Across American classrooms, a growing contradiction is emerging: teachers are quietly adopting artificial intelligence to grade papers, draft lesson plans, and analyze student data, while simultaneously forbidding their students from using the very same tools. This double standard, highlighted in a recent New York Times report, has ignited a debate about fairness, transparency, and the role of AI in education.
Rhode Island history teacher Jon Gold openly tells his classes that he uses ChatGPT to prepare lesson plans, yet he instructs students not to use the chatbot for essays or research. “I am more pro-AI-literacy than I am pro-AI-use,” Gold told the NYT, encapsulating the uneasy stance many educators now hold.
The divide is not limited to individual teachers. Administrators are also leveraging AI in ways they would not tolerate from students. Alex Baron, a charter school administrator in Washington, D.C., uses AI programs to analyze students’ academic and behavioral data, grouping them for targeted support. He considers student use of Alphabet-owned apps like PhotoMath and Google Lens to be cheating, but his own reliance on AI is deemed legitimate. Software like Securly Discern, which monitors students’ online behavior to flag “at-risk” individuals, is marketed to schools as a support tool, though critics liken it to surveillance.
The scale of teacher AI adoption is difficult to pin down. A RAND Corporation survey from the 2023-2024 school year found that only 25% of teachers admitted to using AI for teaching or lesson planning. However, given the rapid integration of AI tools in schools, that figure is likely an underestimate today. Jennifer Carolan, a former history teacher and founder of the AI edtech investment firm Reach Capital, told the NYT that the technology “is already being used by the majority of teachers and students,” a claim that appears inflated compared to the RAND data.
Students, for their part, are not silent on the issue. When the NYT asked students earlier this year how they felt about teachers using AI for grading—a practice that raises concerns about accuracy—several called it hypocritical and demeaning. A high schooler named Aidan argued, “If students are putting in work and effort, why should teachers be allowed to be lazy and let AI grade for them? It gives a sense that, because I am older and I am your superior, I can use A.I. and you can’t, which is not a good example for students.”
Some educators defend the practice. A Sacramento teacher identified only as LP told the NYT, “Teachers… have earned credentials and often multiple master’s degrees. We know the generative skill of composition. If we can use AI to support grading, we can spend more time planning, prepping, and supporting students.” This defense underscores the belief that AI can free up teachers to focus on higher-value interactions.
The controversy is unlikely to fade as AI becomes more embedded in daily life. Schools are also preparing students for a future where AI is ubiquitous, yet the rules governing its use in the classroom remain inconsistent. The tension between leveraging AI for efficiency and maintaining academic integrity is a tightrope that educators, students, and policymakers will continue to navigate.
