Deprogramming Education: AI and the New Learning Paradigm
Installment 1: When Learning Stops BEING Theatre
Fifteen days ago, I had no intention of returning to the classroom this fall. Today, my students are using AI to generate narratives about their peers and the impact their unique skills and experience will have on our learning community. Before we're done, they'll be using it to build training materials for our safety protocols and research design ideas for the lighting, sound, costumes and makeup for our fall production of Antigone. This is the story of what happens when an unexpected opportunity, proven educational innovation, and the unforgiving deadline of opening night collide.
Tuesday, August 5th: The Text That Changed Everything
I was sitting in my home office, deep in development work on multiple AI education projects, when my phone buzzed with a message from a former colleague:
"Hey, I know a Fine Arts Director who's looking for a technical theatre teacher. Interested?"
Under normal circumstances, I might have politely declined. After 23 years in the classroom, I had planned to focus on the educational innovation work that had been consuming my attention since spring 2024. I was making real progress on international collaborations, AI curriculum development, and business consulting that was creating measurable impact.
But there was something intriguing about this particular opportunity.
The position was at The Oakridge School in Arlington, a respected independent school I knew by reputation. More importantly, this wasn't the typical theatre teaching job I'd always known. For the first time in my career, I'd be teaching only technical theatre. No first-year acting classes. No splitting attention between performance and production. Just pure technical focus with students who had chosen to be there.
After 23 years of divided attention, the prospect of laser focus was irresistible.
Wednesday, August 6th: The Conversation
The next day, I found myself texting with Andy Stewart, The Oakridge School's Fine Arts Director. What I learned in that initial conversation shifted my thinking entirely.
The school had hired a middle school teacher for the position, but he had bailed on them at the last minute. Their alternative plan was elegant in its simplicity: let their current theatre teacher focus on acting instruction while bringing in someone dedicated entirely to technical theatre education.
"We have 45 students across grades 9-12," Andy explained. "Three classes to start (we’ve added a fourth class this first week of school). These kids are serious about tech theatre."
As we talked, I realized this wasn't just a teaching job – it was a laboratory. An opportunity to test and refine everything I'd been developing over the past year in a real classroom setting, with students who had specifically chosen technical theatre as their focus.
But what really caught my attention was the timing. School started in two weeks.
Thursday, August 7th: The Interview
The administrative interview at The Oakridge School felt more like a conversation between collaborators than a traditional job interview. Head of School Matt Burgy and the team were clearly looking for someone who could bring innovation to their program while maintaining their commitment to excellence.
I found myself talking not just about my 18 years of technical theatre experience and award-winning programs, but about something that had been the center of my work for months: the proven intersection of artificial intelligence and education.
You see, I hadn't been idle since leaving my previous position. Over the past year, I'd been deep in development work across multiple projects that had shaped my understanding of what was possible. There was ATLAS, an 18-month collaboration with educators in Pakistan to develop mobile-first digital education for underserved communities - work that taught me how AI could enhance rather than replace human creativity when properly implemented. I'd spent months on The Merge Project, developing a dual-purpose co-working and AI education space in Texas, where I discovered that the biggest barrier to AI adoption wasn't technical complexity but helping people recognize skills they already possessed.
Most recently, I'd been consulting with Fort Worth Metroplex businesses on AI integration, proving that relationship-based, value-first approaches created measurable ROI while preserving human-centered workflows. Each project had reinforced the same insight: successful innovation wasn't about replacing human judgment with technology, but about amplifying human capabilities through strategic partnership.
As I described my vision for AI-enhanced technical theatre education, building on these tested foundations, I could see the spark of interest in their eyes. This wasn't about replacing traditional craftsmanship with technology – it was about using tested methods to help students become more effective collaborators, researchers, and creative problem-solvers while maintaining the organic, collaborative nature of theatre.
Friday, August 8th: The Leap
By close of day on Friday, I had a job offer.
