1. You often say that learning requires courage. What does courage in learning actually look like today, in systems that often reward compliance over curiosity?

‍

Asking questions. Admitting you don’t know something. Requesting to do something different than what’s asked—or at least a variation on the thing that’s being asked, ie ‘Can I work with a partner vs doing this alone?’ or ‘Can I write about Vietnam rather than the causes of the Cold War?” That’s agentic engagement, finding ways to make something interesting to yourself.  There’s a lot of high-quality research to show this kind of engagement results in better academic performance, and happier kids (which is why the second half of the title of our book reads  “Helping Kids Learn Better, Feel Better, and Live Better). 

‍

I recently took my daughters on a US college tour. We visited 8 colleges and went on 8 tours. No one asked any questions. Not the kids, not the parents. It was baffling. Why drive for miles, or fly across the US to see a college and then just listen to what one person presents? I asked a ton of questions - about the kid giving the tour, about the stuff they didn’t cover, about things that happened when we were touring. I am fortunate: I’ve been trained as a journalist so this comes more easily to me. But when I asked questions, I made it ok for others to do the same—including my kids, who eventually got pretty into it (after some serious eye rolling about my own initial questions). I was showing them in real time: don’t just take what’s offered, figure out what you want to know and ask! 

‍

This is hard for adolescents (it’s hard for adults!). We don’t know what we don’t know. And teens are neurobiologically super sensitive to peer feedback. But teachers and parents play such a key role here, encouraging young people to speak up, to ask hard and controversial questions, to dig in and not just comply passively. The more we practice asking questions and testing ideas, and debating things, the easier it gets. For what it’s worth, every single one of those tour guides told me how grateful they were to have a conversation rather than just talk at us. 

‍

‍

2. In your reporting, you’ve taken a measured approach to technology in learning—neither hype nor panic. As AI becomes embedded in education, what human qualities should we be most careful to protect and strengthen?

‍

First, human connection and the messiness that comes with it. The “f” word in Silicon Valley is friction: everyone wants to get rid of it. But in human relationships and in learning, learning to manage the friction is way more important than eliminating it. I just read a piece by Dr Pam Cantor that highlights this point. “The cocktail of trust requires honesty that is received, friction that is worked through, conflict that is repaired, ambiguity that can be tolerated. If someone always agrees with you, you can’t build trust with them. If you can never count on someone to give you honest feedback about something that matters, the trust system doesn’t fully activate. And if that system doesn’t activate, the brain doesn’t develop the way it could.” If we rely on AI to manage the messiness of human emotions, we miss out on the opportunity to develop the muscles to do that. 

‍

Second, the friction that comes with learning. If we outsource the struggle of working through a concept, rewriting a paper, we miss out on the chance to develop that muscle too. I fear we will chase “efficiency” and fictionless existence over the messy, human process of development, and our kids will pay the price—including, and maybe especially, in their learning.  

‍

‍

3. In our Bett session, you mentioned that AI may hold more promise in the classroom than in unstructured environments outside school. What makes school a uniquely “protective” environment when it’s done right, and what would “done right” actually look like?

‍

Schools are equipped to be careful and informed gatekeepers of technology. They know about curricula and pedagogy and, hopefully, a lot about how kids learn. Implemented thoughtfully, they can use AI to elevate learning where possible and protect kids when needed. My fear is that they race to implement something because they want to look “on it” rather than taking the time to figure out where it can help and where it’s simply not needed. Reading a book and having a conversation may well be the ideal “technology” for the task at hand. An AI tutor connected to a school’s reading curriculum might be a good 30 minute-a-day supplement.  

‍

“Done right” suggests there is one way to do this and the truth will be what tech helps with what task and what student? It's a minefield, but one we should be willing to walk through to make sure kids are learning and that they are safe. 

‍

What worries me, and what prompted that comment, was that parents don’t have the time to understand the multitude of tools now available to most kids all of the time nor do they have the expertise to know what will help their kids’ learn. In the research for our book so many parents told us they did not know if what their child was doing was homework on their laptop, or fake homework, when they were really playing Roblox or on Discord. The laptop is the place kids disappear. Will AI mitigate that or exacerbate it? Tech has become a massive friction point in most families and I suspect AI will just increase this. Let’s be very clear: no family is looking for more things to fight about. 

