will make a living as professional writers, much like math and science students are unlikely to become mathematicians or scientists. Writing, however, gave this student a chance to meet himself. That experience won鈥檛 help him on the job, not directly anyway, but that鈥檚 OK. The working world is designed to create profit, not cultivate the mind and spirit. We should be nurturing students鈥� growing selves before they need to start paying rent.
It鈥檚 fine to worry about what skills help students make a living. But life is about more than just work.
We must remember that tech companies want different things for our children from what we do. Social media companies primarily think of our kids as consumers. To them, they鈥檙e more valuable as eyeballs focused on a screen, wrapped up in distraction; they鈥檙e more valuable if they scroll forever and never pause to look within. In a telling moment a few years ago, a whistleblower revealed that Meta had conducted an internal study that revealed their products had a , particularly in young women who spent a lot of time on Instagram. A lawsuit alleges . When it was made public, , even as . I鈥檇 argue that, to Meta and many other social media companies, the revenue that teenagers bring in was more important than their well-being.
Research reflects that the rise in smartphone and social media use has correlated with the in the last two decades. That rise also displaced time spent. Many things that teachers attempt to build up in young people the tech companies could destabilize for the sake of profit.
Generative AI will not have the same effect on young people as smartphones and social media. Generative AI instead will change our sense of what it means to create. Chatbot peddlers are eager for people to agree that their inventions can make creative work more efficient鈥攂ecause their companies will profit that way. Creation, however, is central to what we educators ask students to do. Their stumbling efforts at creating content, whether that鈥檚 in a memoir or a lab report, are their first steps to being mature human beings who seek to know themselves and their world. Educators should not be asking, 鈥淗ow can our students learn to be employable in an AI world?鈥� We might ask that question if we were tech workers, but we aren鈥檛. We should be asking if this new sense of 鈥渃reation鈥� is one that serves our students.
Teachers and schools are not Silicon Valley鈥檚 lackeys. Our job should be to question whether generative AI serves our students鈥� humanity. If we think the answer is no, then we say should no to the technology. Let鈥檚 put concerns about competing in the workforce aside. For now, the idea that generative AI will reshape the world is marketing, not a certainty.
If our students really do have to inhabit a world shaped by these machines, they won鈥檛 just need to work in an AI world. They will need to understand themselves and seek the truth in an AI world. That is a tougher task.
