Ever since ChatGPT was released to the public in 2022, it has changed the way we learn, think, and go about our everyday lives.
For many students, it seems AI makes our lives easier. And it does — at least for now.
AI can write an essay in the amount of time it would take us to come up with the title. AI can solve our math homework for us. You might get caught, but if you don’t, you just freed up at least two hours of your day to do whatever else you want.
It has been compared to the calculator; when the calculator came out, everyone began to question the legitimacy of learning math at all. What was the point if students could just do it on the calculator? Nowadays, tests are split into calculator and non-calculator sections. Teachers assign homework questions that expect students to use their calculators.
AI will not have the same solutions. AI takes away more than the step-by-step required to solve a math problem; it steals our ability to think for ourselves. As the students who are of concern regarding this loss of our mental faculties, it so follows that those same students should have input on school and district policies about AI.
The responsibility of adjusting our current curriculum should not fall to teachers alone. Students can help give input on what will work best. For example, taking time to compare AI-written essays to non-AI-written essays in class, and talking about what makes the non-AI-written essays distinguishable, can teach students what they lose by asking AI to write their essays.
Right now, WSSD is developing a policy for AI through a faculty-led committee of ten teachers, as well other district administrators. This policy will not be complete or effective without additional student voice. While the surveys obtaining student input are a good start, it would be even better if students were able to see the impact of their answers. It’s vital that we continue to update students on drafts of the policy.
Many students do not understand why AI shouldn’t be used at school. After all, AI will be accessible in the workplace. But the new policy should emphasize the fact that school is not the real world.
For the same reason that no-calculator sections remain on math tests, AI does not and cannot serve as a replacement for the core of standard education. The idea that only skills and tools that will be used in real life should be taught ignores some of the basic ideas of education.
In humanities classes like English or social studies, the specter of AI has been particularly problematic for essays and writing assignments. Some students argue that essays will not be essential in the workplace, so why not offload that work to AI?
But there is more to being an adult than mindlessly hammering away at work. It is still important to develop strengths like critical thinking, empathy, communication, media literacy, and an understanding of the human condition.
These are some of the most important parts of being human, and are often imparted through humanities classes — that is, if students engage in class beyond the tantalizing temptation of clicking “AI mode” in the Google search bar and succumbing to ctrl-c, ctrl-v. These are also skills of paramount importance for civic engagement, such as informed voting and community input.
It is logical, then, that the district should seek to prevent the AI-powered withering away of our humanity and civic engagement through giving us opportunities to exercise said skills and refurbish our humanity through human forums of input that can’t be filled out by robots.
If students are given a voice, they will be more inclined to follow the policy that they helped write. Offering ownership and transparency will encourage students to take responsibility for their own choices, whether that be through student committees or forums such as the one on October 24 for the phone policy.
High school is the start for students to have a hand in decision-making. It’s supposed to be where we learn maturity, and learn how to get to a level where we can use tools like AI for truly valid reasons.
If student voice is not a consideration in the policy-making process, students will begin to believe that other people will always be around to regulate their own poor decisions. We’re supposed to learn that if we want to complain about an issue, we should at least attempt to do something about it first.
In the absence of self-regulation and accountability in decision-making, the uncritical use of AI will have successfully begun to strip back the humanity behind education.
School is one of the last safe places for critical thinking. It’s up to us to preserve our agency — using AI instead of letting it use us.
The unsigned editorial represents the opinion of the Editorial Board, which consists of the majority of student editorial staff listed on this page.
