Why Using AI Is Fine for Teachers but Not for Students

Let me be blunt: Teachers who choose to leverage generative artificial intelligence (AI) effectively and openly can enhance their practice—especially when providing written feedback. However, encouraging students to rely on it unsupervised is a big, big mistake.

Teachers are educated professionals, and we have developed skills and judgment to effectively evaluate what generative AI produces. A good rule of thumb for me is this: I would never use AI for something I could not do by myself otherwise. Students don’t yet have that foundation. Offering them unsupervised access is like handing a calculator to someone who doesn’t know basic mental math. Sure, they may land on a correct answer, but they won’t understand why, and they also won’t build the habits they need for long-term success.

Justin Reich of MIT’s Teaching Systems Lab put it well in an Edutopia interview when he said that with so many AI tools emerging, “we have no idea the best way to teach a kid to use AI to develop as a writer, or a thinker.”

In my experience, even “feedback-only” guardrails still leave students just one click away from a full (and fast) generative AI rewrite. The tool often suggests adjustments before asking, “Would you like me to make these changes for you?” That’s like handing out the answer key and asking students not to look. It’s unfair and unrealistic, and most of my students seem to agree with my take.

As these tools advance, it gets easier (and more tempting) to outsource the thinking. For now, my history students write in class, both timed and untimed. We sacrifice some research practice and a bit of coverage, but the trade is worth it. Also, in-class writing protects integrity, strengthens recall, and lets me coach in real time.

I recently shifted to a hybrid approach, with students working on larger writing assignments both in and outside of class. I tried this last spring, and it allows me to get closer to my students’ process—how they reason, analyze, and use sources—so we cut down on shortcuts and build ownership. If the at-home draft looks very different from their in-class work, we talk about it.

Show That You Aren’t Anti-Technology

To be clear, I still use generative AI in lessons, but only in ways that support ungraded learning activities. For example, students use Flint, a platform with teacher oversight, to aid them in seeking clarification about key terms and concepts. The system also allows me to check how users interact with it and archive exchanges. This lets me home in on a subject or question that needs addressing.

For a recent unit, my AP U.S. Government and Politics students used Flint, which role-played as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Patrick Henry, to explore how those founders might view today’s division of power between individual states and the federal government. Afterward, the activity set up a passionate discussion of Brutus No. 1, especially its concern that the proposed national government would erode state authority and threaten liberty.

In my journalism class, students don’t use large language models, but they do use AI to edit video, audio, and photos, which has sped up production. They also use AI to transcribe interviews—the biggest time-saver—and I see no meaningful skill lost by not making them type transcripts by hand. However, I require them to review the transcripts’ accuracy and triple-check any quoted material.

Be Transparent About How and Why You Use Generative AI

No matter the class, my students understand that for teachers, using AI is different.

This distinction guides my policy. With my high school history students, I am upfront about how and why I use generative AI, and I cannot stress enough the importance of that transparency. Without it, students have every reason to feel slighted by educators.

“Generative AI doesn’t replace my judgment,” I tell my students. “But it does help me return your work faster, which we all value for better learning and engagement. I promise, I read everything you write and carefully review what AI generates about your work.”

Students value that openness, which puts their learning first and also facilitates my workflow. The idea is to provide more time for what matters most: teaching students how to think critically, communicate clearly, and delve deeply into learning.

Why I Find Generative AI Helpful As a History Teacher

Timely feedback: I’ve always prided myself on returning assignments quickly, but now I can do it even faster, thanks to AI. The rapid pace at which CoGrader produces feedback allows me to encourage students to revise while their thoughts are still fresh. The tool doesn’t only capture mistakes in grammar; it also gives feedback on structure, clarity, and flow. I choose to keep certain items, I fine-tune comments, and I discard some. Thanks to CoGrader, I often return papers in a week; without it, the grading process could take up to twice as long, depending on the assignment.

Doing this gives me more chances for one-on-one meetings, where the real growth occurs. I also have more opportunities to plan lessons, meet with advisees, and seek input from colleagues about upcoming lessons.

Clarity and fairness: After any sort of rough patch with a student, I sometimes fear that the experience could seep into the way I grade their work. I don’t want that to happen, and I like how AI can help surface any inconsistency. In such cases, I look even more closely at how its feedback aligns with or diverges from my own thoughts, which has helped me reassess my grading and comments on several occasions. For me, AI doesn’t just review essays; it reviews me, helping me remain fair and consistent with all of my students.

Pattern analytics: Within seconds, generative AI processes a stack of essays, assisting me by pointing out patterns. It may indicate that some students rely on summary rather than analysis or that others have difficulty transitioning from one paragraph to the next. Before, I could spot those trends only after hours of grading, but now, getting that data almost instantly has allowed me to quickly tailor instruction.

More time with family: If I had to estimate, generative AI has reduced my grading load by about 35 percent. That recaptured time allows me to spend more quality moments with my wife and young son, who mean even more to me than my students. Despite being an anxious teacher, I also sleep better because AI helps me avoid second-guessing my grading and feedback.

Just as I find generative AI helpful, I trust my fellow educators—the real experts—to do what’s best for themselves and their students, whether that means embracing this new technology or setting it aside.

When it comes to students, though, it’s far too soon—and far too little is known about generative AI’s impact on young learners—to hand over the keys. For now, the best course is slow, steady, and always optional.