The widespread use of artificial intelligence tools among students is prompting educators to rethink traditional approaches to assignments and assessments. Teachers report that the prevalence of AI-generated work has made take-home essays and tests increasingly unreliable as measures of student learning.
Casey Cuny, an English teacher with more than two decades of experience, described the current situation as unprecedented. “The cheating is off the charts. It’s the worst I’ve seen in my entire career,” Cuny said. He noted that teachers must now assume any assignment completed outside the classroom may involve AI assistance. “Anything you send home, you have to assume is being AI’ed.”
This shift has led schools to reconsider longstanding definitions of academic dishonesty. “We have to ask ourselves, what is cheating?” said Cuny, who was recognized as California’s Teacher of the Year in 2024. “Because I think the lines are getting blurred.”
To address these concerns, Cuny has moved most writing assignments into the classroom, using software that allows him to monitor and restrict student computer activity during lessons. He also incorporates AI into his curriculum by teaching students how to use such tools constructively for studying rather than cheating.
In Oregon, high school teacher Kelly Gibson has similarly transitioned away from traditional take-home writing assignments in favor of supervised in-class work and verbal assessments. Gibson explained, “I used to give a writing prompt and say, ‘In two weeks, I want a five-paragraph essay.’ These days, I can’t do that. That’s almost begging teenagers to cheat.”
Students themselves report uncertainty about where legitimate use of AI ends and academic misconduct begins. College sophomore Lily Brown shared her reliance on ChatGPT for outlining essays and understanding complex readings but expressed confusion about whether this constitutes cheating: “Sometimes I feel bad using ChatGPT to summarize reading, because I wonder, is this cheating? Is helping me form outlines cheating? If I write an essay in my own words and ask how to improve it, or when it starts to edit my essay, is that cheating?”
Brown noted that her course syllabi typically prohibit using AI for generating thoughts or writing essays but often lack clarity on permitted uses. Students may be hesitant to seek clarification from instructors due to fear of being suspected of dishonesty.
Policies regarding AI use frequently vary within schools depending on individual teachers’ preferences. Some educators permit grammar-checking tools like Grammarly.com while others prohibit them because they can rewrite sentences entirely.
Jolie Lahey, an eleventh grader at Valencia High School, described learning valuable skills from Cuny about leveraging AI for studying but found inconsistent rules across her classes: “Whether you can use AI or not depends on each classroom. That can get confusing.” She questioned strict prohibitions against helpful technology: “It feels outdated.”
Since the launch of ChatGPT in late 2022—an event which marked a significant increase in both access and controversy around educational uses of generative artificial intelligence—schools initially responded with bans but are now moving toward developing nuanced guidelines focused on balancing opportunities with risks.
Institutions such as the University of California, Berkeley have provided faculty with new guidance instructing them to clearly communicate their expectations regarding AI on course syllabi. The university’s communication stated: “In the absence of such a statement, students may be more likely to use these technologies inappropriately,” adding that artificial intelligence presents new ambiguities concerning acceptable academic practices.
At Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), there has been a notable rise in cases involving violations linked to inappropriate or misunderstood uses of AI technologies among students learning English as a second language or using translation tools like DeepL—sometimes without realizing these platforms make substantive changes beyond direct translation.
Rebekah Fitzsimmons chairs CMU’s advising committee on artificial intelligence at Heinz College and helped draft updated guidelines aimed at clarifying acceptable uses for both faculty and students over the summer break. She explained that enforcing academic integrity policies has become more challenging since detecting improper AI usage is difficult; instructors are also wary about wrongly accusing students who might inadvertently cross boundaries.
Faculty flexibility is encouraged if they believe rule violations were unintentional; however some educators now avoid assigning unsupervised work altogether by returning to paper-based exams or adopting flipped classrooms where assignments are completed under supervision.
Emily DeJeu from CMU’s business school replaced homework writing assignments with proctored quizzes administered through secure browsers designed to prevent digital shortcuts during assessment periods: “To expect an 18-year-old to exercise great discipline is unreasonable,” she said. “That’s why it’s up to instructors to put up guardrails.”
