In need of an Assignment

 Right now, my 12th graders are working on a project which asks them to find a bunch of short stories and write about them. Pretty straightforward. The 10th graders are working on the Do Not Read assignment. But what larger assignment can I give the 11th grade? We are almost done reading Gatsby (that is, I'm almost done reading Gatsby to them) but how do I ask them to respond in a way that demonstrates thinking and understanding, recall and interpretation, and maybe even a touch of creativity or synthesis.

Sure, we have in-school timed writing but that limits the breadth or intensiveness of an assignment. I want to send them home with something that they can sink their teeth into when not in class, something they can keep on a back burner and return to frequently. In the olden days, I would assign a paper which had bits of different types of writing required and which allowed students to branch off from the classroom conversation and innovate ideas. Good stuff, those take-home projects.

But in the age of AI, I can no longer assume that students are doing the thinking and/or writing themselves if i don't watch them do it. Sure, in the past, I had to worry that a student was lifting bits from other papers or sources, but there were ways to deal with that. If they weren't perfect, they were good enough to balance out the threat of plagiarism so that, on the whole, the benefit to the educational process was greater than the risk of cheating to the integrity of the assessment as a whole. Now, AI has become so easy to use and so useful in terms of what it can create that even an inventive assignment can be turned into a prompt for AI. So what do I assign?

Well, what am I looking for? I'd like for students to demonstrate that they are familiar with the events, characters, historical issues and underlying themes of the text. Why? There is actually very little other than cultural literacy which drives a "need" to know this book. There is nothing in teaching it that covers a topic I can't get to elsewhere, and while I can twist it to have modern relevance, the students will see the twisting and know that it is not a natural part of understanding the book. They also know that they can get notes and summaries and even AI-generated explanations which make my entire function outdated. So what is of value to teach and assess then? Any straight ahead lit based question will not need their involvement either as a learner or test-taker.

Any creative project that is based in the book, and which isn't anchored in specific notes and experiences in the classroom (and any assignment that is will be too limited and will require spitback of classroom content) can be crafted by AI. Ask it to create a playlist with explanations, an autobiography, a lesson plan, a children's book, a travelogue, whatever. It will spit it out with a connection to whatever I am trying to teach. Art project? I don't teach art but I assume that online AI tech can draw just fine, thank you.

So what is left to assign? If I assign reading, they get a summary. If I assign a thought question, they outsource the thinking to "AI". If I ask for creativity, AI can create the final product unless someone can figure out an assignment that is academically and curricularly valid and not doable by AI. And remember, my class isn't about performance or public speaking so demanding that students read or recite something won't ensure any interaction with the base text.

If I think that there is value in understanding Gatsby (and I can quantify exactly what the value is of the experience of reading, or the themes and messages of the text) then I need a way to assess whether a student has developed ideas (or the capacity to generate and present ideas). If I don't think that Gatsby is inherently important, then I still need a clear list of skills or content information that a student needs in order for me to justify ANY text, and be able to tell student progress towards some clearly defined standard.

And I don't think that any book (qua book) can present itself as so vital that a student going through the reading experience will inevitably gain a very specific and quantifiable advantage from doing the reading. And I don't think that most students gain anything from learning how to write (as a process, that is). Most students will be able to get along using AI to write the basic texts people generate (an email, a formal letter, a summary of an idea...). So if learning to read, and think about reading, and write about reading aren't skills that will be in demand in the future, then why are we wasting time trying to figure out how to continue administering our old-fashioned curriculum.

Those students who value process over local goal will continue to do the work unbidden.  In my school, we have students in the music track. One exercise which some students must complete is to listen to and transcribe, note by note, a particular jazz solo. Now, here's the thing: the kids do it.

Sure, it has been done before so anyone could look up the completed chart. Sure, AI could probably do it for the student. But the student chooses to do it on his or her own because the exercise is clearly valid as a method to improve understanding, not just to churn out an end result. And the process WILL be vital to the student's growth because he or she WANTS it to be and will use that skill or the maturity that the struggle engenders in the future. 

Now move that to writing -- the students who value it are the ones who see that it will be useful as a means, and NOT as an end. For those students, any assignment will be the adventure and shipping it out to AI would be unfathomable.

No one assigned me to write this, but I did it because I enjoy working through an idea, balancing phrases and pacing the development of a theme. I would not use AI because then my writing would not be "me." But if I have to write something for which a different tone might be useful (not a piece of writing I am invested in) I might use AI. And if I'm going to use it, who am I to tell students not to? My assignments fall, undoubtedly, in that latter group for the majority of my students. Am I chasing a fool's goose? 

Meanwhile, I don't know what to assign my 11th graders.

The great AI fight

 I took the piece that I had dictated and had chatGPT turn into a coherent piece of writing (my previous blog entry).

Then I copied and pasted the content into 4 AI engines (through "chathub") and I asked them to find flaws and argue against my position. I read through their responses both to get an overview of the areas of weakness and also to test the AI engines to see if any stood out in terms of analysis.

Before I get to any discussion of the differences between the 4, I need to relate something else: I went back to chatGPT and tried to craft a prompt that would have it look at the critiques and address them. Instead, it wrote its own critique of the post. So i saved that (for future comparison) and asked it to revise the blog post to incorporate the improvements required to address the critique. The engine spat out a new version. I haven't even read it yet (the disconnect between a man and his ideas is a frightening one).

