AI can assist learning, but it cannot replace teachers, say school leaders
As artificial intelligence enters classrooms, educators across India say the technology can support learning but cannot replace teachers. Experts highlight the need for balance, human judgement and parental involvement as AI tools become more common in schools.
The question was framed sharply at the India Today Education Conclave in Delhi: Is artificial intelligence a teaching aid, a co-teacher, or a disruptor of the traditional classroom?
By the end of the panel discussion on ‘AI in the Classroom: Promise, Peril and Possibilities’, the answer was clear -- AI may be changing how classrooms function, but it is also making the role of teachers and parents more critical, not less.
Moderated by Suyesha Savant, the session brought together Sharmila Bakshi, Principal of Vasant Valley School, Delhi; Surabhi Bhargav, Principal of Cambridge School, Noida; and Ashish Arora, Senior Vice President and Business Head, Cambridge University Press & Assessment, South Asia. What followed was a grounded, at times cautionary conversation that moved well beyond hype.
AI AS AID, CO-TEACHER AND DISRUPTOR
Sharmila Bakshi opened by resisting a single-label view of AI in education. According to her, AI fits all three roles -- aid, co-teacher and disruptor -- depending on how it is used.
She stressed that while AI can ease administrative burden and add creativity through presentations, quizzes and storytelling, it should never undermine the educator.
“I would not, under any circumstances, undermine the role of the teacher,” she said, adding that teachers will “always be there in the classroom, guiding the children, helping the children, supporting the children.”
At the same time, Bakshi acknowledged that classrooms will no longer look the same. The traditional model of a teacher lecturing while students passively receive information is already fading. AI, she said, disrupts that model, but not necessarily in a negative way.
The concern begins when AI is used irresponsibly. If students simply generate homework using tools without applying themselves, she warned, learning weakens.
“The primary responsibility is also of the teacher to teach the child how to use it well,” Bakshi said, emphasising that assignments must push justification, reasoning and reflection -- tasks AI cannot meaningfully complete on a student’s behalf.
WHY OVERRELIANCE WEAKENS THINKING
Surabhi Bhargav echoed that sentiment, making it clear that AI does not threaten teachers, but poor pedagogy does.
“I agree that over reliance on any tool, it weakens thinking,” she said. AI, according to Bhargav, should be a starting point, not a final answer. Students must be taught to verify outputs, question responses and understand where AI’s role should stop.
She was unequivocal on one point: “AI cannot replace the teacher. It cannot sideline them.” Instead, AI should function as scaffolding -- supporting learning while physical classrooms, peer interaction and collaborative thinking remain central.
Bhargav also highlighted that schools are not just spaces for academic instruction. They are sites of culture-building, emotional development and social learning -- areas where technology cannot substitute human presence.
BRIDGING LANGUAGE AND ACCESS GAPS
One of the strongest arguments in favour of AI came from its potential to support first-generation learners and students from non-English-speaking backgrounds.
Panellists agreed that AI, when deployed thoughtfully, can act as an equaliser -- offering personalised explanations, multilingual support and a safe space for students to ask questions they might hesitate to raise in class.
However, the panel was careful not to frame this as replacement. Bhargav noted that while AI can bridge language gaps, it cannot replace “the human touch, the cultural differences, the mental health issues, the economic, socio economic background issues”.
In these areas, teachers must work “hand in hand with all such AI tools.”
PARENTS CANNOT STEP AWAY
As the discussion moved to parental roles, Ashish Arora brought a broader societal lens. He argued that the challenge is not limited to classrooms but extends into homes.
“As a father of a teenage daughter, that’s a problem of a parent as well,” Arora said, referring to blind trust in AI outputs. He urged parents to listen patiently and help children “adopt it in the right way” rather than resist the technology outright.
He also warned that parents themselves need to change. Skills that once defined good parenting -- rote learning, memorisation, strict supervision -- may no longer apply.
Parents, he said, “need to unlearn and relearn” how learning happens in an AI-enabled world.
Sharmila Bakshi reinforced this point strongly: “Both parent and teacher have to be engaged with what the child is doing.” Monitoring platforms, understanding behaviour changes and staying connected, she said, are now essential safeguards.
DATA, BIAS AND ETHICAL RISKS
While acknowledging AI’s promise, the panel did not shy away from its risks -- data privacy, misinformation and algorithmic bias chief among them.
Bakshi warned that generative AI systems are deeply trainable and can internalise biases from large populations. For children, she said, AI outputs can feel like absolute truth, even when they are not. That, she argued, makes policy intervention urgent.
Arora added that schools and educators must “carefully handpick the use cases” for AI. Research assistance, for instance, can be valuable, but fact-checking and critical thinking must remain human-led. Rushing adoption, he cautioned, would only amplify risks.
THE CLASSROOM OF 2030
When asked to imagine the Indian classroom of 2030, none of the panellists described a teacherless future.
“I don’t think AI can ever replace the teacher,” Bakshi said. Teachers, she noted, will remain mentors, guides and emotional anchors. AI, at best, will be a tool that allows teaching to become more differentiated and engaging.
Bhargav envisioned highly upskilled teachers acting as learning designers rather than content deliverers. Arora, meanwhile, warned against dystopian visions of robotic classrooms, referencing Isaac Asimov’s The Fun They Had as a cautionary tale.
AI, the panel concluded, is both a revolution and a risk. Whether it strengthens or weakens education will depend not on the technology itself, but on the choices educators, parents and policymakers make now.
The question was framed sharply at the India Today Education Conclave in Delhi: Is artificial intelligence a teaching aid, a co-teacher, or a disruptor of the traditional classroom?
By the end of the panel discussion on ‘AI in the Classroom: Promise, Peril and Possibilities’, the answer was clear -- AI may be changing how classrooms function, but it is also making the role of teachers and parents more critical, not less.
Moderated by Suyesha Savant, the session brought together Sharmila Bakshi, Principal of Vasant Valley School, Delhi; Surabhi Bhargav, Principal of Cambridge School, Noida; and Ashish Arora, Senior Vice President and Business Head, Cambridge University Press & Assessment, South Asia. What followed was a grounded, at times cautionary conversation that moved well beyond hype.
AI AS AID, CO-TEACHER AND DISRUPTOR
Sharmila Bakshi opened by resisting a single-label view of AI in education. According to her, AI fits all three roles -- aid, co-teacher and disruptor -- depending on how it is used.
She stressed that while AI can ease administrative burden and add creativity through presentations, quizzes and storytelling, it should never undermine the educator.
“I would not, under any circumstances, undermine the role of the teacher,” she said, adding that teachers will “always be there in the classroom, guiding the children, helping the children, supporting the children.”
At the same time, Bakshi acknowledged that classrooms will no longer look the same. The traditional model of a teacher lecturing while students passively receive information is already fading. AI, she said, disrupts that model, but not necessarily in a negative way.
The concern begins when AI is used irresponsibly. If students simply generate homework using tools without applying themselves, she warned, learning weakens.
“The primary responsibility is also of the teacher to teach the child how to use it well,” Bakshi said, emphasising that assignments must push justification, reasoning and reflection -- tasks AI cannot meaningfully complete on a student’s behalf.
WHY OVERRELIANCE WEAKENS THINKING
Surabhi Bhargav echoed that sentiment, making it clear that AI does not threaten teachers, but poor pedagogy does.
“I agree that over reliance on any tool, it weakens thinking,” she said. AI, according to Bhargav, should be a starting point, not a final answer. Students must be taught to verify outputs, question responses and understand where AI’s role should stop.
She was unequivocal on one point: “AI cannot replace the teacher. It cannot sideline them.” Instead, AI should function as scaffolding -- supporting learning while physical classrooms, peer interaction and collaborative thinking remain central.
Bhargav also highlighted that schools are not just spaces for academic instruction. They are sites of culture-building, emotional development and social learning -- areas where technology cannot substitute human presence.
BRIDGING LANGUAGE AND ACCESS GAPS
One of the strongest arguments in favour of AI came from its potential to support first-generation learners and students from non-English-speaking backgrounds.
Panellists agreed that AI, when deployed thoughtfully, can act as an equaliser -- offering personalised explanations, multilingual support and a safe space for students to ask questions they might hesitate to raise in class.
However, the panel was careful not to frame this as replacement. Bhargav noted that while AI can bridge language gaps, it cannot replace “the human touch, the cultural differences, the mental health issues, the economic, socio economic background issues”.
In these areas, teachers must work “hand in hand with all such AI tools.”
PARENTS CANNOT STEP AWAY
As the discussion moved to parental roles, Ashish Arora brought a broader societal lens. He argued that the challenge is not limited to classrooms but extends into homes.
“As a father of a teenage daughter, that’s a problem of a parent as well,” Arora said, referring to blind trust in AI outputs. He urged parents to listen patiently and help children “adopt it in the right way” rather than resist the technology outright.
He also warned that parents themselves need to change. Skills that once defined good parenting -- rote learning, memorisation, strict supervision -- may no longer apply.
Parents, he said, “need to unlearn and relearn” how learning happens in an AI-enabled world.
Sharmila Bakshi reinforced this point strongly: “Both parent and teacher have to be engaged with what the child is doing.” Monitoring platforms, understanding behaviour changes and staying connected, she said, are now essential safeguards.
DATA, BIAS AND ETHICAL RISKS
While acknowledging AI’s promise, the panel did not shy away from its risks -- data privacy, misinformation and algorithmic bias chief among them.
Bakshi warned that generative AI systems are deeply trainable and can internalise biases from large populations. For children, she said, AI outputs can feel like absolute truth, even when they are not. That, she argued, makes policy intervention urgent.
Arora added that schools and educators must “carefully handpick the use cases” for AI. Research assistance, for instance, can be valuable, but fact-checking and critical thinking must remain human-led. Rushing adoption, he cautioned, would only amplify risks.
THE CLASSROOM OF 2030
When asked to imagine the Indian classroom of 2030, none of the panellists described a teacherless future.
“I don’t think AI can ever replace the teacher,” Bakshi said. Teachers, she noted, will remain mentors, guides and emotional anchors. AI, at best, will be a tool that allows teaching to become more differentiated and engaging.
Bhargav envisioned highly upskilled teachers acting as learning designers rather than content deliverers. Arora, meanwhile, warned against dystopian visions of robotic classrooms, referencing Isaac Asimov’s The Fun They Had as a cautionary tale.
AI, the panel concluded, is both a revolution and a risk. Whether it strengthens or weakens education will depend not on the technology itself, but on the choices educators, parents and policymakers make now.