CPD in 5
Posts
AI vs Teacher Voice: Who’s in Charge of the Curriculum?

AI vs Teacher Voice: Who’s in Charge of the Curriculum?

Steve White
June 11, 2025

In recent years, schools have seen a digital revolution sweep into classrooms with the arrival of artificial intelligence. From automated lesson planning to instant text simplification and behaviour report writing, AI tools like ChatGPT, MagicSchool, and Eduaide have quickly made themselves part of a teacher’s everyday workload.

And while the time-saving benefits are obvious, there’s an increasingly urgent question being asked by educators:

If AI is shaping what we teach — who’s really in charge of the curriculum?

The Rise of AI in Curriculum Planning

Let’s be honest — AI can be incredibly helpful. A single prompt can generate:

A full lesson outline in seconds
Differentiated texts for a range of reading levels
Starters, plenaries, quizzes and even entire schemes of work

For busy teachers, this can feel like a gift. But here’s the catch: AI isn’t just saving time. It’s starting to shape the substance of what’s taught.

That’s where the problem begins.

What AI Can’t Do (Yet)

Curriculum design isn’t just about content coverage. It’s about:

Sequencing knowledge so students build understanding over time
Adapting to the local context — including prior learning, socio-economic background, and cultural relevance
Embedding values, ethos, and purpose into the learning journey

AI can produce something that looks like a lesson. But it doesn’t know:

What your Year 8s struggled with last term
How local history might enrich your unit on migration
That your school has a whole-school literacy strategy to follow

In short, AI can generate. But it can’t understand.

Why Teacher Voice Still Matters

A well-designed curriculum is one of the most powerful levers a school has to raise achievement. But that power doesn’t come from a prompt — it comes from professional expertise.

Curriculum is shaped by:

Knowledge of subject discipline
Understanding of students and their community
A clear sense of progression and purpose
Ethical decision-making about what’s worth knowing

The best curriculum designers are teachers — not algorithms. AI can support the process. But it cannot replace the thinking.

The Risks of Letting AI Take the Lead

If teachers begin to lean too heavily on AI to make planning decisions, we risk:

Generic content that fails to challenge or inspire
Mis-sequencing, where concepts are introduced in ways that hinder learning
Curricular drift, where core knowledge is replaced with what’s merely convenient
Reduced professional agency, as teachers lose confidence in their own design choices

We must remember: the curriculum isn’t a script — it’s a statement of intent. And it must come from those who understand the learners it’s intended for.

How to Use AI Responsibly in Curriculum Planning

This isn’t an anti-AI post. Used well, AI can support professional thinking and reduce unnecessary admin. But the key word here is support — not substitute.

Here are four ways teachers can use AI responsibly:

Use AI to generate ideas, not decisions. Treat AI as a brainstorming partner — then refine, adapt, and localise what it produces.
Check against your curriculum goals. Always compare what AI offers with your long-term plans, learning intentions, and subject rationale.
Share and reflect with colleagues. Use AI prompts collaboratively in department time — but always come back to your subject knowledge.
Be transparent with students. Model AI literacy. Show how tools can be used responsibly — and where human judgment still matters most.

A Cautionary Case Study

A history teacher asks ChatGPT to create a lesson on the Cold War for a mixed-ability Year 9 class. The AI provides a well-structured sequence covering the arms race, Berlin Wall and Cuban Missile Crisis — all clearly explained.

But here’s the issue:

The sequence ignores British involvement in the Cold War
There’s no focus on the GCSE assessment objectives the school prioritises
The reading level is mismatched with the class’ needs
The moral dimension of nuclear threat is overlooked

The teacher doesn’t discard the AI lesson — but rewrites it, adds source work, and adjusts the pitch. In the end, it becomes a better lesson. But only because a teacher took control of the direction.

Final Thoughts: AI Is a Mirror, Not a Master

AI is here to stay in education. Used wisely, it can reduce workload, generate resources, and act as a helpful planning companion.

But a curriculum designed by AI is a curriculum without heart, context or humanity.

We must keep teacher voice at the centre of planning. Because what we teach — and how we sequence it — is too important to outsource.

A powerful curriculum is not just delivered. It’s designed.

And that design begins with teachers.