A recent X post by Astor (@AstorsAssociate) has spotlighted a stark double standard in education’s use of artificial intelligence. The post states that now 60 percent of instructors have turned to AI solutions in planning lessons and grading papers, and the students caught using AI are fined with zeros in grades and a lifelong mark of cheats almost regularly despite a possible lack of clear evidence. Such a contradiction highlights urgent concerns regarding the fairness of policy, morality, and the changing position of AI in the education sector.
Widespread Teacher Adoption of AI and Its Growing Normalization in Classrooms
The statistic given by Astor is consistent with the recent study, depicting that the adoption of AI by educators has been spreading rather quickly. According to a report by AIPRM an as of December 2023, ChatGPT has seen 180 million users and has recorded 1.7 billion views per month. Currently, the percentage of teachers in the population planning lessons and grading using AI is between 18 and 20 percent, with a slight increase among the schools with students of color (20 percent) compared to the overall schools (17 percent). To most teachers, the AI takes much administrative work, which means the teachers have more time to dedicate to student interaction, varied teaching, and individualized responses towards students.
Education blogs like The Learning Scientists have pointed out that AI tools have the potential to simplify time-consuming tasks, ranging from as small as developing quizzes unique to the specific student to offering alternate explanations to challenging concepts. Many teachers adopting AI can perceive it as a valid continuation of the profession, as it has previously embraced the use of calculators or electronic grading systems in previous decades. Such normalization of AI in these settings indicates the transformation of the understanding of educational labor: efficiency and customization are preferred, at least regardless of the observable decline in the hands-on nature of the process.
The Ethical Conflict Between Teacher Privilege and Student Punishment in AI Policy
Astor’s post draws attention to an imbalance: educators are free to use AI without scrutiny, while students face punitive measures based on questionable detection methods. Many schools rely on tools like GPTZero, which, according to a 2023 Journal of Educational Technology study, has a 30% false positive rate. This means nearly a third of flagged cases may be wrongful accusations, leaving students with unjust academic records that can affect college admissions or scholarship eligibility.
The problem extends beyond individual fairness to systemic ethics. Banning AI for students while permitting it for teachers sends a mixed message about the technology’s legitimacy. Institutions justify these restrictions by citing fears that AI undermines critical thinking, yet the same risks could apply to teachers who over-depend on automated lesson generation. The European Commission’s Digital Education Action Plan emphasizes transparency and fairness-aware algorithms, principles seemingly absent from current student-facing policies.
Bridging the AI Policy Gap to Create a Fairer Educational Future
The increased impact of AI in learning and teaching requires policies that consider both the opportunity and equity. At least giving students defined, visible channels to use AI to learn, with specific guidelines and practice in place, ought to be a goal when teachers can openly rely on AI as part of their work. The use of tools that fail to provide reliable detection leads to excessive consequences of finding fault with students and the emergence of mistrust. Instead of prohibiting AI altogether, the institutions can introduce it to the curriculum in terms of how to use AI responsibly and in a critically considered manner.
About The Author
