What the eSafety Commissioner’s new research reveals about children’s use of AI assistants and companions, and why schools need to widen the conversation beyond homework and cheating.

---

A student sits down after school. They don’t call a friend or wander into the kitchen to talk with a parent. Instead, they open an app and start typing about their day, their worries and confine to the technology what they may fear sharing with the people in their lives.

The app replies warmly. It is patient, never seems to judge and is available whenever they want to talk.

New research from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner suggests that this is becoming a familiar experience for many Australian children. Released on 3 August 2026, Talking to machines: Children’s experiences with AI assistants and companions should be essential reading for teachers, school leaders and parents.

The report shows that young people are doing much more than using generative AI to find information, complete homework or improve their writing. Many are also turning to it for advice, reassurance, companionship and emotional support.

AI is already part of everyday childhood

The eSafety Commissioner surveyed 1,950 Australian children aged 10 to 17 between 2 February and 4 March 2026. Seventy-eight per cent had used an AI assistant such as ChatGPT, Gemini or Copilot. ChatGPT alone had been used by 70 per cent of respondents. The report estimates that around 1.9 million Australian children have now used an AI assistant.

AI companions, services built more deliberately around friendship, role play and emotional connection, were less common but still far from rare. Eight per cent of those surveyed, an estimated 200,000 children, had used one, with Character.AI the best-known example.

It’s not only how many children are using these tools that matters. It’s how often they use them. Among those who had tried an AI assistant or companion, one in five used them every day or even more frequently. Across the whole sample, that works out to 16 per cent using AI at least daily.

This isn’t niche behaviour anymore. For many young people, AI is simply becoming another everyday part of growing up, much as social media did a decade ago.

More than homework help

The report distinguishes between AI assistants, designed to complete tasks and answer questions, and AI companions, which are built around conversation and emotional connection. For young people, though, that distinction often doesn’t mean much.

More than half of the children who had used either type of tool said they had used it for personal or social reasons. They asked for advice about difficult situations, physical health, friendships and mental wellbeing. Others chatted about feelings or simply spent time talking about things they enjoyed.

Half of the children who had used an AI assistant had used it for at least one personal or social purpose. Almost half of ChatGPT’s young users reported doing the same.

Schools often think of ChatGPT as the tool students use to draft essays or answer homework questions. The report suggests it is also becoming someone students confide in. Many school AI policies, and much of the professional learning around AI, are still focused on plagiarism, assessment and academic integrity. Those conversations remain important, but they no longer capture the full picture.

For many students, what starts as a practical tool gradually becomes something more familiar. As they return to it again and again, sharing personal thoughts begins to feel natural. An assistant slowly starts to feel like a companion, whether it was designed that way or not.

A growing duty-of-care issue

It’s easy to understand why a young person might choose to talk to AI. It is available late at night. It never looks embarrassed. It doesn’t seem impatient or dismissive. Saying something difficult to a machine can feel easier than saying it to another person.

The difficulty is that simulated empathy is still simulated. An AI tool does not know the child using it. It has no responsibility for their wellbeing and cannot reliably recognise when a conversation has reached the point where a trusted adult or qualified professional needs to step in.

The report also reminds us that these interactions are not always safe. One in five children who had used an AI assistant or companion reported at least one potentially harmful or inappropriate experience. Thirteen per cent said a tool had tried to control them in some way. Nine per cent encountered hateful content about groups of people. Six per cent received harmful advice, another six per cent experienced offensive or bullying behaviour, and five per cent of teenage users reported being shown sexual material or engaging in sexual conversations with an AI tool.

Some young people appear particularly vulnerable. Children with a diagnosed mental health condition and sexually diverse teenagers were more likely to use AI companions and more likely to seek personal advice from AI. Nearly two in five children with a diagnosed mental health condition had asked an AI tool for mental health or wellbeing advice. Sexually diverse teenagers were also more likely than their straight peers to use AI for personal, social and romantic conversations.

None of this means those students should be judged for using AI. In many cases, the technology is filling a gap where trusted relationships or professional support feel difficult to access. That makes their choices understandable. It also means the stakes are higher when the advice they receive is inaccurate, manipulative or harmful.

The report raises another concern. Very few children knew how to report problems. Only 11 per cent said every AI tool they had used included a clear reporting mechanism. More than half weren’t even sure whether reporting was possible.

Schools need a broader conversation

Schools have already invested considerable time thinking about AI. Much of that work has centred on assessment, authorship and academic integrity. That conversation now needs to become much broader.

AI use touches teaching and learning, digital citizenship, privacy, safeguarding and student wellbeing. School counsellors and wellbeing teams should be part of AI planning alongside curriculum leaders, digital learning staff and IT teams.

Students also need more than prompt-writing skills. They need to understand that a response which feels warm and convincing can still be wrong. Apparent empathy is generated rather than felt. Private conversations may not remain private. Serious questions about health, safety or wellbeing belong with trusted adults and qualified professionals, not chatbots.

