By Parvi Anand
The rise of AI tools like ChatGPT has sparked debates in schools about their role in education. While some see them as valuable aids, others worry they undermine critical thinking and academic integrity.
Mrs. Jespersen, a history teacher and Honor Council advisor, is clear in her stance: “I think it hurts them for my class because I am working on developing thinking skills, and ChatGPT doesn’t help you develop those skills—it does the thinking for you.”
She has noticed subtle changes in student work, describing AI-generated writing as “artificial, wordier, and filled with less knowledgeable filler words.” She believes that while AI has potential, educators need to better understand how to use it effectively.
The Honor Council has also seen an impact. “There was a lead time before the council started catching people because we weren’t sure what to look for,” Mrs. Jespersen explained. Now, cases involving ChatGPT are common.
“It’s often a late-night moment of desperation,” she said, “students overtired with too much on their plate, thinking, ‘What’s the stupidest thing I could do? Let’s use ChatGPT.'”
This shift has forced schools to clarify rules, drawing a line between tools like spell check, which helps refine work, and generative AI, which can replace student thought. While some teachers experiment with allowing ChatGPT in a controlled way, others remain cautious. “It’s like giving a little kid a cellphone—they can use it, but do they really understand what they’re doing?” she asked.
Mrs. Jespersen also emphasized the importance of originality and the student’s unique voice, warning against the risk of over-reliance on AI tools like ChatGPT. “It’s a dangerous thing—you have to talk about safe usage and how you can use this thing to help you but not replace you,” she explained.
Comparing AI-generated text to different synthetic voices, she pointed out that while some may sound more natural than others, they still lack the authenticity of a human. “We want you to think and learn these skills so you are ready to go out and conquer the world,” she said, stressing that students should see ChatGPT as a tool for refinement rather than a substitute for their own ideas.
To her, the key is fostering confidence in students’ evolving voices. “Their voice should always be changing because they’re growing and developing,” she said, “but they have to trust that it’s worthy of being heard.”
Though Mrs. Jespersen hasn’t personally used artificial intelligence in her teaching, she acknowledges its growing presence in education and the need to understand it better. “I have not used it—at least, not that I know of,” she said.
Her primary interaction with AI has actually been the opposite: using tools like GPTZero to detect machine-generated content. She knows she needs to learn more about it. “But the same people who talk about it always get that wide-eyed expression and plastic smile, saying, ‘ChatGPT is the future’—and they’re the kind of people who try to sell you swampland in Florida,” she said.
To explore a different perspective, she pointed to Dr. Douglas, who actively encourages the use of AI in his classroom, offering a contrast to her stance.
“I think it depends on how it is used,” Dr. Douglas said. “I have encouraged students to use AI on problem sets for economics, which creates a bit of a problem—ChatGPT isn’t that good at economics yet. But in general, it’s a great way for students to have something explain an answer to them when I’m not there. [But] if they just input the problem set and get the answers, that distracts from their learning.”
While he sees AI as a helpful tool, he values honesty and fairness in academics. “I prevent misuse by making it very clear in my assignments that AI isn’t allowed and that anything they turn in has to be in their own words,” he explained. “If a student violates this, I have to send it to the honor council. But are the rules enough to stop it? Not always. Many teachers can detect AI writing well, but that’s not true universally. Some teachers will handle it individually, some report it, and some might not even notice. Given that reality, I’d say no, the rules aren’t enough.”
Dr. Douglas has noticed shifts in student behavior since AI became widely available. “There’s a reliance on it among many students—but not all. The bigger change is in how I assign things and check work,” he said. “Now, there’s a much greater emphasis on doing work in class instead.”
However, he also embraces AI for interactive learning. “We’re actually using AI today and Friday in AP gov,” he said. “Students are using AI-generated images and different platforms to make a children’s picture book, but they can’t plagiarize from any other sources—the text has to be their own. This gives them a chance to experiment and see what’s possible.”
Beyond student work, Dr. Douglas also integrates AI into his own lesson planning. “I use ChatGPT all the time when I’m planning activities,” he said. “If I need a lesson plan on something and want ideas to make it interactive, or if I have an idea and need to flesh it out—like a game where students compete to pass a bill—ChatGPT will create everything for me. Essentially, whenever I need grunt work done, things that don’t require deep thinking, I absolutely have AI handle that.”
Students, of course, have their own perspectives on ChatGPT. Many find it helpful for subjects like physics and math. “It helps me figure out how to do the math and gives me the thought process,” said Shelby Morris, a junior. Others emphasize the difference between using AI for understanding versus relying on it for answers. “If you’re using it to understand, then it’s fine, but not if you’re just copying answers,” explained Lauren Smith, another junior.
Some students also recognize when peers rely too much on AI. “You can tell when it doesn’t sound like the person who wrote it,” said Sloan Balsey, a junior. Another student puts it simply: “If it looks like the four paragraphs in an Instagram caption, then you know.”
There is also concern about consequences. “I don’t even use it for a project because I’m worried about getting in trouble,” Sloan admitted. Others believe the school should trust students to use AI fairly, while acknowledging its misuse in essays and research papers. “People who write entire papers with it are stupid,” said junior, Megan Frisch.
Ultimately, AI is here to stay, and how schools adapt will determine whether it enhances or undermines learning. Mrs. Jespersen believes responsible AI use should be explicitly taught, just as students were once guided in using graphing calculators. “We need the same deliberate process. I’m looking forward to reading that manual.”
