The Singapore experience with AI in education offers a textbook lesson for all who hope automation will magically chop working hours. Teachers aren’t clocking off early just yet—instead, they’re swapping analogue busywork for nuanced new tasks that demand human judgment. This makes perfect sense if we think beyond the simplistic 'robots replace humans' trope. AI tools streamline lesson planning and grading, yes, but they also require oversight, learning curves, and a commitment to weaving technology into the fabric of teaching.
The so-called “verification tax” reveals an essential truth: AI outputs aren’t gospel. This cautious approach preserves educational integrity, ensuring machines augment rather than supplant teacher expertise. And while AI may not reduce workload outright, it reallocates time toward higher-value activities—personalized student engagement, crafting interactive lessons, and tackling administrative drudgery with smart automation.
Let’s be honest, teaching is inherently relational. AI can’t replicate the meaningful eye contact, nuanced feedback, or emotional intelligence invested in a 40-minute one-on-one with a student. That’s the precious “humanity” technology can’t touch. So the real win is how AI can empower educators to focus on these irreplaceable human elements by absorbing repetitive or data-heavy tasks.
Singapore’s model invites us to be pragmatic yet optimistic: AI’s success isn’t a race to reduce hours but a quest to improve quality and impact. This means designing tools that are user-friendly and trustworthy, so the time saved isn’t lost verifying what the AI churns out. In short, AI in education isn’t about taking the teacher out of the equation; it’s about unleashing the teacher’s full potential—and frankly, that’s an upgrade worth working for. Source: Artificial intelligence in S’pore classrooms: How do we know it’s making a difference for teachers?