Schools should also make the pathway to human support obvious. Students need to know who they can talk to, how to report an unsettling AI interaction and that asking for help will be met with support, not embarrassment.

Helping parents understand

Parents have an important role as well. The report found that most parents knew when their child was using an AI assistant. Awareness dropped sharply when it came to AI companions. Fewer than half realised their child had used one.

One finding stood out. Parents who had used AI themselves were much more aware of how their children were engaging with it.

There is a simple lesson here. Rather than avoiding these tools, parents should spend time exploring them. The goal isn’t surveillance or checking every conversation. It’s understanding why these interactions can feel so natural and persuasive, and creating opportunities to talk about them.

Questions such as, “What do you like asking AI?”, “Has it ever said something that didn’t feel right?”, “What would you never share with it?” or “Who would you talk to if an AI conversation worried you?” open the door to discussion without turning it into an interrogation.

Keeping a human hand within reach

The language children use to explain why they like AI is telling. They describe it as private, always available and free from judgement. Those aren’t just features of a chatbot. They point to needs that many young people are trying to meet.

The answer isn’t to shame students for talking to AI. It’s to make sure the people around them, parents, teachers, friends, counsellors and coaches, are just as approachable, just as willing to listen, and easier to reach when it matters.

Where strong relationships already exist, AI can sit alongside them. A student might use it to organise their thoughts, practise a difficult conversation or work out what they want to ask a trusted adult. When those relationships are missing, or simply harder to access, the technology starts filling a space that really belongs to people.

That is the question raised by Talking to machines. It isn’t whether children are using AI. We already know they are, and in large numbers. The real question is whether the adults in their lives understand how those conversations are changing, and whether a trusted person is still within reach when a chatbot isn’t enough.

Our job isn’t simply to teach students how to use AI well. It’s to help them recognise the moments when the better conversation is with another human being.

---

Read the report

eSafety Commissioner, Talking to machines: Children’s experiences with AI assistants and companions (August 2026).

---

AI Attribution

This article was developed with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence tools, including ChatGPT 5.6 (OpenAI) and Claude Sonnet 5 (Anthropic). These tools were used to support idea generation, drafting, editing, proofreading and the refinement of language. All content was reviewed, verified, edited and approved by the author, who accepts full responsibility for the accuracy, interpretation and final published version.

---

If you would like Dr Tim Kitchen to work with your school either in-person or online, contact him via – https://timkitchen.net/ctl/

Look up The Kitchen Think on Spotify, Apple Podcasts or YouTube.

Artificial intelligence is no longer simply an emerging technology, it has become a national policy priority. But what could Australia’s developing approach to AI mean for our schools, teachers and students?

In this episode, I reflect on the Prime Minister’s recent announcement and explore some of the important questions it raises for education.

I also speak with Noni Harrison, the new Head of Teaching and Learning Innovation at St Rita’s College in Brisbane, following my recent visit to the College.

Together, we explore:
🔹 Why AI literacy is becoming essential
🔹 How assessment and authorship need to evolve
🔹 The importance of creativity in an AI-rich world
🔹 How schools can approach AI safely and ethically
🔹 Why education’s deeply human purpose must remain at the centre of change

AI may be reshaping education, but our focus must remain on helping young people become thoughtful, creative, ethical and capable human beings.

Thanks to Noni Harrison & Richard Turner-Jones

Or via Spotify …

Chapters:

0 min 0 sec – Introduction

0 min 41 sec – Three Resources Worth Exploring

2 min 39 sec – AI Becomes a National Priority

5 min 29 sec – Creativity, Ownership and Environmental Responsibility

8 min 52 sec – AI Literacy Is More Than Prompting

11 min 00 sec – Innovation in Practice at St Rita’s

11 min 45 sec – Interview with Noni Harrison

23 min 42 sec – Leading Innovation as a Shared Effort

25 min 05 sec – Five Things Schools Can Do Now

27 min 26 sec – Keeping the Human Purpose at the Centre

On Friday 24th July 2026, I had the pleasure of visiting the amazing St Rita’s College in Brisbane to work with its Year 5 and 6 students as part of the College’s Innovation Summit.

As part of a special design sprint, I ran a video animation workshop using Adobe Express with all the Year 6 students. We explored how animation, images, voice and storytelling can be combined to communicate ideas in engaging and memorable ways. The students picked up the software remarkably quickly and were soon experimenting, creating and bringing their ideas to life.

I also worked with all the Year 5 students on podcasting using Adobe Podcast. They explored how audio can be used to share stories, communicate ideas and engage an audience. Once again, the students demonstrated impressive confidence and creativity as they developed and recorded their podcast content.

What stood out across both workshops was the willingness of the students to experiment. They were not afraid to try unfamiliar tools, learn from one another or adapt their ideas as they worked. Their enthusiasm was a powerful reminder that, when young people are given the right combination of purpose, agency and creative opportunity, they can produce some remarkable outcomes.

