Michael Kaissis, head of PDHPE at St Charbel's College in Sydney, is taking a public stand against the encroachment of technology in his own school and is urging others to do the same.

Teachers and school leaders must ‘draw a line in the sand’ and say ‘no more’, he contends.

“I’m not willing to let [CEO of Open AI] Sam Altman and his henchmen come into my classroom and start dictating the terms of my class,” he tells EducationHQ.

Kaissis wants to see the evidence behind each edtech product handed down by a third external independent party, but instead says we are blindly – and dangerously – busily lapping up the word of marketing gurus and edtech ‘experts’ spruiking their shiny wares.

“Some [teachers are] in a little bit of a trance from drinking the Kool-Aid on too much technology,” he says.

“It’s not their fault, but it’s like: who introduced us to this technology – who’s responsible? Why do we need it? What question is it answering? How did it come about? Why is it so difficult to get rid of it in our schools now?”

Contrary to the narrative the sector has been sold, technology and AI is NOT our saviour in schools, Kaissis maintains.

“While there are many goals for education, I think that one of the goals is we want our students to learn,” he says.

“You know, the business of school is learning. And when they’re in a PDHPE class or a maths class or an English class, I want them to learn PDHPE, maths and I want them to learn English.

“I don’t want them to learn how to use technology in PDHPE…”

Back in 2008, the NSW Government ‘splashed the cash’ on buying laptops for students across the system, Kaissis notes, setting the current trajectory in motion.

“We don’t evaluate the tools that we use in our classroom, I think, rigorously enough.

“We have to be evaluating them [and only] then we can introduce them into the school.

“It’s becoming increasingly common that we are just throwing technology into our classrooms and we’re not really sure about if it’s effective, or if it’s not effective, or if the results are mixed.”

To those who decry that AI will define ‘the future’ of schooling, you are mistaken, Kaissis says.

The teacher warns that more than 40 years of scientific research has pointed towards mixed results of tech’s effectiveness in classrooms.

“For some of the tech, the evidence just isn’t there for it. It distracts from learning. It hinders the learning process, and it makes things more difficult for teachers.”

A few, including Richard Clark, sounded the warning in a paper that was published as far back as the 1983, Kaissis says.

“That’s almost 50 years ago, and [Clark’s] conclusion was something like ‘a truck that can deliver groceries doesn’t improve nutrition, just as much as technology doesn’t improve student outcomes’.

“So, it was pretty clear back then that big tech doesn’t support learning, and I think it’s not even a neutral now – it’s tilting into the negative.”

The teacher has taken it upon himself to interrogate the research on this front. He says, for example, that ‘bits of evidence’ show reading on a screen is not as effective as reading from a book, for starters.

“When students write as well, the cognitive processes that are engaged during writing are different to the cognitive processes that are engaged when students type,” he adds.

“When I’m in my classroom, I want to hear pens writing. I want to see hands up. I don’t want to hear keys tapping and mouses clicking … because I want them to learn.”

To those who enthusiastically decry that AI will define ‘the future’ of schooling, you are sorely mistaken, Kaissis says.

“There was actually an academic paper that came out recently as well that said the cognitive load for AI use was reduced on students, but at the end of the day, they didn’t end up learning as much.

“We’re handing over our power to AI and to these tech companies and they’re suggesting, ‘oh, the future is this linear trajectory’ … so (the thinking is) we may as well just accept that that tech is here and it’s in our classrooms and we have to kind of deal with it.”

Kaissis is not willing to accept this argument.

“I want to fight back. I know what’s right for my students in my classroom and I don’t want people external to the classroom telling me what’s right for my students, he says.

Then there’s the fact that predictions about the future often don’t play out, the teacher adds.

“I’m still waiting for my flying car. I’m still waiting for my hoverboard. So, we can predict and pontificate about how the future might be...

“[But] any claims that are made [about edtech as our saviour to the future] I think it’s shocking and an absolute egregious mistake on behalf of the education community to allow just AI and technology into our classrooms without any sort of examination.”

It’s also potentially problematic for school leaders to leave decisions about what tech will be used in the classroom up to individual teachers, he adds.

Many don’t have the time or the capacity to be fully abreast of the research, he says.

“So, we would expect people who are above us, including school leaders, including the government, including a whole range of people to go, ‘well, hang on a second, this is not working for us’.

“They should have the insight and say, ‘we’re on your team’, not have their heads in the sky saying, ‘well, this is what education could be’.

Earlier this year one expert warned that when faced with the rhetoric of edtech companies out to ‘teacher proof’ learning, policymakers have to date taken a weak stance on behalf of the teaching profession.

Nevertheless, Kaissis is bolstered by recent moves made by some independent schools who are turning away from technology in the classroom.

“Queenwood is starting to reject technology. Waverley College is rejecting technology. Al-Faisal College – they’re all rejecting technology,” he notes.

“Even parents, I read an article [years ago now about how] parents in Silicon Valley aren’t sending their kids to schools that use technology.

“I mean, that’s in Silicon Valley where tech is king.”