About the Contributor:
Nishant Sharma is a technology and innovation leader in K-12 international education, exploring the intersection of AI, emerging technologies, ethical learning, and future-ready schooling. He currently serves as the Director of Technology and Innovation at Changchun American International School, China.
The Article:
This is a question I’ve been thinking about a lot lately.
Not as a critique of educators or leaders, but as a reflection on the pace at which our profession is changing, based on what I am witnessing and observing every day in classrooms, meetings, and assemblies.
AI has quietly shifted the baseline of what is possible in education and in our daily practice. The uncomfortable part is that it is also quietly raising the bar, and it’s starting to become evident.
So if the “basic” is now easier to achieve…
What does “average” even mean anymore?
The uncomfortable truth, the baseline has moved
AI has not just added another tool to education.
It has changed what “basic competence” looks like across the system.
Lesson planning (I am not referring to the one-click AI lesson plan generator tools), resource creation, differentiation, feedback, operational workflows, and even policy writing—all of these are increasingly supported, accelerated, or partially automated by AI.
Which leads to a difficult reality: If AI can help produce “acceptable” work faster, more efficiently, and sometimes even better than manual effort, then what exactly defines “average” anymore?
And more importantly, what separates meaningful practice from just functional practice?
Students are no longer comparing us to school
This is where the discomfort increases.
Students (maybe not at the elementary or early primary level) are no longer benchmarking their experience against “school.”
They are benchmarking it against:
- instant answers
- easily accessible adaptive platforms
- personalized tutoring systems
- always-available AI support
Whether we like it or not, their expectations around responsiveness, clarity, and relevance have already changed. Have we as educators changed or even noticed the change yet?
They can tell the difference between a low-effort AI-generated lesson and a thoughtfully designed learning experience enhanced by AI. They are not looking for “no AI” classrooms; they are looking for guidance, mentorship, and subject expertise to help them navigate AI-generated information.
So when they walk into classrooms or systems that have not evolved, the gap is no longer subtle.
It is obvious.
The real issue is not AI; it is inertia
Most schools are not struggling because of AI.
They are struggling because of inertia.
Same structures. Same workflows. Same assessment models. Same leadership assumptions.
AI did not create this gap; it exposed it.
And in doing so, it raised an uncomfortable question:
If we now have tools that can enhance thinking, reduce workload, and support learning design, why does so much of education still feel unchanged?
Why are we still trying to find better alternatives to Turnitin instead of rethinking assessment practices?
Why are we overloading already busy teachers with pre-recorded, low-impact online PD courses, instead of leveraging AI to create context-based, targeted support, whether through bots or tailored learning experiences?
There are a lot of “why” questions that come to mind every time I reflect on this.
“Average” is no longer about effort
This is important.
In the AI era, “average” is not defined by effort or intent.
Many educators and leaders are already working extremely hard.
The difference now is:
- whether that effort leads to a redesign
- or just faster production of the same systems
Because AI can help you produce more content, more reports, and more resources.
Educators who were already strong before AI now feel like they’ve got superpowers.
But AI will not automatically help you redesign learning, culture, or leadership practice.
That part is still human.
The divide is already forming
We are starting to see two clear patterns emerge:
On one side, educators and leaders are using AI to improve efficiency within existing systems.
On the other, they are using AI to rethink those systems entirely.
Same tools. Very different outcomes.
And the gap between these two approaches is widening faster than most of us anticipated.
The uncomfortable leadership question
This is where it becomes even more serious.
If AI is now part of the educational infrastructure, leadership can no longer remain passive or reactive.
Because policies, expectations, and practices are being shaped right now, in real time.
And here is the difficult part:
If leaders are not AI-literate, they are not just uninformed; they are making decisions about systems they do not fully understand.
We talk a lot about teacher professional development. It is time we also start serious conversations about AI literacy for leaders and board members so that these challenges are at least recognised and addressed.
That is no longer a technical issue.
That is a structural one.
So again, can we afford “average”?
Maybe the better question is not whether individuals can afford to be average.
But whether schools and systems can afford to normalize it.
Because in a world where high-quality output is increasingly accessible, “average” is no longer a stable middle ground.
It is a widening gap.
And in education, widening gaps rarely stay neutral for long.
As individuals, you might still survive being “average” in the current system and existing hiring practices. How? That’s a conversation for another day.
Final thought
AI is reshaping what counts as meaningful practice in both teaching and leadership. In this shift, those who stand out will not necessarily be the most experienced or the most technical. They will be the ones willing to rethink what “good” looks like, rather than simply optimizing what already exists.
They will sharpen their thinking and practice with AI, not just Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V. They will adapt, recognize that this shift is here to stay, and guide students through it instead of resisting it.
Because in the AI era, “average” is not a fixed position. It is a choice.
I would genuinely value hearing perspectives from other thought leaders on this.