The decision felt both impulsive and inevitable. Here was a chance to test everything I'd been developing in the most authentic possible context: a real school, with real students, facing the real deadline of a fall production. All the international collaboration, business consulting, and educational innovation work had been leading to this moment – the opportunity to prove these methods in the environment that mattered most.
I said yes.
August 11th: Professional Development Begins
Walking into The Oakridge School for new faculty orientation, I carried with me a comprehensive toolkit of proven methodologies from months of intensive development work. When I received the detailed handover document from VanAnthony Williams, the outgoing technical theatre teacher, I discovered something remarkable: a philosophy that aligned perfectly with what I wanted to build.
As I read through Williams' comprehensive notes about the program, Williams described a "student-forward environment rooted in creativity, curiosity, and collaboration" where students were encouraged to "fail gloriously." The program wasn't about churning out technical compliance, it was about empowering students to become creative problem-solvers and collaborative artists.
This foundation was perfect for what I had in mind. My job wasn't to fix a broken program… it was to evolve an excellent foundation using tools and approaches that had been tested across multiple contexts but never tried in technical theatre education.
The 8-Day Curriculum Sprint
What followed was the most intensive curriculum development experience of my career, but I wasn't starting from scratch. I had exactly eight days to adapt and integrate proven methodologies into something that had never been done before: a comprehensive technical theatre program that seamlessly integrated artificial intelligence tools while preserving the hands-on, collaborative nature of theatre craft.
The foundation came quickly: "Story Gives Birth to Design." Every technical choice – every lighting cue, every sound effect, every scenic element – had to serve the narrative. This wasn't about learning tools for their own sake; it was about using every available resource, including AI, to tell stories that mattered.
But how do you translate that philosophy into daily practice with teenagers, drawing on methods proven in international education, business consulting, and complex project management?
The answer emerged through three core innovations, combining proven external methodologies with refined classroom practices:
1. AI as Research Partner, Not Replacement Instead of using AI to generate designs, students would use it to deepen their research, explore color theory, analyze historical contexts, and brainstorm creative solutions. This approach had worked across cultural boundaries in Pakistan and in high-stakes business environments in Texas. The human artist would always make the final creative decisions, but AI would expand the universe of possibilities they could consider.
2. Student-Led Safety Leadership Rather than top-down safety compliance, returning students would use AI research tools to develop industry-standard safety protocols and training programs. This built on peer mentorship structures I'd refined over years of classroom experience, now enhanced with the research capabilities I'd developed for corporate consulting work.
3. Authentic Presence Documentation Traditional grades would be replaced by comprehensive digital portfolios documenting each student's authentic presence in the learning community. This approach drew from years of classroom assessment innovation, now enhanced by the digital frameworks I'd developed for diverse learning communities and international education projects.
Each day of that development sprint, I found myself adapting methods that had been tested in boardrooms, international education partnerships, and complex AI implementation projects. The question wasn't whether these approaches could work – I'd seen them succeed across multiple contexts. The question was how to adapt them effectively for teenagers creating live theatre under deadline pressure.
August 20th: Theory Meets Reality
Wednesday morning arrived with the particular mixture of excitement and terror that every teacher knows on the first day of school. But this felt different. I wasn't just implementing a new lesson plan – I was testing an integration of proven methodologies that could reshape how we think about AI in arts education.
My first class was our "At This Intersection" activity – a community-building experience designed to help students recognize the unique convergence of people, experiences, and possibilities in our learning moment. Based on Parker Palmer's concept of educational intersections, it was meant to establish the foundation for everything that would follow.
As students filed into the classroom, I found myself wondering: would they embrace the idea of AI as a creative partner? Would the returning students step into safety leadership roles? Would philosophical frameworks tested in international contexts translate into practical engagement with American teenagers?
The answer came almost immediately.
During our opening circle, as students shared their names and what drew them to technical theatre, I heard exactly what Williams' handover document had promised: genuine curiosity, creative ambition, and collaborative spirit. These weren't students looking for an easy elective – they were young artists ready to take creative risks.
