By Aaron Strow
Across Irvington High School classes, AI has quickly become one of the most debated topics. While students are facing zero tolerance policies for artificial intelligence, with some being forced to sign forms agreeing to no usage, it seems like many teachers are using artificial intelligence to form lesson plans. This situation leaves a lot of students asking whether or not AI is considered cheating if it is acceptable for teachers to use.
The main argument pushing for teachers to utilize AI comes down to saving time. According to a national survey published by Gallup, 60% of K-12 teachers use AI tools to help with lesson planning, making rubrics, and coming up with practice problems. Supporters of AI usage will argue that focusing less on repetitive tasks such as grading homework and creating classwork will lead to a greater learning experience for students.
However, like me, many others believe this setup is unfair to students who are constantly told to dismiss AI, yet they watch teachers use it to assess them. A study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences points out that relying on AI without any strict limits can make students depend on it too much. While this perspective applies to students in any grade, it can also be employed to teachers who may begin to use AI for assignments that shouldn’t need it.
Wyatt Cloutman, a Junior at Irvington High School said, “It feels unfair that we get in trouble for using AI on minor homework assignments, but teachers can use it to create tests and projects.”
This double standard can also be connected to how students feel about their classwork. I feel that when homework, a study guide or rubric, is completely AI generated, it can cause students to put less effort into their work. Additionally, if AI is to be further implemented into students’ lessons, it could totally reduce the productive relationship between student and teacher.
Ultimately, high school should focus on teaching students critical skills that can assist them in the future, and being almost fully reliant on AI defeats the purpose for both students and teachers. I believe that Irvington should find a middle ground where AI could be treated as a helpful tool for both groups, rather than a source for laziness.
