This article addresses a key issue in contemporary pedagogy: what and how schools should teach in an era of widespread generative artificial intelligence. The authors proceed from the premise that the new mission of schools is not to convey information per se, but to develop children’s agency—their ability to think, learn, make choices, act, and take responsibility. It is shown that AI is changing not only the tools but also the very logic of school education: it makes standard intellectual operations (retelling, model essays, formulaic solutions) less valuable and thereby increases the value of independent understanding, effort, and judgment. Based on an analysis of international studies (OECD/PISA, UNESCO, EEF, K-12 AI tutoring) and Russian data (VTsIOM, HSE University), the paper argues that the previous school model is inadequate and justifies the need to shift from a “school of answers” to a “school of judgment and action.” A practical seven-element model of the
modern school is proposed; the boundaries of pedagogically appropriate AI application are described; the risks of replacing human effort with machine assistance are identified; and recommendations are formulated across three implementation horizons.

   Attention is paid to age-based differentiation in the use of AI in elementary, middle, and high school, as well as to the teacher’s new role as an architect of the educational environment, a source of professional judgment, and a mentor.

   In conclusion, a manifesto for a new school is presented, in which technology reinforces the right to education without replacing human connection, pedagogical judgment, and the process of growing up itself.

   The article proposes several directions that, in the authors’ opinion, are of significant importance for educational policy. These include Cognitive asymmetry in modern society (the predominance of information-processing speed over the depth of comprehension, leading to a decline in learning quality and the development of intellectual laziness), the illusion of individualized education through the creation of information bubbles (the formation of “information bubbles” due to algorithmic content personalization, which narrows one’s horizons and weakens critical thinking), value-ethical collapse in the widespread use of neural networks (the erosion of ethical norms and degradation of communication against the backdrop of interaction with AI that simulates empathy), erosion of digital sovereignty amid heightened attention to information security issues (low levels of cyberliteracy and neglect of information security rules among users), digital overuse (excessive dependence on technology, leading to the degradation of natural cognitive functions). The article analyzes the current state of affairs, highlights concerns that could have negative consequences if scaled up, and offers recommendations to mitigate the impact of the described risks. For each proposed direction, a unified presentation structure is suggested: description, risks, reflections, and proposals for minimizing
potential harm.

   The key role of the educator in creating a learner-centered environment — where digital tools are used consciously and in a balanced way — is emphasized.

   In the overall conclusion of the article, the authors emphasize that, despite the vast potential of artificial intelligence and neural networks, they cannot replace: face-to-face interaction with a teacher, the creation of a space for students to gain educational experience, paying attention to the physical well-being (or bodily awareness) of both the educator and the learner.

   The article examines the anthropological and institutional challenges confronting the education system amid the mass integration of generative artificial intelligence. Drawing on Citrini Research’s macroeconomic scenario of the «intelligence displacement spiral» and the «zero friction» phenomenon, the author projects economic trends onto pedagogical reality. The traditional educational model — which has historically operated by exploiting the «information asymmetry» between teacher and student — definitively loses its purpose when any search algorithm can instantly produce a competent answer. The article analyzes current empirical research on «cognitive offloading,» revealing a central paradox of AI in education: tools that reduce cognitive strain simultaneously erode critical thinking metrics. To conceptualize this deadlock, a historical parallel is introduced: just as the mechanization of heavy labor in the 19th century compelled society to build gymnasiums to preserve physical health, cognitive automation demands that the school be transformed into a specialized space for deliberate intellectual resistance. The architecture of such spaces is shaped by empirically grounded mechanics — Manu Kapur’s «productive failure» and Robert Bjork’s «desirable difficulties» — which demonstrate that deep understanding requires an initial confrontation with a task that appears, at first, unsolvable. The proposed AI-resilience strategy is grounded in a synthesis of L.S. Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, V.V. Davydov’s theory of the educational task, and the ancient tradition of paideia. The paper ultimately argues for an inevitable shift in educational policy — from compensating for information deficits toward the intentional design of productive struggle. In this framework, the educator takes on the role of an architect of existential experience, sustaining the student within the space of independent inquiry.