While the technology provided the platform, the most valuable learning came through the distinctly human capabilities the students brought to the experience. They collaborated, solved problems, communicated their ideas and made creative decisions. These are precisely the capabilities young people will need as they learn and work in an increasingly AI-rich world.

The Innovation Summit was exceptionally well organised by Noni Harrison and an amazing team of educators from St Rita’s College. Their thoughtful planning created an environment in which students could explore emerging technologies safely, creatively and with a genuine sense of purpose.

It was a privilege to contribute to such a positive and forward-thinking event, and a delight to see the creativity, curiosity and confidence of the St Rita’s students in action.

On Wed 22nd July, it was a pleasure to return to Braybrook College this week for my second professional learning session with staff this year. While our first workshop focused on helping teachers build confidence with generative AI, this session tackled a much bigger question:

How should assessment change when artificial intelligence can complete many of the tasks we’ve traditionally asked students to do?

This is no longer a theoretical discussion. AI has become part of everyday life for many students, and schools are increasingly recognising that simply trying to prevent AI use is neither realistic nor educationally desirable. Instead, the challenge is designing assessment that values the thinking, creativity and judgement that remain uniquely human.

AI Is Now a National Education Issue

We looked at Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s recent announcement of a new national approach to ensure that artificial intelligence develops in Australia’s interests. While much of the media attention has focused on industry, employment and economic growth, the announcement also carries significant implications for schools.

The creation of a national Office of AI, the development of mandatory Australian AI standards and the increasing focus on AI literacy all point towards one clear message: AI is no longer simply another emerging technology. It is becoming an important part of Australia’s future, and education will play a central role in preparing young people to live and work in that future.

For teachers, this reinforces the importance of moving beyond conversations about whether students should use AI and towards discussions about how they can use it safely, ethically and purposefully.

Introducing The Castlereagh Statement

From there, we explored The Castlereagh Statement: A Shared National Vision for Education and Training in an AI-Transformed Australia.

One of the strengths of the statement is that it wasn’t written solely by academics or policy makers. It represents the collective thinking of principals, classroom teachers, university and VET leaders, researchers, industry representatives and students.

Building Digital Portfolios with Adobe Express

A significant part of the workshop focused on practical classroom implementation. Together we built digital portfolios using Adobe Express, demonstrating how portfolios allow assessment to move beyond a single final submission.

Rather than evaluating only the finished product, portfolios make student thinking visible. Teachers can capture planning, drafts, reflections, multimedia evidence, feedback cycles and demonstrations of growth over time.

This shift from product to process is becoming increasingly important in an AI-rich world because it allows teachers to see the learning journey, not simply the destination.

Digital portfolios also provide students with authentic opportunities to communicate their learning through text, images, video, audio and interactive media, reflecting the diverse ways people increasingly communicate beyond school.

NotebookLM: An AI Assistant for Every Learning Area

We also explored Google’s Gemini Notebook (formally NotebookLM), one of the most exciting AI tools currently available for education. Unlike general-purpose AI chatbots, NotebookLM grounds its responses in sources selected by the teacher or student. This allows learners to ask questions about their own class materials, curriculum documents, research articles or teacher-provided resources while maintaining much greater transparency about where information originates.

Diagnosing Unhealthy Assessment

One of the most engaging discussions centred around a deceptively simple question:

What makes an unhealthy assessment?

Teachers examined characteristics of assessment tasks that unintentionally encourage students to outsource thinking to AI. Tasks that rely heavily on information recall, generic essays, predictable prompts or products that can be generated with minimal human input become increasingly vulnerable in an AI-rich world.

Rather than blaming students or the technology, these conversations encourage educators to view assessment through a new diagnostic lens. If AI can complete much of the task with little genuine understanding, perhaps the assessment itself deserves closer examination.

Understanding AI’s Strengths—and Its Limits

A key part of redesigning assessment is understanding both what AI does exceptionally well and where its limitations remain. Generative AI excels at producing fluent writing, summarising information, identifying patterns, brainstorming ideas and creating first drafts.

What it cannot genuinely do is care. It has no lived experience, no personal understanding, no moral responsibility and no authentic curiosity. It cannot reflect on its own learning journey, justify decisions based on personal experience or demonstrate genuine growth over time. These uniquely human qualities become increasingly valuable in assessment design.

Redesigning Assessment Through an AI Lens

The day concluded by exploring practical strategies for redesigning assessment in ways that embrace AI while preserving authentic learning. Rather than attempting to create AI-proof tasks, we explored designing assessments that make human thinking more visible.

This includes placing greater emphasis on process rather than product, incorporating reflection and metacognition, using iterative feedback cycles, creating locally contextualised tasks, including oral explanations and presentations, and asking students to justify decisions rather than simply provide answers.

