AI, workload, gratitude, and the possible end of the human species.

I attended a conference recently on AI and teacher workload, and a few things really stayed with me.

First, progress is slower than many of us expected. AI marking tools are improving, but most still focus on literacy subjects. Maths remains a difficult problem for developers to crack. There are plenty of platforms that offer auto-marking, but the amount of admin involved, such as photographing and uploading work, often reduces the practical benefit. Cost is another real challenge for schools that want to use these tools regularly.

The most interesting part, though, was speaking to colleagues from other schools. Listening to their experiences made me realise how differently we approach workload in CST. Many schools still have traditional marking cycles in place, but...

1. We removed interim summative marking for Years 7, 8 and 9 across all subjects some time ago.

2. We are already using AI marking at KS4, where it is reliable.

3. We rely on live marking rather than retrospective written marking,

4. and teachers in Years 7 to 9 do not mark homework at all.

5. When I mentioned that our colleagues also enjoy a 4.5-day work week and an extra week in December, a few eyebrows were raised, not because of the perks, but because it shows what becomes possible when you truly strip out unnecessary work.

It is easy to forget this sometimes. Human beings naturally struggle to notice what is going well. Research on gratitude, such as the work by Emmons and McCullough in 2003, shows that our brains are more tuned in to problems than positives. Gratitude is something we have to practise, not something that comes automatically.

On the other hand, not everyone shares optimism about AI. A colleague recommended a Spotify series that suggests advanced AI could become dangerous to humanity. Some experts believe that by 2035 to 2040, we may face serious risks if AI development goes unchecked. It is a sobering thought, especially compared to the smaller questions we tend to focus on in education.

All of this made me think about something closer to home. Even with better systems and reduced workload structures, people can still feel overwhelmed. Our expectations are high, and when they are not met, leaders have to intervene. The survey we carried out earlier in the year showed that many colleagues find difficult conversations hard to manage. That is not surprising. These conversations require clarity, preparation and confidence, and they are never emotionally easy.

This is why we introduced the PLAY framework.

It helps leaders think more clearly, hold conversations that support colleagues rather than discourage them, and, in the long run, reduce workload, not increase it. When we help someone achieve what they could not manage alone, appreciation tends to come naturally because the support genuinely makes a difference.

The question I keep coming back to is this. How often do we prepare properly for these conversations, and how often do we practise them so that leaders who struggle can build confidence?

As we move forward, I keep reminding myself of two things. First, we are already far ahead in reducing unnecessary workload, even if we forget this from time to time. Second, the quality of our conversations matters just as much as the systems we build. When we communicate with clarity and support, and when we use our plays with intention, we protect standards, and we look after people. That combination is what keeps a school culture strong.