The summertime is traditionally known as the ‘silly season’ for news media – a time when quirkier, niche stories can make it to press. One such topic is a few ed-tech firms pushing the (faintly ludicrous) idea of humanoid robots being put in classrooms as substitute teachers.

In the US, this has seen different stories being filed from San Diego and New York – each sparking interest from news media around the world. This isn’t the first time that this sort of stunt has hit the headlines, and it will undoubtedly resurface in a few years’ time.

Here are some long comments that I gave to a journalist on the latest New York iteration of this story:

“The use of humanoid robots is a gimmick – something to get this company attention. In reality, there are many reasons that humanoid robots simply don’t work in classrooms – from the obvious health and safety issues through to the fact that these machines simply don’t work very well. Often, these physical robots are controlled remotely by humans and have to remain fairly static. So, the humanoid robot mocked up in this photo is a fantasy – at best this will be like ChatGPT on wheels rather than a walking, talking and emoting robot”.

“Any school using these sorts of robots will need real-life teachers in the room doing a lot of work to make sure nothing goes wrong. A teacher will need to be on hand to clarify and reinterpret what the machine is saying and doing, to deal with any unexpected detours and interruptions. No lesson runs like clockwork and humans are a lot better than AI at thinking on their feet, improvising and dealing with emergencies. Plus, real-life teachers will know what the students in the room actually need at that time in order to learn effectively. Teaching is not a predicable, scriptable, robotic process … so expecting a robot to be able to teach does not make sense. Rather than making teachers’ work easier, technology like this will require teachers to do a lot more work around the edges in order to keep the show on the road”

“Although the robot is a gimmick, this does raise important issues about handing potions of the school day over to AI. We are seeing schools now based around students being instructed for a few hours of day by AI tutors and personalised learning systems, so this part of story needs to be taken seriously”

“Having AI deliver content and direct students’ learning can work in *some* circumstances and for some parts of the curriculum, but a lot of what goes on in schools really requires a real-life teacher who knows her students and is expertly trained in the subject matter and how to teach. AI can work OK with older students who can self-manage their learning and for topics where they can learn for themselves. But a lot of teaching – especially in schools – is not this simple. Human teachers have the expertise – as well as the empathetic and social skills – to make classrooms come alive. This is something that AI can never do”

“We have had claims for automated teaching machines being made since the 1920s, but still the basic model of a class of students being directed and supported by a human teacher persists. While tech companies like to claim that this is old-fashioned and needs to be disrupted, I would suggest that they need to spend more time in schools to see what it is that teachers actually do – there is so much of teachers’ work that can’t be automated. This is a classic case of a tech company with little real understanding of schools trying to make a quick buck.”

“We need genuinely useful technology being developed for our schools – but this involves tech companies working with educators rather than trying to replace them!”