How to Rethink Education Systems

I’ve been reflecting on the release of ChatGPT-o1 Pro, an AI model that recently outperformed over 70% of graduate students in both knowledge and reasoning. Its emergence isn’t just another tech milestone; it’s a clear sign that our current approach to education is facing a deep, structural challenge. For too long, we’ve relied on a system focused on transmitting information—making sure students memorize facts, formulas, and frameworks. Now that a machine can handle these tasks more efficiently, we need to rethink what it really means to be educated. In an era where AI models can master immense volumes of knowledge, human learning has to become about more than just absorbing content. It’s about developing imagination, critical thinking, creativity, ethical judgment, and cultural understanding—skills that machines can’t replicate (at least not yet). This moment forces us to step back and ask: If advanced AI can outperform the average graduate student in “thinking” skills, what should human education emphasize? How do we teach people to leverage AI rather than compete directly with it? It’s no longer a matter of how much you know, but how well you can use what you know in collaboration with intelligent machines. The biggest educational challenge today isn’t just about upgrading curricula or blending in more technology. It’s about reshaping our understanding of what it means to learn and to contribute. Holistic, human-centered education—where knowledge is not a destination but a resource—will become the true differentiator. The individuals who will thrive are those who combine the best of human judgment and empathy with the analytical might of AI. ChatGPT-o1 Pro or Claude Sonnet 3.5’s success should not be a reason to despair, but an invitation to innovate. By embracing these changes, we can create an ecosystem where machines handle complex information, while people push the boundaries of thought, creativity, and purpose. This is our next step forward in learning: not to out-know the AI, but to form human-AI team to out-imagine and out-perform all other human or AI teams.

In an age where AI is reshaping the workforce, the conversation is shifting—from fear of replacement to the power of augmentation. Virtually every job has the potential to be enhanced by AI. The real question is no longer "Will AI take my job?" but rather, "How can I use AI to do my job better?" This shift demands a new approach to education—one rooted in intentionality. Gone are the days when success meant simply aggregating and reporting information. AI can now do that in seconds. What matters most is what you do with that information. Can you think critically? Can you challenge assumptions? Can you develop a contrarian thesis that drives innovation? This is where intentional education comes in. Education must evolve to meet the needs of today’s learners and tomorrow’s workforce. Cengage Group’s 2024 Employability Survey found that 69% of recent graduates feel unprepared for employment and over half are rethinking their career paths due to GenAI. Intentional education must: ✅ Promoting Critical Thinking – Teaching students to analyze, evaluate and create, not just memorize. ✅ Focusing on Employability – Aligning learning outcomes with real-world job skills and hands-on experience. ✅ Building Adaptability – Equipping learners with future-proof skills like creativity, emotional intelligence and problem-solving -- skills AI can’t replicate, while empowering them to confidently use emerging technologies, especially AI, to grow, adapt, and thrive in an ever-evolving workforce. AI is not the end of human potential—it is a tool to unlock it. By integrating AI into the classroom, and preparing students for how to use it in the workforce, we can help them become confident, independent thinkers who are ready to thrive in a world of constant change. #GenAI #EdTech #AIinEducation #WorkforceDevelopment

New piece on innovation vs. transformation: I think the key distinction is between innovation—which is generally about adding an ornament onto the existing structure—and reinvention or transformation, which is about reimagining the core of schools in ways that work better for students and teachers. The obsession with technological fixes, in particular, seems vastly out of step with our knowledge that learning, and the raising of young people, is an intensely human exercise. People at a certain kind of conference talk about the latest innovations with gusto, with no appreciation for what it actually entails to make something new work in practice. I’d bet on a highly experienced and skilled educator over the latest new innovative tool every time. At the same time, in a more fundamental way, we are defending a flawed institution that needs to be reimagined. Education continues to be a largely passive enterprise centered on endless worksheets, trivial tasks, and teaching that does little to engage or interest students. Students take the same subjects, which are taught largely the same way, year after year, decade after decade. Charter schools, which were created for the express purpose of fostering innovation, have themselves fallen victim to what sociologists call “isomorphism”—the tendency of organizations to seek legitimacy by copying one another. The things that actually need to change, from my perspective, are things like the purposes we are aiming for, the subjects we are teaching, the way we divide up the day, and the amount of time students spend in the world rather than in school. But all of these things are necessarily political and value-laden, and they are not within the purview of companies, nonprofits, and academics that are developing the next “innovation.” Thus, the changes that we need require less outside innovation and more internal transformation. What would these changes look like? One place to start is to clarify education’s purpose. I’m getting more interested in the idea of “human” schools, meaning that if we are going to have large taxpayer-funded institutions that house our young people for their entire childhood, the most critical thing we can do with these institutions is think about what they need as human beings. We need to create a new social contract for schools grounded in three pillars: learners whose agency is respected, whose identities are deeply known, whose diversity is embraced, whose joy is nurtured, and whose growth is the central concern of those who care for them; learning that is purposeful, authentic, and connected to the broader human domains they are part of; and learning communities that foster meaningful relationships, cultivate democratic values, and guide our communities and world toward the kind of people and planet we want to become. https://lnkd.in/ezi9K3M8

There's something deeply satisfying about watching educational institutions slowly recognize that their most pressing technological crisis might actually be a pedagogical opportunity in disguise—though it has taken the arrival of generative AI to force this particular moment of clarity. For months, I've been observing students navigate what can only be described as a false binary: either resist AI entirely as academic contamination, or embrace it uncritically as the solution to all educational challenges. Both approaches miss the point entirely. What students actually need—and what our educational frameworks have been remarkably slow to provide—is what I've come to call "possibility literacy": a way of engaging thoughtfully with AI's paradoxical nature without surrendering their intellectual agency to algorithmic convenience. Harvard Business Publishing has just released my piece on this approach, which explores three essential skills I've been cultivating in my classrooms: Pattern recognition - teaching students to become "algorithmic archaeologists" who can uncover the invisible biases shaping AI outputs Directed divergence - learning to push AI systems beyond their conventional patterns through strategic constraints Reflective synthesis - developing the critical judgment to know when AI enhances versus shortcuts their thinking The most gratifying moment came during a recent final presentation, when a student who had initially avoided AI entirely explained how she had systematically documented patterns across multiple AI systems analyzing dystopian fiction. She had moved from fearful resistance to what she called "a conscious relationship with algorithmic tools." In that moment, I saw the transformation our education systems must nurture—one that centers student agency rather than technological efficiency. The article includes specific assignments for creating "possibility-rich learning environments" where students learn to navigate AI's productive paradoxes rather than resolve them into neat categories. Because the real question isn't whether AI will reshape education, but whether we'll use this moment to finally prioritize the intellectual capacities that make humans irreplaceable. Link in comments. #AIEducation #PossibilityLiteracy #CriticalThinking #HumanCapacity Mike Kentz Amanda Bickerstaff Alfonso Mendoza Jr., M.Ed. Aco Momcilovic Dr. Lance Cummings Lance Eaton, PhD France Q. Hoang Pat Yongpradit Vriti Saraf Claire Zau Michel Faliski David H.