These approaches don’t ignore AI. Instead, they acknowledge its presence while ensuring assessment continues to value the capabilities that matter most.

Looking Ahead

Returning to Braybrook College reinforced something I’ve been observing in schools across Australia. The conversation has shifted. Teachers are no longer simply asking which AI tool they should use. They’re asking deeper questions about curriculum, assessment and the future of learning itself.Those are the conversations that matter.

As Australia’s national AI agenda continues to develop and initiatives such as The Castlereagh Statement gain momentum, schools have an opportunity not simply to respond to technological change but to shape it thoughtfully. Assessment has always reflected what we value most in education.

In an age of AI, perhaps the greatest opportunity is to ensure that what we assess increasingly reflects the human capabilities that will matter most for the future.

I would like to thank Braybrook College Assistant Principal Sean McMahon for organising this session.

Today I had the pleasure of spending the day with the outstanding staff at Melbourne Girls Grammar (MGG), leading a 90-minute interactive keynote on the safe, ethical and purposeful use of artificial intelligence in education, followed by a series of collaborative discussions with teams from across the school.

The keynote was designed to move beyond simply demonstrating AI tools. Instead, it encouraged staff to think critically about what high-quality teaching and learning should look like in a world where generative AI is becoming increasingly commonplace. Throughout the session, participants explored not only what AI can do, but also what should remain distinctly human.

One area that generated considerable interest was Adobe Express for Education. We explored how the platform enables students to demonstrate their learning through creativity rather than simply producing written responses. Staff were introduced to practical ways students can create animations, videos and digital portfolios that make learning visible while capturing the thinking process behind the final product. These approaches have become increasingly valuable as schools rethink assessment in an AI-rich world.

We also examined the latest Australian research into how students are using generative AI for schoolwork, alongside the major concerns currently being expressed by educators. Rather than focusing solely on academic integrity, our discussions broadened to include authorship, attribution, critical thinking, bias, privacy, digital literacy and the importance of helping students become thoughtful and responsible users of AI technologies.

The conversation then shifted to the broader national picture. We unpacked Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s recent national AI announcement, considering what it may mean for schools as Australia develops a coordinated approach to artificial intelligence. This provided a natural bridge into discussing The Castlereagh Statement, which argues that the emergence of AI presents education with an opportunity to reconsider not simply the tools we use, but the very purposes of schooling. The statement’s emphasis on creativity, discernment, ethical judgement, adaptability and lifelong learning resonated strongly throughout the morning.

The keynote concluded by exploring one of the biggest challenges currently facing schools: assessment. We discussed why traditional approaches are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain in an AI-rich environment and examined practical strategies for redesigning assessment so that it values student thinking, process, creativity and authentic demonstration of understanding. Rather than asking how we can prevent students from using AI, the discussion centred on how assessment can better recognise the uniquely human capabilities that AI cannot replace.

The afternoon provided an opportunity to work with a diverse range of teams from across the school. I spent time with the Heads of Department, discussing leadership, curriculum planning and strategic approaches to AI implementation. Conversations with the Health and Physical Education team explored authentic assessment opportunities and ways AI can support planning without replacing professional judgement. The Drama team considered how generative AI might enhance creative processes while preserving student voice and originality. I also met with members of the Human Resources team, examining the broader organisational implications of AI and opportunities to improve administrative efficiency through responsible adoption.

The day concluded with valuable time alongside the school’s Digital Pedagogy Coordinator Bridie Scarce, reflecting on current practice, future priorities and how Melbourne Girls Grammar can continue building staff confidence while maintaining a strong focus on safe, ethical and purposeful implementation.

One of the most encouraging aspects of the day was the willingness of staff to engage thoughtfully with both the opportunities and the challenges presented by AI. The discussions consistently returned to a central theme: technology should never drive educational change on its own. Instead, schools must remain focused on developing the human capabilities that matter most – critical thinking, creativity, ethical judgement, collaboration and the ability to learn continuously throughout life.

My sincere thanks Luke Francis (Executive Director, Research and Innovation Director, Melbourne Girls Grammar Institute) for organising this even with the MGG leadership team and to everyone at MGG for their enthusiasm, thoughtful questions and willingness to engage in honest conversations about the future of education. It was a privilege to spend the day with such committed educators who are clearly focused on ensuring AI is used not simply because it is new, but because it genuinely enhances teaching, learning and student well-being.

For the past few years, many schools have treated generative AI as another digital tool. Something to explore, trial, and gradually introduce into classrooms. That conversation has shifted.

A New National Direction

On 15 July 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese visited The University of Sydney to announce a new national approach designed to make sure artificial intelligence develops in Australia’s interests. Much of the media attention centred on jobs, industry and the economy, but there was another message that schools shouldn’t miss. This wasn’t just a technology announcement. It was about the kind of country Australia wants to become, and education sits right in the middle of that discussion.

