We visited Stanford. We stopped by Google and NVIDIA. We walked through the halls of Bett London. And we returned to a school in rural São Paulo with an unsettling realization: the conversation about innovation in education is, more often than not, looking in the wrong direction.

People talk about how students have changed—the way they learn, get distracted, do research, and ask questions. They talk about the technology that has arrived—artificial intelligence, robotics, automation. But there’s one question that rarely comes up in panel discussions, case studies, and headlines: what about the teacher? Who took care of him or her?

This isn't a rhetorical provocation. It's a management shortcoming.

The requirement that no one had formalized

In recent years, we have asked teachers to become content curators, social-emotional mediators, proficient users of digital platforms, formative assessors, and, more recently, individuals capable of working alongside artificial intelligence in the classroom—often without providing the time, training, or support necessary for this transition.

The result is predictable: exhaustion. An overload of demands piling up on top of a routine that was already intense. And, often, a silent fear that technology will replace not the repetitive work, but the teacher himself.

This fear does not stem from the technology itself. It stems from the way it is introduced—as an imposition, without context, without education, and without room for doubt.

Technology that simply adds more features is not innovation

There is a distinction that every school administration needs to make clearly: there is technology that frees up time for teachers, and there is technology that merely adds yet another task to their already extensive daily to-do list.

The first one sets you free. The second one wears you out—even when it’s presented as progress.

In practice, this means paying attention to small, almost invisible decisions: a classroom with fewer cables and less manual setup for the teacher to deal with before beginning to explain the material. A support tool that summarizes, organizes, or suggests, but never makes decisions on behalf of the teacher. A robotics or artificial intelligence project that is carried out in collaboration with the teacher—not imposed on them.

The question every school should ask before adopting anything new is not “Does this impress the students?” but rather: Does this free up time and energy for educators, or does it take away even more of the little they already have?

Education isn't just a stage; it's a culture

It is common to treat teacher training as an isolated step: a one-time workshop, a lecture at the beginning of the school year, or a user manual. But when training is treated as a one-time event, it fades away just like any other event.

What drives real change is culture—the ongoing creation of an environment where teachers can experiment, make mistakes, ask questions, and stay up to date as part of their job, not as an extra task they have to squeeze in outside of work hours.

This requires school administrators to make a deliberate choice: to treat teacher training with the same level of strategic priority as student recruitment or financial management. Because there can be no sustainable pedagogical transformation without a teaching staff that feels prepared—and, above all, supported—in this process.

The role of management is to protect, not just to demand

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this reflection is this: the transformation of education will not happen by administrative decree, nor through the adoption of new tools, if school administrators do not take an active role in protecting the health and development of those who teach.

This means giving teachers a real voice to discuss what works and what doesn’t. It means assessing the impact of each new requirement before adding it to the teaching routine. Ultimately, it means understanding that organizational culture and pedagogical innovation go hand in hand—one cannot survive without the other.

What We've Learned by Trying to Do Things Differently

At a school in rural Brazil, we’ve been putting this approach to the test: before introducing any technology—whether it’s a classroom collaboration tool or a robotics and artificial intelligence project—we first ask how it will affect the teacher’s day. If the answer is “it will demand more from him without giving anything back,” we rethink it. If the answer is “it will take a repetitive task off their plate,” we move forward.

It’s not a perfect formula, and we’re still learning. But one thing has become clear: schools that invest in technology without investing, in equal measure, in the people who will use it are building innovation on shaky ground.

A question for every manager

The school of the future will be more personalized, more technologically advanced, and more connected—there is already a general consensus on this. But it will only be more humane if school administrators consciously decide that taking care of teachers is a fundamental part of their strategy, rather than an expected side effect.

Artificial intelligence will not replace teachers. But teachers who are neglected in this process—without training, without time, without support—will hardly be able to shoulder, on their own, the burden of the transformation we all hope to see in the classroom.

The question that remains for every educational administrator is not just “What technology will we adopt this year?” It is: What are we doing today to ensure that teachers aren’t the last to be considered in this change?

About the author:

Share on social media: