Artificial Intelligence at School

by Shriyadita De ‘27 for Silver Quest

Artificial intelligence has rapidly become one of the most influential technologies in modern education, transforming how students learn, complete assignments, and access information. Tools like ChatGPT and other AI-powered platforms can generate explanations, solve problems, and even produce full essays within seconds, making them both powerful learning aids and significant sources of concern. As a result, schools across the country have struggled to establish clear policies around their use. Some districts have attempted to ban AI tools outright, bringing up concerns about academic integrity and overreliance, while others have embraced the idea that its presence is inevitable and are instead focusing on teaching responsible usage. This divide reflects a broader controversy: whether AI should be treated primarily as a threat to traditional learning or as a tool that can enhance it. 

Over the past year, something has started to feel off about schoolwork. Late-night math homework that normally takes an hour suddenly gets finished in 30 minutes, and computer science projects become suspiciously similarly formatted. In classes designed to build real problem-solving skills, a lot of students have quietly started relying on tools that do that thinking for them.

Students also confirmed that this kind of misuse is already common. Allison Zhang (‘28) shared her observations. “Oftentimes, I see friends or fellow students using AI to complete assignments, especially when they are low on time or experiencing difficulties,” she said. 

Alice Guo (‘27) described even more extreme behavior. “[Some students] literally jump to AI for like everything, without even attempting anything else,” Guo noted.

When discussing the impact on learning, Zhang took a more conditional view. “[AI] can increase or decrease student understanding … depending on the way it is used,” Zhang argued. “Students [can] choose the way they want to use AI.” 

In contrast, Guo expressed deeper concern about long-term effects, worrying not just about lost understanding but about motivation itself. “There will be a lack of curiosity and … desire to learn in the first place,” she said. She questioned what this means for a program designed to develop thinkers, asking how that goal can be sustained if students rely on AI so much.

Tool or Threat? 

Students agreed that AI is both a powerful tool and a growing concern, especially within the high-pressure environment of the Magnet. While they acknowledged its benefits, their responses repeatedly emphasized how easily it can shift from supporting learning to replacing it.

Zhang highlighted this balance. “AI has a large amount of potential, as it can make learning much easier and more accessible,” she said. “[But] dependencies and a lack of independence [can] decrease overall abilities.” This tension was particularly visible in computer science classes, where students often walked a fine line between using AI as a helpful resource and relying on it too heavily. When students used AI to debug code or clarify concepts, it helped reinforce understanding and make complex material more approachable. However, when they turned to AI for quick, complete solutions to programming assignments, they bypassed the critical process of problem-solving. In doing so, they lost the productive struggle that builds deeper comprehension and long-term skills, ultimately undermining the very learning those assignments are designed to develop.

Some teachers in the Magnet take a powerful stance against AI. “It’s a disaster,” math teacher William Rose said. “While a potentially powerful tool that could transform the world for the better (also might kill us all), it’s basically disastrous for education and has barely any positive effect and severe negative effects.” 

Guo expressed how uncomfortable it was with how quickly AI is becoming synonymous with being a student. “[I’m] very, very uneasy about the slippery slope of overreliance [on AI],” she said. “It is definitely not going anywhere soon.”

Both students pointed to a clear line where AI stops being helpful. Zhang found that line to be when AI is used to directly provide answers, noting that generating essay ideas could be beneficial, while directly answering math homework would actually be detrimental to a student’s learning. 

Rose lamented the way in which AI replaces critical thinking. “Learning requires thinking, and thinking is hard, and people try to avoid doing hard things if they can, and if they can they will, and if they do, they avoid learning anything,” he said.

Guo echoed this response, comparing AI to an unproductive academic interaction in which, instead of questions being answered with detailed explanations, students receive a blunt result with no explanation.

Teachers across the Magnet have developed their own restrictions on AI usage. In computer science classes, for instance, teachers like Mr. Sahu give expectations in syllabi and assignments, emphasizing that AI can be a valuable educational tool when used to support understanding rather than replace it. Students may use AI to explore concepts or troubleshoot code, but they are expected to fully understand and be able to explain any solution they submit.

Like many teachers, Sahu relies in part on an honor code, expecting students to approach their work with honesty and a willingness to engage with challenging material. Some assignments also require students to cite the resources they used (including AI) encouraging transparency rather than secrecy. By acknowledging that AI use is difficult to regulate directly, teachers are instead focusing on creating a structured and open environment around it. This approach sets clearer boundaries and encourages students to think more critically about their use of AI in relation to their learning.

What should be done? 

Students and teachers across the Magnet largely agreed that banning AI is not a realistic solution. Zhang emphasized that AI can help supplement learning. “AI should only be used as an educational tool that enhances ease of learning,” she said, voicing support for restricting its use for completing assignments or cheating on tests. 

Alice similarly advocated for what she described as a “Sahu-style approach, where students think about and acknowledge their use of AI. “Straight up banning…doesn’t really work,” she said.

Now that they have been developed and proliferated in usage, AI tools will always stay with us, and pretending that they do not exist will not solve the problem. It is great to see teachers addressing these issues, and I, personally, do think the program needs to rethink how assignments are designed and what they are really measuring. Nonetheless, it’s easier said than done, and while change takes time, the pace at which AI is reshaping how students learn is not slowing down.