Reflections from October Global Courageous Minority Meeting 1 on Oct. 18.

Transforming education in the age of artificial intelligence requires much more than recognizing that schools need to change. It requires action. But taking action within existing educational systems is not easy. Teachers and school leaders face curriculum requirements, assessment policies, institutional expectations, resource limitations, and resistance from colleagues and other stakeholders. How can educators move beyond discussing what should change to actually making change happen?

This was the central question explored during a recent meeting of the Courageous Minority, a global community of educators committed to transforming education in the age of AI. Participants from Canada, Australia, South Africa, and elsewhere shared their experiences, challenges, and ongoing experiments. Their stories revealed both the difficulties of educational transformation and the possibilities that emerge when educators are willing to take initiative.

The Difficulty of Making Change Happen

Dave, a teacher in West Vancouver, Canada, opened the discussion by sharing his experience establishing a lifeguarding program in his district. He began advocating for the program in 2012 but did not receive approval until 2014. He described himself as a “persistent mosquito,” repeatedly approaching district leaders until they eventually agreed.

The program has operated successfully ever since. Looking back, Dave acknowledged that the repeated rejections, although frustrating, ultimately strengthened the program. Every rejection prompted him to reconsider the design and make adjustments that would help the program work within the existing school system.

His experience illustrates an important reality: educational innovation often requires persistence, negotiation, and an understanding of institutional constraints.

Dave is now exploring new possibilities for student-centered learning with AI, beginning with an AI student council and a proposed “Impossible Project.” These initiatives would allow students to pursue meaningful challenges and use AI to support their work.

He believes that students and parents would likely support such opportunities. Resistance might instead arise from within the institution. When a new program attracts students, existing courses may lose enrollment, and teachers can become protective of their programs.

This is a reminder that schools are not simply educational organizations. They are also institutional arrangements in which different stakeholders have established responsibilities, expectations, and interests. Even promising innovations can threaten those arrangements.

The question is not simply whether an idea is educationally desirable, but whether it can be introduced without creating so much resistance that implementation becomes impossible.

Creating Opportunities and Building Support

Brett Dascombe, a geography teacher from Wavell State High School in Brisbane, Australia, described a somewhat different approach. Rather than confronting institutional barriers directly, he seeks opportunities that benefit students, colleagues, and school leaders.

Brett has developed partnerships with external organizations, including the Australian Defence Force, to provide students with opportunities to work on authentic geographical problems. One project involves using geographical data collected over Brisbane. Another involves collaboration with a school in Southeast Asia through an international school partnership program.

He also works with colleagues on projects involving the digital mapping of cultural heritage sites with First Nations elders.

Brett emphasized the importance of creating opportunities that are valuable not only to students but also to the school and its leadership. When school leaders can see the benefits of an initiative, they are more likely to support it.

His approach suggests that educational transformation does not always require challenging existing structures directly. It can begin by demonstrating that new approaches create value for multiple stakeholders.

The discussion also highlighted the importance of collaboration among teachers. Brett is no longer working alone. A younger colleague has joined him in developing innovative projects, and school leadership has provided support.

Similarly, Dave explained that West Vancouver has designated AI enhancement teachers across its three public high schools. These teachers meet regularly to share experiences and support colleagues. Although time remains a challenge, the arrangement gives them some institutional space to explore new possibilities.

Such examples suggest that institutional support does not necessarily require major restructuring. Sometimes, a modest allocation of time, recognition, or resources can create opportunities for meaningful experimentation.

Changing the Teacher’s Mindset

Another major theme of the meeting was the need to rethink the role of teachers.

Bevel, a school principal from South Africa, shared several examples of how he has been introducing AI into school operations and teacher professional development.

At his school, AI is being used to make communication with parents more accessible and reduce administrative workloads. He is also exploring ways to integrate multiple reporting requirements into a more efficient system.

In his work with the South African Democratic Teachers Union, Bevel incorporated AI into professional development workshops on assessment for learning. Although he subsequently received questions about using AI in ways that had not been part of the original training plan, participants responded positively to the interactive learning experiences.