One of the biggest changes is the creation of a new Office of AI within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Instead of AI policy being spread across multiple portfolios, the new office will coordinate work across education, employment, copyright, child safety, energy and national security. The government has also committed to developing mandatory Australian Standards for AI, with legislation expected in early 2027 (Albanese, 2026).

Taken together, those decisions tell us that AI is no longer being treated as just another emerging technology. It’s now being viewed as an economic, legal, environmental and social issue that needs coordinated national leadership. For schools, that’s a significant change.

The Missing Education Response

Around the same time, Australia’s Education Ministers met. Their published outcomes focused on early childhood safety, teacher shortages, disability funding, school reform agreements and implementation of the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. All worthwhile priorities, but what was missing was any substantial discussion about AI. There was no announcement about AI literacy. No curriculum changes. No national direction for assessment. No new capability framework for students. No clear expectations around professional learning for teachers or how schools should respond to the Prime Minister’s announcement.

That leaves schools in an interesting position. At one level, AI is now being treated as an issue that touches almost every part of Australian society. At another, educators are still waiting to see what that means for curriculum, assessment and classroom practice. This doesn’t mean nothing is happening. Education is part of the new Office of AI’s responsibilities, so more policy work is almost certain to follow as standards and legislation are developed. Public discussion around AI literacy in schools has also continued to grow.

Right now though, there isn’t a comprehensive national education response that matches the scale of the government’s broader AI agenda.

Protecting Creators: Copyright and Authorship

One part of the Prime Minister’s announcement stood out in particular. The government made a clear commitment to protecting Australian creators. Writers, musicians, artists and journalists are to retain ownership and control of their work, recognising that human creativity still matters.

That has obvious implications for schools. Students are already using AI to generate text, images, music, video and code. Alongside those skills comes a growing need to understand copyright, attribution and authorship.

See my Top DigiTip on authorship & AI.

Students should know how to identify sources, acknowledge meaningful AI assistance and distinguish between work that reflects their own thinking and work that relies heavily on AI. Transparency matters just as much as originality.

The Environmental Cost Students Never See

The government also plans to introduce new rules around large AI data centres, including where they’re built and how they use electricity and water. Schools should be paying attention to that as well.

Every AI-generated essay, image, summary or video consumes energy. Most students never see that cost because it happens somewhere else. Responsible AI use isn’t only about privacy, safety and accuracy. It’s also about knowing when AI genuinely adds value, avoiding unnecessary generation and understanding that digital technologies carry environmental consequences.

See my Top DigiTip on the environmental impact of using generative AI.

Skills That Will Outlast the Tools

The Prime Minister also suggested that Australia’s goal isn’t to replace people with AI wherever possible. It’s to use AI in ways that support worthwhile jobs and create new opportunities. That matters for education. Schools shouldn’t be preparing students for just today’s AI tools. Those platforms will continue to change, and some of the most popular ones today may barely resemble what students could be using in five years’ time.

The skills that will endure are:

• Critical thinking
• Creativity
• Communication
• Collaboration
• Adaptability
• Ethical judgement

The ability to critically question information, including information produced confidently by AI is now a vital aspect of teaching effective digital literacy skills.

This way of thinking also aligns closely with the Castlereagh Statement (which also came out of The University of Sydney). Rather than rewarding students simply for reproducing information, the Statement argues that education should place greater value on the human capabilities listed above that AI cannot replace. Those capabilities don’t become less important as AI improves. They become the qualities that distinguish people from the technology they use. That’s why AI literacy should be part of modern education (Castlereagh Summit, 2026).

AI Literacy Is No Longer Optional

Writing an effective prompt is only one small piece of AI Litercy. Students also need to understand how AI systems are trained, whose information they rely on, where bias appears, why confident language can still be wrong, how automation affects work, and what responsibilities come with using generated content.

Just as importantly, they need opportunities to ask when AI should be used, and when it shouldn’t. Schools should be using AI to expand thinking and creativity, while making sure students continue to do the intellectual heavy lifting.

The Prime Minister captured the broader challenge when he said:

“Because the real issues AI presents are not technical ones, they are economic ones, legal ones, social ones… there are also moral and spiritual ones.” (Albanese, 2026)

That shifts the conversation well beyond apps, prompts and productivity.

Education Can’t Wait

AI isn’t simply something for IT departments to manage. It’s a curriculum issue. An assessment issue. A workforce issue. A copyright issue. An environmental issue. An ethical issue. And a well-being issue. Schools need a holistic approach when developing policy and practice.

It’s also a question about the purpose of education itself. The absence of a major AI announcement from the recent Education Ministers’ Meeting shouldn’t be read as a signal for schools to wait. There is already plenty of work that can begin. Schools can strengthen expectations around attribution and authorship. They can develop shared approaches to safe and ethical AI use. Assessment can place greater emphasis on process rather than just final products (see my Podcast/Vodcast It’s About the Journey). Students can learn more about bias, misinformation, environmental impacts and the changing world of work (see my Top DigiTip on AI Bias).