‍

‍

4. There's a lot of rhetoric that today's children are "damaged" in part because of widespread access to technology. Based on your experience as a parent and journalist specialising in education, how do you respond to this?

‍

I absolutely dispute this characterization. I am plenty critical of Big Tech and what they foisted on our kids—often knowing the dangers—but I see a resilient generation more than a damaged one. Look at the past 20 years. The financial crash. Rising polarization. Cancel culture. Tech saturation. Covid-19. Shootings in classrooms, wars around the world, and global leaders with the temperaments of toddlers. Young people are in the process of becoming; their brains are malleable goods, not damaged ones.  

‍

I think in pointing to the kids we sometimes miss the role of parents. We need to be willing to set limits to protect things we know are essential to healthy development: sleep, learning, in-person connection and physical activity. That means no phones in bedrooms, getting behind bell-to-bell bans, encouraging the tech-free hangout, and of course, moderating your own use. Two things can be true: the kids are not permanently damaged, and we can help them build healthier habits around technologies which offer plenty of benefits in moderation. 

‍

‍

5. If you could ask education leaders to make one brave decision this year about AI and learning, what would it be?

‍

Be cautious and be thorough. 

‍

It is eminently clear that the world is changing in ways we don’t understand. Let’s be brave enough to put it all on the table and ask what the purpose of education is and what outcomes we want. States across the US are doing this with their Portraits of a Graduate. Then, with clear goals in mind, we decide where tech helps and where it doesn’t. Importantly, we have to be  willing to say no to things that don’t serve our kids. 

‍

I just interviewed a math teacher who took away laptops in his classroom in January. He’s a super pro-tech teacher and has always been on the cutting edge of adopting, adapting, testing, iterating. But he said he felt the pull of the screens was just too powerful and he wondered what would happen if there were none. It was more work for him, figuring out how to do all the things he did via screens in an analog way. The result? He felt he could better identify kids struggling—one of the great promises of tech— and he felt the kids were paying better attention. He did not think his kids' math scores would go through the roof. There may be no dramatic change in learning outcomes at all. But he noted there hadn’t been much of a change with it. He’s not writing off tech, he’s just trying to figure out what kids need right now, and that’s a break from screens. 

‍

1. You often say that learning requires courage. What does courage in learning actually look like today, in systems that often reward compliance over curiosity?

‍

Asking questions. Admitting you don’t know something. Requesting to do something different than what’s asked—or at least a variation on the thing that’s being asked, ie ‘Can I work with a partner vs doing this alone?’ or ‘Can I write about Vietnam rather than the causes of the Cold War?” That’s agentic engagement, finding ways to make something interesting to yourself.  There’s a lot of high-quality research to show this kind of engagement results in better academic performance, and happier kids (which is why the second half of the title of our book reads  “Helping Kids Learn Better, Feel Better, and Live Better). 

‍

I recently took my daughters on a US college tour. We visited 8 colleges and went on 8 tours. No one asked any questions. Not the kids, not the parents. It was baffling. Why drive for miles, or fly across the US to see a college and then just listen to what one person presents? I asked a ton of questions - about the kid giving the tour, about the stuff they didn’t cover, about things that happened when we were touring. I am fortunate: I’ve been trained as a journalist so this comes more easily to me. But when I asked questions, I made it ok for others to do the same—including my kids, who eventually got pretty into it (after some serious eye rolling about my own initial questions). I was showing them in real time: don’t just take what’s offered, figure out what you want to know and ask! 

‍

This is hard for adolescents (it’s hard for adults!). We don’t know what we don’t know. And teens are neurobiologically super sensitive to peer feedback. But teachers and parents play such a key role here, encouraging young people to speak up, to ask hard and controversial questions, to dig in and not just comply passively. The more we practice asking questions and testing ideas, and debating things, the easier it gets. For what it’s worth, every single one of those tour guides told me how grateful they were to have a conversation rather than just talk at us. 

‍

‍

2. In your reporting, you’ve taken a measured approach to technology in learning—neither hype nor panic. As AI becomes embedded in education, what human qualities should we be most careful to protect and strengthen?