   This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the structural gap between the content of academic education and the dynamically changing demands of the labor market in the context of digital transformation. Unlike traditional studies, which capture dissonance as a static mismatch of competencies, this paper substantiates a process-based approach, examining the gap as a chain of events unfolding over time, beginning with the hiring of a graduate and culminating in their reaching full capacity only 12–15 months later. The central element of the analysis is the author’s flowchart, visualizing the key stages of this process and identifying the zone of dissonance as a period of economic inefficiency during which the company incurs costs for corporate continuing education. Based on a systemic analysis, four groups of factors are identified that generate this zone of inefficiency: temporal, substantive, institutional, and cognitive. A project-based ecosystem pedagogical model is proposed, based on shifting the student’s encounter with industrial reality from the postgraduate stage to the educational stage. The model includes the implementation of cloud-based training areas, team projects with a role-based structure, open briefings, and an assessment system focused on product metrics. The risks of excessive utilitarianization of education, increasing social inequality, and resistance from the academic community are analyzed. The study’s results show that shifting the focus from knowledge transfer to modeling production processes at the university is key to reducing dissonance and increasing the competitiveness of the national education system.

   The article addresses a class of managerial errors that are not the result of low qualifications, professional incompetence, or malicious intent. These are errors of value blindness: a decision flawless from the standpoint of numbers, instructions, and formal procedures, destroys people’s lives, ecology, and social communities, while the manager who made the decision sincerely does not understand «what went wrong» because no one has ever taught them to ask the question «Why?» Drawing on cultural-historical psychology (L.S. Vygotsky’s distinction between meaning and personal sense, A.N. Leontiev’s concept of sense-forming motive), G.P. Shchedrovitsky’s theory of mental activity (reflection as a position emerging in communication), B.D. Elkonin’s concept of the educational event (a turning point after which it is impossible to think as before), and the concept of anthropopractices by P.G. Shchedrovitsky and A.G. Asmolov (choice situations without instructions), the article introduces the concept of value reflection as the manager’s ability to halt the automatism of action, recognize one’s own value foundations, and hold alternative value logics. Drawing also on C. Barnard’s classical theory of management, the author shows that the problem of value regulation has a long tradition but has no systemic solution in education. Based on the analysis of 12 educational cases with future managers, it is demonstrated that value reflection is not formed through the transmission of ethical norms and codes. It is born only in situations of a «reflexive gap» — a value conflict without a correct answer, where a person is forced to publicly name their values and confront an Other who has chosen differently. For educational policy, this implies a shift from declarative «value formation» to the design of anthropopractices of value self-determination — and, more broadly, from the paradigm of competencies to the paradigm of subjectivity.

   The article presents an analysis of primary school teachers’ beliefs about the role of error in the educational process and identifies strategies that contribute to fostering a positive error climate in the classroom. The study encompasses a theoretical review of the concepts of error culture and error climate, as well as an empirical part involving in-depth interviews with teachers from Moscow schools. The results reveal a dual understanding of errors among teachers: while they acknowledge the learning potential of errors, in practice they tend to minimize the occurrence of student errors and rely predominantly on intuitive strategies, leading to a discrepancy between their declared beliefs and actual classroom practices. The study employed a theoretical framework combining self-determination theory and the concept of negative knowledge, along with a thematic analysis of data obtained through semi-structured interviews. It was found that the use of supportive strategies lays the foundation for a positive error climate, whereas controlling strategies and the lack of systematic work limit the use of error as a resource for development.

   The article is devoted to an analysis of the works of educator, media theorist, and cultural critic Neil Postman (1931–2003). He was among the first to advance the idea that modern education is not merely an institution for the transmission of knowledge; rather, its primary task is the critique of contemporary culture. Accordingly, schooling should include the analysis of media as distinct cultural forms that are not anthropologically neutral, since they participate in shaping perception, thought, and the values of modern subjects. Postman applied a media ecology approach to the educational system, according to which modern individuals must not only use new technologies but also understand their structure, language, underlying ideology, and mechanisms of influence. From the standpoint of the ecology of education, he formulated several ideals for transforming the modern school: to turn schools from places where teachers control students through judgment and punishment into communicative communities of collaborative learning (1); to change methods of assessment, since they foster competition and thereby distract students from the intrinsic joy of learning (2); to move from homogeneous learning environments to heterogeneous groups of students, as homogeneity reinforces social inequality (3); to focus on civic education by teaching younger generations the rights and responsibilities of citizenship (4); to shift the emphasis from individual learning to learning as a process of collective activity (5); to prioritize the socialization of students as persons and citizens, rather than merely as cognitive subjects (6); to make dialogue, questions rather than answers, and collaborative inquiry central priorities in schooling (7). In his work, Neil Postman also criticizes modern education for having lost its sense of purpose and become instrumentalized. His approach is essentially transdisciplinary, integrating pedagogy, media theory, cultural critique, and the philosophy of education.