In a groundbreaking initiative, one school has adopted AI coaching to offer tailored feedback, maximizing the efficiency of mentors’ scarce time. Professor Haili Hughes discusses whether this is a model that should be emulated by others.
As PGCE placements are now fully underway, early career teachers are acclimating to their new classrooms with mentors across the country ready to assist them.
Research consistently emphasizes the pivotal role mentors play in schools as they nurture and develop novice teachers.
However, a report from the Teaching Commission has spotlighted a significant challenge that extends beyond curriculum changes and accountability: a daunting shortage of mentor capacity in England’s schools.
The commission reported that many institutions are ‘stretched to their limits’ and are unable to release seasoned staff from their teaching obligations to provide the continual, one-on-one support that new educators need.
With the early career framework raising standards for mentoring, this comes with increased expectations. Yet, a recent evaluation by the University of Gloucestershire indicated that the expansion of the early career framework has heightened workload pressures on mentors, forcing many to balance teaching duties with training and evaluation commitments.
The Education Policy Institute has issued warnings that, without augmented financial and personnel resources, “mentoring risks becoming superficial, as mentors are too overburdened to offer substantive feedback.”
Findings from the Sutton Trust further confirm that for structured mentoring to be successful, adequate capacity is vital—and that is precisely what schools are currently lacking.
Can AI coaching bridge the gap?
With a shortage of human mentors, could artificial intelligence (AI) step in to fill this void?
A promising avenue for AI in supporting teachers is through AI-enhanced coaching tools aimed at improving instructional effectiveness.
At Church Hill Primary, under the Central Region Schools Trust, educators have piloted an AI coaching framework that allows for consistent, personalized feedback without overly taxing senior leaders’ limited availability.
Teachers record their lessons, submit transcripts to an AI coach, and receive instant, private feedback concentrating on their strengths and areas needing improvement.
This approach has two primary benefits. It enables every teacher to access feedback weekly, something unfeasible in a system reliant entirely on human mentors due to staffing limitations.
Moreover, teachers have expressed that they feel less scrutinized and more open to feedback from an impartial tool than from a direct supervisor.
At Church Hill, nearly all teachers actively participate in AI coaching, frequently recording lessons and reporting higher confidence levels in their teaching abilities.
Research from the Chartered College of Teaching suggests that technologies that ‘democratize access to coaching’ might enhance teacher retention, particularly by alleviating feelings of isolation among new educators.
AI-driven mentoring and coaching could also address concerns about equity, delivering consistent support across schools where human mentoring resources are unevenly distributed.
The limitations: What AI cannot replicate
Despite the potential benefits, the limitations of AI are noteworthy. Mentoring extends beyond merely highlighting trends or areas of improvement; it fundamentally involves human connection and the essential trust that develops over time.
The Teaching Commission report reiterates that mentoring encompasses both emotional support and instructional guidance.
This is an aspect that AI, for the time being, cannot replicate.
Towards a hybrid solution?
While AI might not wholly resolve the mentor capacity crisis, it can undoubtedly play a role within a broader solution. A hybrid model could see AI managing the scalable, low-pressure feedback process, thereby allowing teachers to engage in regular self-reflection and progress tracking.
Meanwhile, human mentors, relieved of some responsibilities, could dedicate more time to the relational and developmental facets of support that technology cannot provide.
Overlooking the potential of AI would be imprudent.
Without innovative approaches, the early career framework may struggle to maintain its integrity, leaving new educators without necessary support and leading to increased turnover in schools.
The key challenge for policymakers and school leaders is to find a middle ground: avoiding the extremes of treating AI as a miracle solution or completely disregarding its relevance.
Real opportunity lies in recognizing AI as one tool among many, helping schools navigate complexities and ensuring that every teacher receives the essential support they need.