‍

First, human connection and the messiness that comes with it. The “f” word in Silicon Valley is friction: everyone wants to get rid of it. But in human relationships and in learning, learning to manage the friction is way more important than eliminating it. I just read a piece by Dr Pam Cantor that highlights this point. “The cocktail of trust requires honesty that is received, friction that is worked through, conflict that is repaired, ambiguity that can be tolerated. If someone always agrees with you, you can’t build trust with them. If you can never count on someone to give you honest feedback about something that matters, the trust system doesn’t fully activate. And if that system doesn’t activate, the brain doesn’t develop the way it could.” If we rely on AI to manage the messiness of human emotions, we miss out on the opportunity to develop the muscles to do that. 

‍

Second, the friction that comes with learning. If we outsource the struggle of working through a concept, rewriting a paper, we miss out on the chance to develop that muscle too. I fear we will chase “efficiency” and fictionless existence over the messy, human process of development, and our kids will pay the price—including, and maybe especially, in their learning.  

‍

‍

3. In our Bett session, you mentioned that AI may hold more promise in the classroom than in unstructured environments outside school. What makes school a uniquely “protective” environment when it’s done right, and what would “done right” actually look like?

‍

Schools are equipped to be careful and informed gatekeepers of technology. They know about curricula and pedagogy and, hopefully, a lot about how kids learn. Implemented thoughtfully, they can use AI to elevate learning where possible and protect kids when needed. My fear is that they race to implement something because they want to look “on it” rather than taking the time to figure out where it can help and where it’s simply not needed. Reading a book and having a conversation may well be the ideal “technology” for the task at hand. An AI tutor connected to a school’s reading curriculum might be a good 30 minute-a-day supplement.  

‍

“Done right” suggests there is one way to do this and the truth will be what tech helps with what task and what student? It's a minefield, but one we should be willing to walk through to make sure kids are learning and that they are safe. 

‍

What worries me, and what prompted that comment, was that parents don’t have the time to understand the multitude of tools now available to most kids all of the time nor do they have the expertise to know what will help their kids’ learn. In the research for our book so many parents told us they did not know if what their child was doing was homework on their laptop, or fake homework, when they were really playing Roblox or on Discord. The laptop is the place kids disappear. Will AI mitigate that or exacerbate it? Tech has become a massive friction point in most families and I suspect AI will just increase this. Let’s be very clear: no family is looking for more things to fight about. 

‍

‍

4. There's a lot of rhetoric that today's children are "damaged" in part because of widespread access to technology. Based on your experience as a parent and journalist specialising in education, how do you respond to this?

‍

I absolutely dispute this characterization. I am plenty critical of Big Tech and what they foisted on our kids—often knowing the dangers—but I see a resilient generation more than a damaged one. Look at the past 20 years. The financial crash. Rising polarization. Cancel culture. Tech saturation. Covid-19. Shootings in classrooms, wars around the world, and global leaders with the temperaments of toddlers. Young people are in the process of becoming; their brains are malleable goods, not damaged ones.  

‍

I think in pointing to the kids we sometimes miss the role of parents. We need to be willing to set limits to protect things we know are essential to healthy development: sleep, learning, in-person connection and physical activity. That means no phones in bedrooms, getting behind bell-to-bell bans, encouraging the tech-free hangout, and of course, moderating your own use. Two things can be true: the kids are not permanently damaged, and we can help them build healthier habits around technologies which offer plenty of benefits in moderation. 

‍

‍

5. If you could ask education leaders to make one brave decision this year about AI and learning, what would it be?

‍

Be cautious and be thorough. 

‍

It is eminently clear that the world is changing in ways we don’t understand. Let’s be brave enough to put it all on the table and ask what the purpose of education is and what outcomes we want. States across the US are doing this with their Portraits of a Graduate. Then, with clear goals in mind, we decide where tech helps and where it doesn’t. Importantly, we have to be  willing to say no to things that don’t serve our kids. 

‍

I just interviewed a math teacher who took away laptops in his classroom in January. He’s a super pro-tech teacher and has always been on the cutting edge of adopting, adapting, testing, iterating. But he said he felt the pull of the screens was just too powerful and he wondered what would happen if there were none. It was more work for him, figuring out how to do all the things he did via screens in an analog way. The result? He felt he could better identify kids struggling—one of the great promises of tech— and he felt the kids were paying better attention. He did not think his kids' math scores would go through the roof. There may be no dramatic change in learning outcomes at all. But he noted there hadn’t been much of a change with it. He’s not writing off tech, he’s just trying to figure out what kids need right now, and that’s a break from screens. 

‍