So here is the new version

---------------------

Rewritten Version (Improved & Balanced)

Is a traditional skill set still valuable when AI can now produce work that previously required years of training? The question forces us to think about what education is for, and whether human learning still matters in an age of intelligent machines.

Human intelligence has genetic components, but it’s also shaped by environment, experience, interest, and opportunity. If education became more individualized and responsive to each learner, people might grow into more authentic versions of themselves because their learning pathways would follow what genuinely engages them.

Imagine an educational system that grows with a child—but does so ethically, transparently, and with strong protections. Instead of recording “everything,” the system would collect only the data families consent to, using secure, local storage and strict privacy safeguards. Its purpose wouldn’t be surveillance but support: understanding how a child learns, what captures their attention, and how best to scaffold new skills.

Over time, this system could become a personalized learning companion. By observing patterns—curiosity, frustration, sustained engagement—it could tailor lessons to the child’s interests while still aligning with state and national educational standards. Instead of forcing the same textbook on every student, the AI tutor would weave required skills into content formats the child naturally gravitates toward, whether storytelling, games, videos, hands-on challenges, or social activities.

Crucially, the system would not lock students into early preferences. It would intentionally introduce novel topics, diverse challenges, and productive difficulties, ensuring that children explore widely rather than simply repeat what they already enjoy. The goal is a balanced education: personalized, but not limiting.

In such a model, academic concepts—communication, mathematics, scientific reasoning—become meaningful because they unlock deeper understanding within the child’s chosen areas of interest. Instead of asking, “Why do I need to learn this?” students would see how each new skill opens doors. Motivation emerges naturally when learning feels purposeful.

Teachers remain essential. Their roles shift from standardized lesson delivery to something far more human:

• guiding critical thinking

• offering emotional insight that AI cannot replicate

• creating collaborative learning environments

• supporting ethical reasoning

• ensuring students encounter diverse perspectives

• curating in-person experiences that foster curiosity and empathy

Teachers become mentors, interpreters, facilitators, and protectors of children’s humanity in a technologically rich environment.

AI tutors could also help students connect with others, but not by clustering only those with similar profiles. Instead, they could form complementary learning communities that blend different strengths, perspectives, and backgrounds. Diversity becomes intentional and designed, supported by teacher oversight.

For this vision to be equitable, access to such AI-driven education must be universal—not a premium service available only to a few. If implemented as part of public education, it could narrow achievement gaps rather than widen them.

Ultimately, education in an AI-augmented world should help each child grow into a thoughtful, curious, capable human being—someone who understands themselves, engages with others, and contributes meaningfully to their community. AI can personalize the journey, but it cannot replace the human elements that make learning transformational.

---------------------------

I honestly don't know what this says so I won't respond to it yet, but I'll print it up and study it.

Onward and upward!

AI Did the Heavy Lifting

I believe that we need to work backwards -- we start by looking at the result, what we want out of our students, and then we devise a curriculum and method of delivery which will (we hope) connect to some of the students, some of the time. What is that end result? Is it skills? Skills are attained faster and more consistently by AI. Memorization of facts? AI has a wonderful memory. Problem solving skills? AI can solve problems for us.

If AI can explain everything to us in a way that each of us can understand, then we can stop having a one-size-fits-all approach to schooling. We can take the notion of individualized instruction to the extreme!

[what follows is AI's revision of some mad thoughts I put together -- I thin kthe AI did fine so who needs to learn to write?]

Is any skill still valuable? If AI can now create what I would once have needed training to produce, what is the purpose of training me at all?

Human intelligence has a significant genetic component, but development is also shaped by experience. With individualized, self-directed education, people may grow into more authentic versions of themselves, because their learning paths follow their genuine interests.

Imagine a system where, from birth, a personalized learning platform accompanies a child. It observes the infant’s environment, records stimuli, tracks reactions, and gradually builds an understanding of the child’s preferences, responses, and developing abilities. Over time, this system becomes a lifelong tutor.

Using biometric cues—eye dilation, pulse responses, attention patterns, conversations—the tutor learns what engages the child. It then curates media and educational inputs matched to those interests. Standard curricula could be woven organically into the content the child naturally gravitates toward. The child still meets the Department of Education’s standards, but the path toward those standards is customized.

Instead of asking, “Why do I need to know this?” students would experience academic skills—communication, math, scientific thinking—as directly relevant to something they already care about. Their curiosity drives the learning. If a child becomes fascinated with a topic, the tutor can show that the next level of mathematics or literacy unlocks deeper understanding. The child begins to ask for increasingly complex material because it empowers him/her to explore what they already find meaningful.

Education then becomes both a reflection of a child’s emerging identity and a predictor of his or her future interests as an adult. This is home schooling, just at a socializing center.

Human teachers, in this scenario, shift roles. Instead of delivering standardized instruction, they act as facilitators of social interaction, collaboration, play, and emotional development. They create safe environments, help students work together, ensure healthy time away from screens, and guide activities that AI cannot replace.

Eventually, these tutors may even be able to connect students with others who share similar interests, habits, or learning profiles. With access to a broad network of data, the tutor could match individuals in ways that make collaboration and social learning more meaningful, personalized, and effective.