But perhaps his most revealing example came from a visit to a Grade 7 English classroom.

Students were studying Anne Frank and learning to write diary entries. Bevel asked them about several South African women who had played important roles in the struggle against apartheid. Most students were unfamiliar with these individuals.

He then invited students to use Perplexity to explore connections between Anne Frank and the South African women. Why, he asked, couldn’t students write diary entries about figures such as Winnie Mandela while still meeting the curriculum requirements for writing?

The experience revealed how easily teachers can become constrained by prescribed curriculum materials, even when the actual standards allow considerably more flexibility.

Teachers may believe that teaching the curriculum requires following a prescribed example or sequence. Yet the learning objectives could often be achieved through much more relevant and engaging experiences.

The problem, therefore, is not always the curriculum itself. It is also the mindset through which teachers interpret the curriculum.

This connects directly to one of the central ideas of the Courageous Minority: educational transformation requires changing how we understand teaching and learning, not merely introducing new technologies.

From Teaching the Curriculum to Finding Meaningful Problems

The conversation then turned to the possibilities of redesigning learning within existing curriculum requirements.

Mike, a high school English teacher, explained that although his school follows established standards, teachers enjoy considerable freedom in designing their courses. The standards require students to develop capabilities such as literary analysis, writing, and communication, but do not prescribe every learning activity.

This raised an interesting possibility: What if teachers began by sharing the required learning standards with students and then invited them to identify meaningful problems they could address using those capabilities?

Instead of asking students simply to complete assignments demonstrating prescribed skills, teachers could challenge them to use those skills to create something valuable.

For example, students studying writing could identify issues in their communities and develop written materials to address them. Students studying geography could investigate environmental, economic, or social problems using geographical data.

Brett shared several examples from his own teaching. His students have investigated community well-being, the redevelopment of industrial sites, and accessibility within their school. One group used AI to help visualize how the school library might become more accessible.

He is also developing a unit in which students investigate the geographical distribution of data centers around Brisbane, including questions about electricity infrastructure and environmental sustainability.

These projects demonstrate a different relationship between curriculum and learning.

Rather than treating the curriculum as a list of things to be taught, it becomes a collection of resources students can use to investigate and address meaningful problems.

This approach is closely aligned with the three principles guiding the Courageous Minority: personalized learning, problem finding and solving, and human interdependence.

Students develop their interests and strengths, identify meaningful problems, and learn to contribute to others through their work.

Rethinking Grades and Assessment

Assessment emerged as another major institutional constraint.

Mike noted that eliminating grades might be desirable, but teachers operate in systems where universities, other schools, and families expect conventional evidence of achievement.

Even educators who support alternative assessment approaches may find it difficult to abandon traditional grades entirely.

I shared an experiment from my own university teaching: promising students that they would receive an A so they could stop worrying about grades and focus on learning.

Phil, another participant, described a related approach he called “top-down grading.” Instead of assuming that every student begins with zero and must earn points, students begin with an A, which can be adjusted if necessary.

These approaches do not eliminate the grading system, but they represent attempts to change students’ relationships with grades.

Brett noted that changing this mindset is difficult. One student working on a project about an industrial redevelopment site asked him what she needed to do to receive an A. His response emphasized that the project belonged to her and that she needed to determine its direction.

The exchange illustrates how deeply traditional assessment has shaped students’ expectations. Even when teachers offer freedom, students may continue looking for external directions and criteria.

Transforming education, therefore, involves changing both teacher and student habits.

Students as Agents of Change

One particularly promising theme was the possibility of engaging students themselves as leaders of educational transformation.

Traditionally, educational change is something adults design and students experience. But could students become active contributors to changing schools?

I shared an example from a project I led in Michigan in the 1990s called Kids Learning in Computer Clubhouses (KLICK). Students learned emerging technologies and then helped teachers and schools use them. Some became technology support teams, assisting with computers and internet connections.

A related initiative at Michigan State University employed undergraduate students as technology consultants for professors.

These experiences suggest that students can play important roles in helping educational institutions adapt to new technologies.