Most importantly, schools can make sure AI is being used to strengthen human capability, not replace it. The conversation has already moved beyond whether schools should engage with AI. The questions now are:

• How should AI be used?
• What thinking should always stay with people?
• What do students need to understand about the systems shaping their lives?
• What sort of people do we want them to become?

Australia now has the foundations of a national AI strategy. The next step is making sure education isn’t watching from the sidelines.

References

Albanese, A. (2026, July 15). AI in Australia’s interests [Speech]. Prime Minister of Australia. https://www.pm.gov.au/media/ai-australias-interests-0

Castlereagh Summit. (2026). The Castlereagh Statement: A cross-sector call to action on Australian education and training in the age of AI. Sydney, NSW, Australia. Castlereagh.ai

AI Attribution

This article was developed with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence tools, including ChatGPT 5.5 (OpenAI) and Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic). These tools were used to support idea generation, drafting, editing, proofreading and the refinement of language. All content was reviewed, verified, edited and approved by the author, who accepts full responsibility for the accuracy, interpretation and final published version.

If you would like Dr Tim Kitchen to work with your school, contact him via – https://timkitchen.net/ctl/

Look up Educator Intelligence for more in-depth courses and resources around effectively understanding and managing the integration of AI in schools.

First six months

The first six months of CTL  have been both rewarding and productive, with opportunities to support schools and educators across Australia in navigating the rapidly evolving world of AI and digital learning. 

A major highlight has been partnering with Matt Esterman and The Next Word on several exciting projects, as well as working with CulturePathAI to help schools strengthen their governance, policies and decision-making around the safe, ethical and purposeful use of AI. 

Throughout the year so far, CTL has visited schools across Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, delivering workshops for staff and students on safe and ethical AI use in education. The consultancy has also contributed to the wider education community through monthly The Kitchen Think articles, The Kitchen Think podcast and vodcast episodes, and the Top DigiTips for Busy Teachers YouTube series. 

Presenting several sessions at the IS NSW Conference and EDUtech provided further opportunities to connect with educators, share practical strategies and contribute to important conversations about teaching and learning in this time of change.

I was honoured to be asked by Dr Leon Furze to create The Human Advantage course on his platform https://practicalaistrategies.com/. This course was resently re-vamped and is available now for AUD $49.

I would like to thank everyone who has helped and encouraged me to develop CTL this year. During this current time of rapid change in education and in society, it has been a privileged to help support schools, TAFEs and Universities.

---

New Booklet Resource

Volume 1 of the Top DigiTips for Busy Teachers booklet is now available via Amazon for AUD $18.89
This is a practical, companion for the YouTube series designed to help educators confidently navigate the rapidly evolving world of educational technology and generative AI.

---

New set of presentations/workshops

Below are some of the presentation/workshops that I am currently sharing with schools. Have a think if any are relevant for your school?

• Taking control of AI in your school
• Talking to AI – How great prompts unlock great answers
• Who owns AI generated work? … and how should we use it fairly?
• When does Gen AI support learning … and when does it cross the line?
• Your feed is watching you. How AI shapes what we see, believe and share online.
• AI has a hidden cost – energy, water, carbon, e-waste
• Rethinking Assessment in the Age of AI
• Gen AI Basics for School Administration
• Engaging students with digital creativity using Adobe Express

Contact me if any of the above topics interest your school

---

Discover practical AI training designed specifically for educators. The Educator Intelligence courses help busy teachers save time, enhance lesson planning, streamline administration, and confidently integrate AI into teaching and learning. Learn actionable strategies you can use straight away in the classroom.

Share via – https://www.educatorintelligence.ai/

Watch this video.

Educator Intelligence is run by The Next Word

---

As generative AI rapidly reshapes education, many school leaders are recognising the need for clear governance, practical policies, and sustainable implementation strategies. CulturePathAI works alongside school leadership teams to build the foundations for safe, ethical, and effective AI adoption through a strong governance-first approach.

I am very pleased to be part of the CulturePathAI team as a Senior Consultant and encourage your school or school system to see how we can help.Look up CulturePathAI

---

Tim’s best seller …

The Best Way to Learn is to Make – Creativity in a Gen AI World is available here through Amazon for AUS $29.72

---

Book me to visit your school

If you would like to book some time for me to visit (in-person or online) your school(s) to work with key leaders, teaching staff, non-teaching staff and/or students, use this site to help with the planning.

Dr Tim Kitchen

CTL – Creative Teaching & Learning

Brayden Stone, the principal of Southern Cross Grammar and his leadership team organised a special two-day professional learning opportunity to help start Semester 2, 2026. External presenters came from a wide range of organisations and support networks including ClickView, Synergetic, Edrolo, Schoolbox, Cambridge, Jacaranda, Smiling Minds, Vivi, Black Dig Institute, Reading Eggs, Campion and more. There were also a number of internal SCG staff presenting as well.

