Where Do Schools Go From Here?
Source: FitzyHistory Substack
Author: FitzyHistory
Original source: https://fitzyhistory.substack.com/p/where-do-schools-go-from-here
Published: 2026-06-26
Source type: essay
Private backup: the full article text is archived in the private repository at archives/articles/fitzyhistory-substack-com-where-do-schools-go-from-here.source.md. It is not published on the public Quartz site.
Summary
FitzyHistory argues that schools may be moving from an AI cheating-and-detection arms race toward a fragile detente. The article frames the next phase less as a technical question of whether AI should be allowed and more as a first-principles question: what is school for, what human relationships does it protect, and where can AI serve rather than replace those purposes?
The piece is explicitly neither anti-AI nor pro-hype. It treats AI as genuinely useful in the right hands while warning that classroom wrappers, detection regimes, and vendor-led adoption can miss the main issue: students still want human teachers, authentic accomplishment, and assignments whose purposes are clear enough that AI use can be discussed honestly.
Its durable contribution is the argument that AI policy should protect teacher-student relationships and productive learning work before it optimizes for access, enforcement, or novelty.
Pull quotes
Detente after the arms race
“After millions of words written about AI and schools, here in the summer of 2026, I think students and teachers have arrived at something like a detente.”
The real question
“If we intend to move forward productively in the fall, we need to stop fighting about AI long enough to ask what school is actually for.”
Protect the relationship first
“Whatever AI we let into schools has to protect that first.”
Pro-human, not anti-AI
“This is not an anti-AI piece. It is a pro-human one.”
Big ideas
- Schools should start with learning values before choosing AI tools
- Education should teach thinking with, without, and about AI
- Learning still needs some struggle, even when AI can make things easier
Claims
- Punitive AI bans can drive student use underground
- Learning requires some productive struggle that AI can remove
- Adult AI productivity gains do not justify equivalent student use
- AI tool choices should be judged against stated learning values
Key evidence and examples
- The article describes the school AI arc from late 2022 amazement to fear of cheating, backlash, policy confusion, vendor pressure, and widening gaps between heavy users and skeptics.
- It argues that AI detection and humanizer tools produced an arms race with no durable advantage, leaving teachers and students exhausted rather than settled.
- Fitzpatrick reports that students often want less technology and more human teaching, including examples from former students and Marcus Luther’s classroom survey.
- The piece points to a 2026 Brookings report and a 2026 Oxford University Press study as evidence that AI’s learning benefits remain unproven and that many students decline AI support for school tasks even while using it elsewhere.
- It distinguishes mature AI use from classroom AI wrappers that add friction students avoiding work will bypass and capable students may see as inferior to frontier tools.
Education relevance
High relevance for K–12 and higher-ed AI policy because it connects academic integrity, AI literacy, classroom culture, student motivation, and teacher-student relationships. The article is especially useful for leaders trying to move beyond detection and prohibition toward learning-centered implementation choices.
Durability note
Specific model capabilities and 2026 survey findings will age, but the article’s durable frame is likely to remain useful: schools should decide what human learning relationships and cognitive work they are trying to protect before deciding where AI belongs.