Today, AI presents similar opportunities.

Students could form AI teams to help teachers explore new applications, assist schools with practical problems, collaborate with community organizations, or support local businesses.

Such work would not simply provide technical experience. It would create opportunities for students to develop expertise through helping others.

This embodies the principle of human interdependence: students learn not only for themselves but also by making meaningful contributions to other people.

Instead of treating students as passive recipients of educational innovation, schools could recognize them as active agents of change.

AI as a Partner in Learning and Teaching

Participants also shared examples of how they are already using AI to support learning.

Mike described his school’s use of Flint AI to improve feedback in English classes.

Writing improves through cycles of drafting, feedback, and revision. Yet teachers have limited time, and students often have to wait for feedback before making further progress.

Using Flint AI, Mike has developed activities that provide students with guiding questions about their writing. Students can revise their work without waiting for the teacher’s response, while continuing to receive feedback from their teacher at appropriate points.

He emphasized that this is not yet necessarily a transformative application of AI, but it has produced promising results and helped students become less dependent on the teacher for immediate feedback.

The example raises an important question: Can AI help students become more capable of directing their own learning?

The goal should not simply be to make existing teaching practices more efficient. It should be to enable students to assume greater responsibility for learning, discover their strengths, and undertake work that matters to them.

Exploring YEE-AI and Collaborative Learning Design

The meeting also included an update on YEE-AI, a platform being developed to support a different model of learning.

Brett reported using the system to generate and refine ideas for his upcoming geography unit on data centers in Brisbane. He has been combining its capabilities with other AI tools to develop learning activities.

Members of the development team demonstrated new features that enable educators to collaborate on the design of learning journeys and task chains.

Teachers can invite colleagues to contribute to their projects and determine which elements collaborators can modify. This creates opportunities for educators within and across schools to co-design learning experiences.

The team also discussed voice input and plans for further demonstrations and collaborative design sessions.

One important point emerged from these discussions: developing new educational approaches with AI is itself an evolving process. AI systems are changing rapidly, and educators are learning through experimentation, feedback, and continuous redesign.

The goal of YEE-AI is not simply to automate lesson planning. It is to support learning experiences in which students can develop their uniqueness, pursue meaningful problems, and collaborate with others.

Moving from Ideas to Action

The meeting reinforced a central conviction of the Courageous Minority: we cannot expect educational transformation to occur simply because new technologies become available or because educators agree that change is necessary.

Existing educational systems have powerful mechanisms for maintaining familiar practices.

Yet participants’ experiences also demonstrated that these mechanisms are not absolute.

Teachers often have more freedom than they realize. School leaders can create opportunities within their institutions. External partnerships can make new forms of learning possible. Students can become active contributors to innovation. AI can support new ways of organizing learning.

None of these examples represents a complete transformation of schooling. Some are relatively modest changes. Others are more ambitious experiments.

But their significance lies in demonstrating that change can begin without waiting for the entire system to change.

The Courageous Minority is not intended simply to be another professional community discussing the future of education. Its purpose is to support educators who are willing to imagine and enact alternatives, learn from their experiences, and encourage others to do the same.

The meeting also suggested several practical opportunities for future collaboration, including sharing experiences through international professional development events, developing student-led AI initiatives, supporting educators in designing new learning experiences, and creating opportunities for schools to learn from one another.

An international gathering in China was also discussed as a possible opportunity for Courageous Minority members to share their work.

What makes these conversations valuable is not that participants have discovered one perfect solution. Rather, they are exploring different ways to work within and around institutional constraints.

Some changes begin with an individual teacher. Others require supportive school leadership. Still others emerge through partnerships among schools, communities, students, and external organizations.

The approaches will vary, but the underlying commitment remains the same: learning is doing, and doing is learning.

For the Courageous Minority, this applies not only to students but also to educators seeking to transform education.

We learn how to change education by actually changing it.

And perhaps that is the most important lesson from this meeting: the future of education will not be created by waiting for permission to imagine something different. It will be created by educators and students who find possibilities within their circumstances and have the courage to act on them.