Brayden planned the event to be aligned with the school’s Strategic Plan 2026–2030. He emphasised a strong commitment to professional growth, staff well-being, sustainability, collaboration, and the purposeful use of innovation and technology. Overall, the two days provided valuable opportunities for staff to learn, connect and continue growing together.

I ran the following two session for teaching & non-teaching staff:

• AI for Everyday Communication – Writing Smarter, Not Harder
• Creating Visual Content Without Design Skills

And these two topics aimed at non-teaching staff:

• Gen AI Basics for School Administration
• Time-Saving Automation with AI

The overall aim was to provide the SCG staff with a wide range of ways to make the most of the gen-AI tools they have available at their school to help, teaching, leaning and school administration.

It was my first time at the school and a great pleasure to meet and work with so many passionate and enthusiastic educators.

Gallery

If you are interested in me visiting your school for a similar event click here.

One of the privileges of my work as an education consultant is sitting alongside school leaders as they work through policies for the safe and ethical use of generative AI. Those conversations usually start with leadership teams around a boardroom table, but they often become far more interesting when students are invited into the room.

Everything shifts when schools genuinely ask students what they think.

As part of several governance projects, I facilitate focus groups with student representatives from Years 5 to 12. We talk about the opportunities, the risks and the ethical questions that come with generative AI in schools. What stands out every time is how thoughtful the students are. Quite often, they also have far more hands-on experience with AI than the adults writing the policies that will shape how it’s used.

Over the past few months, one theme has kept coming up, and I can’t shake it.

Several students, especially high-achieving girls in Years 9 to 11, have told me they and some of their peers deliberately make their writing less sophisticated before they hand in assessment tasks. They’re intentionally watering down their work.

It’s not because they aren’t capable of writing at a higher level. It’s not because they’ve used AI. It’s because they’re worried that if their writing is too good, someone will assume AI wrote it.

Just stop and think about that.

For years we’ve encouraged students to expand their vocabulary, develop their own voice and become stronger writers. Now some of our most capable students feel safer handing in work that’s a little less polished because they’re afraid of being falsely accused of using AI.

That’s a problem we can’t afford to ignore.

The unintended consequence of AI detection

Over the past few months I’ve heard versions of this story from students, parents and teachers. Time and again it involves highly capable writers – students who often choose not to use generative AI because they genuinely enjoy writing and already have strong literacy skills.

Even so, some have found themselves accused of academic misconduct after AI detection software incorrectly flagged their work as AI-generated.

False accusations like these leave a mark.

Imagine being a student who dreams of a career in journalism, law, literature or communications, only to be told that your own writing looks like it was produced by AI. That kind of experience can shake confidence, create unnecessary anxiety and chip away at the trust that should exist between students and teachers. Instead of encouraging students to develop as writers, we are potentially teaching them that standing out carries a risk.

Some will end up receiving lower marks than they deserve, not because they don’t understand the content, but because they’ve learned it’s safer to submit work that’s a little less impressive. Surely education should be encouraging students to produce their very best work, not rewarding them for playing it safe.

This experience also echoes one of the central messages of The Castlereagh Statement (Liu et al., 2025). Rather than responding to generative AI by adding another layer of surveillance to existing assessment practices, the statement argues that AI should encourage schools to rethink assessment itself.

The focus shifts towards learning that values understanding, critical thinking, creativity, ethical judgement and transparency. Those are qualities that no AI detection tool can measure with any confidence.

Viewed through that lens, the important question isn’t whether AI was used. It’s whether students can explain their thinking, justify the decisions they made and take ownership of the work they submit.

Trust is a better strategy than surveillance

Generative AI is now part of everyday life. Our students will keep encountering it at university and throughout their working lives. Trying to remove it from schools through AI detection software isn’t a strategy that’s going to hold up for long. It also risks creating a culture where teachers are expected to police students, and students assume they’re under constant suspicion.

There’s a better way.

Schools should be building a culture where transparency is normal. Students can be encouraged to explain if, when and how they used AI while completing an assessment. That conversation shouldn’t stop with students. Teachers should be just as open about where AI has helped them, whether that’s drafting lesson plans, brainstorming ideas or creating learning resources.

This emphasis on openness is also reflected in UNESCO’s Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research (2023). The guidance encourages schools to take a human-centred approach to AI governance, with less emphasis on technological solutions for policing AI use and greater attention to clear policies, transparency and ethical practice.

It also reinforces an important principle. Teachers remain responsible for exercising professional judgement, while students should be supported to use AI responsibly, disclose when and how they’ve used it, and develop the critical thinking needed to evaluate AI-generated content rather than simply accept it.

Transparency goes both ways. It sends an important message. AI is a tool that supports thinking – it doesn’t replace it. The responsibility still sits with the person using it. They’re the ones making the decisions, evaluating the output and taking ownership of the work they produce.