When I introduced the concept of using AI tools for research and design development, the response was overwhelmingly positive. Not uncritical acceptance, but engaged curiosity. Questions about how AI suggestions would be evaluated. Interest in how this would work with actual production deadlines. Excitement about exploring possibilities they might not discover on their own.
One moment particularly caught my attention. During our opening circle, when asked about a story that changed her perspective of the world, one student paused thoughtfully, then used AI to help construct her response. She wanted to make sure she communicated the impact of her experience clearly. Here was a student who had immediately grasped AI as a thinking partner rather than a shortcut - exactly the kind of intuitive collaboration I'd hoped to see.
Most importantly, I saw the safety leadership framework beginning to take shape. Returning students immediately understood their role as mentors and protocol developers. New students responded positively to peer leadership rather than top-down instruction.
By the end of that first day, I knew we had something special beginning – but I also knew the real work was just starting.
On day two of the block schedule, during our "At This Intersection" reflection, one student raised his hand: "What do I need to write? A few sentences? A paragraph?"
"Whatever you need to write to express yourself authentically," I replied.
I could see my response exasperated him. "Yeah, but how much do you want me to write?"
I stood up and walked over to him. "What you're really asking me is 'how much do I need to do for a grade.'"
He looked surprised, but rephrased honestly: "I'm asking how much I need to do to get a GOOD grade."
"I'm more interested in your authentic response rather than your performance for a grade."
In that moment, I realized the scope of what we were attempting. These students had been trained to perform for grades rather than engage for learning. The AI tools, the safety leadership, the collaborative design process – all of it would only work if we could first help students understand themselves differently as learners.
The methods were proven, but the real experiment was whether we could create a learning environment where authentic presence mattered more than academic performance – something that had worked in international education and corporate consulting but had never been tested with American teenagers conditioned by traditional schooling.
What This Series Will Document
Over the next several installments, I'll document how this experiment unfolds in real time, building on proven methodologies tested across multiple contexts.
You'll see students wrestling with AI-enhanced design processes informed by international collaboration. We'll follow returning students as they develop safety leadership using frameworks tested in corporate environments. I'll show you how authentic assessment actually works when powered by methods that have created measurable value across diverse projects.
But the deeper story is about transformation. Can we help students move beyond performing for grades toward authentic engagement? Will peer leadership flourish when students stop optimizing for external validation? These questions keep me up at night because they matter far beyond our production of Antigone.
We're not just trying to create better technical theatre students. We're testing whether proven educational innovations can overcome twelve years of conditioning that teaches students to game systems rather than engage with learning. The AI tools, the collaborative frameworks, the authentic assessment - all of it depends on first helping students discover who they are as learners when grades aren't the point.
This isn't a retrospective case study of something that worked perfectly, nor is it theoretical experimentation starting from scratch. It's real-time documentation of proven educational innovations being adapted for a new context under authentic pressure. Some adaptations will work exactly as planned. Others will require immediate pivots based on what I've learned from previous implementations. A few might fail entirely, teaching us valuable lessons for the next iteration.
The easy path would have been to implement a more traditional technical theatre curriculum with minor technological updates. Instead, we're attempting something unprecedented: seamless integration of artificial intelligence tools with hands-on theatre craft, guided by student leadership and documented through authentic assessment - all while helping students unlearn patterns that have defined their educational experience.
Whether this specific adaptation works remains to be seen. But the foundation is solid, the methods are tested, and the potential for transformation - both for these students and for how we think about education itself - makes the risk worth taking.
Next installment: "At This Intersection" – How community-building philosophy translated into practice, and what students taught me about authentic presence in learning.
James Hammer is Technical Theatre Director at The Oakridge School and holds certifications in Digital Learning Design and AI for Learning. This series documents his real-time adaptation of proven AI-enhanced educational methodologies in technical theatre education during the 2025-26 academic year.