Fear is a Poor Strategy: On AI, Change, and Trusting Teachers

I’ve been noticing a pattern lately in the shape of a meme, a powerpoint slide, or a throw-away line in a workshop: “AI won’t replace you , but you’ll be replaced by someone using AI”.

It’s catchy, yes. And I’m sure it’s well-meaning and tries to covey a sense of urgency. But I’ve come to believe that messages like these do more harm than good. They don’t encourage curiosity or build confidence; rather they instil anxiety and undermine professional judgement. And perhaps worst of all, they frame teachers as a problems or obstacles, rather than professionals. I have a problem with that.

Twenty years ago, when the term Web 2.0 was coined, they used to say: “Technology won’t replace you, but you’ll be replaced by someone using technology”. And here we are two decades later. Plus ça change.

I don’t pretend to know everything about AI, or about technology, or about the future of education for that matter. But I do know a thing or two about what helps teachers grow, and what gets in the way: fear, whether of obsolescence, inadequacy, or being ‘left behind’, is rarely a helpful driver of sustainable change.

---

When it comes to EdTech there’s often a temptation to lead with what I think of as “urgency by fear.” The idea that if we don’t move fast, we’ll fall behind. That everyone must get on board, now, or risk irrelevance.

But anyone who has spent time in schools knows that lasting change doesn’t work like that. You can mandate compliance, but not conviction.

If we want teachers to engage with something new, especially something as complex and fast-moving as AI, we need to create the right conditions. Not pressure. Not panic. But purpose, clarity, time, and trust.

---

There’s a reason why the best school cultures don’t rely on dictats or scare tactics to drive improvement. They invest in the slow work of professional learning and gradual improvement. They cultivate a shared language of practice and offer structure without rigidity. Above all, they trust teachers to think, not just to comply.

This is not whizz and bang. This takes time. And is time well spent.

It also takes the kind of psychological safety that allows a teacher to say, “I’m not sure about this yet,” or, “Help me understand how this will help my students,” without being seen as laggards or as a barrier to progress. These are not signs of resistance. They are signs of commitment and professionalism.

---

Too often, the sceptical teacher is cast as the antagonist in stories of change. I was guilty of this. Mea culpa. But I realised that those who ask the toughest questions were often the ones most invested in getting it right. They were the ones who understood that new tools must earn their place in the classroom, not assume it.

They were not saying no to the future. They were asking me to slow down long enough to consider whether the future we were rushing toward was one worth having. And that is a fair enough question.

---

In my experience, focusing on what works is far more impactful than fear. The modelling, the coaching, the sharing stories, notes, and experience. Giving people time to play, to experiment, to make mistakes without consequence. Creating small, low-stakes spaces for innovation to earn the right to emerge.

It may not make for a viral slogan. But it does lead to change that sticks, which is surely the point.

---

The challenge then isn’t to frighten people into using AI. The challenge is to make them feel safe enough to explore it. To count on the judgement they’ve built over years of practice. To say, in effect: We trust you to think. We’re here to help. And , whatever happens, we believe you still have lots to offer.

---

“People don’t resist change. They resist being changed.“

— Peter Senge

• Bluesky
• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• X
• Mail