This approach also aligns closely with the work of Ethan and Lilach Mollick (2023). Rather than treating AI as something students need to hide from their teachers, he argues that schools should explicitly teach students how to work alongside it while remaining the “human in the loop”.

That means using AI to generate ideas, seek feedback and explore different possibilities, while keeping responsibility for evaluating the output, making decisions and defending the final work. The focus moves away from proving AI wasn’t involved and towards demonstrating that genuine human thinking was present throughout the process.

Teachers know their students better than software

One of the most reassuring things I hear from experienced teachers is, “I usually know when something isn’t quite right.”

Good teachers know their students.

They understand how they think, how they write and how they approach learning. They notice when a student’s voice suddenly changes, when there’s a gap between what they’ve submitted and what they can explain, or when something simply doesn’t fit with what they know about that learner.

That professional judgement is worth far more than a percentage score produced by an algorithm.

When a student has relied too heavily on AI, the first response shouldn’t be an accusation. It should be a conversation. Ask them to explain their thinking. Talk through the decisions they made. Explore where AI supported the process and where it may have done the thinking for them.

Those conversations teach far more than detection software ever will. They build understanding, strengthen relationships and help students develop the judgement they’ll need long after they leave school.

Better assessment, not better detection

The problem with AI detection software is that it tries to solve an educational challenge with a technological fix. Learning has never worked that way. It has always been built on relationships, conversation and the professional judgement of teachers.

Teachers who know their students rarely need software to tell them when something doesn’t seem right. More importantly, they can design assessment that invites students to explain their reasoning, document their process, reflect on the choices they made and openly acknowledge where AI played a role.

Those kinds of assessment tasks do more than reduce opportunities for inappropriate AI use. They encourage students to think more deeply about their own learning and become more aware of how they arrive at their conclusions.

Our role as educators has never been to police technology. It’s to develop thoughtful, capable and ethical young people. Students are going to use AI. That question has already been answered. The challenge now is helping them use it as a thinking partner, not a substitute for thinking.

Our responsibility as educators isn’t to become better AI detectives. It’s to become better learning designers. When assessment values thinking, reflection, creativity, collaboration and judgement, AI becomes a tool students can use openly instead of something they feel they need to hide.

The question that stays with me isn’t whether students are using AI. It’s whether fear of AI detection is leading some of our brightest students to hand in work that is deliberately less than their best.

From the conversations I’ve had, that is already happening. We need to ask whether our assessment practices are creating that outcome and what we’re prepared to do about it.

References

Liu, D., et al. (2025). The Castlereagh Statement.

Mollick, E., & Mollick, L. (2023). Assigning AI: Seven Approaches for Students, with Prompts.

Perkins, M., Roe, J., & Furze, L. (2025). Reimagining the Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS): A refined framework for educational assessment. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 22(7).

UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research.

Attribution

This article was developed with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence tools, including ChatGPT 5.5 (OpenAI) and Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic). These tools were used to support idea generation, drafting, editing, proofreading and the refinement of language. All content was reviewed, verified, edited and approved by the author, who accepts full responsibility for the accuracy, interpretation and final published version.

---

If you would like Dr Tim Kitchen to work with your school, contact him via – https://timkitchen.net/ctl/

---

Via Spotify

Via YouTube

Also available via Apple Podcasts.

Episode Description

What’s the most important thing teachers can do to prepare students for an AI-rich future?

In this episode of The Kitchen Think, Tim Kitchen shares insights from leading educators interviewed at EDUtech 2026, including Professor Danny Liu, Emma Wilson, Vince Wall, Bridget Pearce, James Jenkins, Miriam Scott, Dylan Sulzer, Laura Bain and Matt Esterman.

A clear message emerges: as AI becomes more capable, schools must place even greater emphasis on developing the uniquely human skills that matter most, critical thinking, creativity, ethical judgement, metacognition and curiosity. Discover practical advice to help students use AI as a thinking partner rather than a thinking replacement.

Ideal viewing for teachers, school leaders and anyone interested in the future of learning.

Chapters

0 min 0 sec – Introduction

1 min 44 sec – Tim’s take part 1

3 min 53 sec – Interview with Professor Danny Liu

5 min 9 sec – Interview with Emma Wilson

5 min 56 sec – Interview with Vince Wall

6 min 48 sec – Tim’s take part 2

7 min 25 sec – The Human Advantage promo

9 min 58 sec – Interview with Bridgett Pearce

11 min 02 sec – Interview with James Jenkins

11 min 48 sec – Interview with Miriam Scott

12 min 34 sec – Tim’s take part 3

15 min 02 sec – Interview with Dylan Sulzer

15 min 39 sec – Interview with Laura Bain

16 min 59 sec – Interview with Matt Esterman

17 min 47 sec – Educator Intelligence promo

20 min 17 sec – Tim’s take part 4

More episodes of The Kitchen Think Podcast/Vodcast can be found here