“Our goal is to ensure all members of the LMSD community engage with AI thoughtfully, ethically, and with a clear understanding of its opportunities and limitations.” These are the words from the district website regarding the use of AI in our education.
AI as an industry has grown exponentially over the past few years, with chatbots becoming more intelligent by the day. As it matures, students and teachers have been increasingly using AI to assist them with tasks. It is now a school epidemic: students are using AI to complete homework assignments, brainstorm for essays and projects, and cram for tests, while teachers have implemented it to create assignments, generate multiple-choice tests, and refresh them on information that they are going to teach.
Although it is important to learn how to use AI under appropriate circumstances, the district has done little to assist both teachers and students with this task since there have been mixed messages on how we are able to use AI. For example, on LM’s 2025-26 school year syllabus, the AI Academic Honesty and Originality section states that “students are expected to maintain the principles of academic honesty and produce original work in all assignments. Using AI tools to generate or paraphrase content without proper attribution is considered academic dishonesty and may be subject to disciplinary action.” I’m sure that if you ask most students, they would admit to violating this policy. However, little action from the school district occurs to directly combat the problem; only major AI violations, such as using generative AI to write an essay are disciplined. Although it is sometimes very hard to catch if a student used AI to complete an assignment, the fact that it goes under the radar in most classrooms is a cause for concern, showing that the school district isn’t enforcing their official policies. Another massive dilemma is that AI detection tools are unreliable, too. Students have been repeatedly–and falsely–accused of using generative AI, most notably from common educational platforms like turnitin.com. Due to its unpredictability, it isn’t something that the district could truly address.
It seems that without a general strict enforcement, each individual teacher or department formulates their own AI policies. Nevertheless, students never learn how to use AI appropriately, with teachers not taking the time to discuss how to prompt AI or which AI tools to use, which is a fundamental idea the district wants.
However, the syllabus also state that “in specific circumstances where AI tools can enhance the learning experience, teachers may grant permission for students to use AI apps for a particular assignment or activity. The decision to allow AI usage will be based on educational objectives and aligning with the learning outcomes of the task.” This is a huge mess; students can’t use AI responsibly if they aren’t taught the proper way that coincides with educational standards or the “right” way our school district wants. The reality is that students rarely experience any informative lessons on AI from a teacher unless explicitly mentioned during an advisory period.
It only makes matters worse if teachers are using AI incorrectly in conjunction with students. Teachers at LM have access to a Chrome extension called Brisk AI, specifically designed for teachers to create assignments and give feedback on students’ work. The use of Brisk AI by teachers leads to a less personalized education, as AI cannot provide the same level of feedback for an assignment as a human. It seems that the school district is trying to embrace AI for teachers but continues to leave students out of the equation with proper AI usage.
The introduction of the NotebookLM application for students only makes this worse. NotebookLM is an AI assistant from Google where you can upload files to generate study material. You can upload slideshow presentations, notes, or other materials from your teacher, and the AI could help you memorize information or create questions with explanations when you get a question wrong.
It can also be used to generate videos, with many teachers starting to share NotebookLM videos in lessons. It is important to note that NotebookLM was introduced during advisory, where the school staff itself has used the application for sharing information during the period.
A final contributor to this AI confusion is the differing ways teachers allow students to use AI. Some will tell you AI is never allowed for the class, to use it in limited circumstances, or to use it for a large range of tasks. With NotebookLM being available at all times, and students being prohibited from using it in a certain class, there is no way a student can be stopped. There is also the possibility that NotebookLM gives you the questions to an exam since it feeds from digital information off Google, just making the use of this application even more confusing.
The district must take action right now if it wants to fix these issues. It is possible to use AI appropriately, and our school district should create a plan if this is what they desire for us to learn. AI is widely regarded as the future of technology given how fast it is growing. The district should prioritize teaching how to use AI and its capabilities while also reforming the restrictions to best educate students. For example, the school district could use a firewall system to prevent students from accessing AI websites they deem harmful to a school learning environment. This would prevent access to AI on electronic systems, including personal mobile devices. However, this would do nothing to prevent AI use on homework. It is more reasonable to encourage pen and paper assignments and limit technology use in the classroom to crack down on this issue.
Although these solutions are extremely simple, this issue would require extremely specific restrictions and exceptions. Hopefully we will see changes from LM soon so that we do not further suffer from the AI confusion that is in place now.
