Student Input Needed in Developing AI Regulations

Students across the United States are urging schools to involve them in shaping AI regulations that affect their learning. Many policies were created without student input, impacting creativity, academic integrity, and everyday use of AI tools in classrooms.

Three years ago, educational institutions swiftly adopted strict stances on artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Following the public release of ChatGPT, many schools enforced tight restrictions on AI-powered services, with educators perceiving these technologies as a significant threat to academic integrity. As is common when institutions face uncertainty, administrators responded by issuing clear prohibitions, directing students to comply with these guidelines. Although time has passed, these policies remain largely unchanged in many schools, often without revisiting or consulting those who are most directly impacted: the students themselves.

How AI Policies Were Introduced Without Student Participation

At a high school in Austin, Texas, a review of AI regulations showed that the administration developed the policies internally. There was no involvement of a student advisory group, nor were there any public discussions or surveys involving the broader school community. Instead, finalized guidelines were simply shared as official directives. This scenario is not isolated; across the United States, only two states—Ohio and Tennessee—require school districts to formally establish and publish AI policies. Even when such policies are in place, they are often created without structured input from all stakeholders, especially students. Proponents of centralized decision-making argue that students, being minors, may not be equipped to contribute meaningfully to policy formation. They maintain that not every policy can be shaped through committees or public consultation. However, AI regulations are different from routine curriculum adjustments, as they impact the tools students use for tasks such as research, drafting, editing written work, exploring complex academic ideas, and communicating their thoughts. Outside the classroom, similar technologies already influence the production and evaluation of knowledge, meaning that poorly designed policies could have significant, direct effects on students.

A Case Demonstrating the Impact of AI Detection Policies

The experience of Brittany Carr, a student and military veteran at Liberty University, highlights the real-world consequences of AI detection policies. In early 2023, three of her assignments were flagged by an AI detection system. Despite providing revision histories and clarifying that her essays included personal reflections on her cancer diagnosis, depression, and recovery, the issue was not resolved. Fearing that a second accusation might jeopardize her financial aid, Carr began preemptively checking each of her assignments using AI detection tools. She rewrote any sentence that was flagged. Over time, she noticed that her writing style was becoming more simplified, less representative of her true voice. Eventually, she withdrew from the university. A report from NBC News revealed that similar cases have occurred across the country, with students deliberately altering their writing styles to evade detection algorithms by using simpler vocabulary, avoiding complex sentences, and minimizing stylistic variety. Such restrictions stifle the creative process, and in the case of assignments designed to help students develop an authentic voice, they discourage originality and experimentation.

Why Student Perspectives Could Improve AI Policy

While student involvement may not have entirely prevented the situation Carr faced, their participation could have shaped how these systems were applied. Students could have raised critical issues, such as the reliability of automated AI detection tools, the potential for false accusations without sufficient evidence, the academic pressure resulting from algorithm-driven enforcement, and the need for procedural safeguards before disciplinary actions are taken. In many schools, however, these policies were enforced before discussions with students could take place, or they never occurred at all.

Examples of Student-Led Participation

Some schools have adopted more inclusive approaches. In Los Altos, California, students played an active role in shaping the discourse surrounding AI in education. Their involvement went beyond merely attending meetings. Students organized workshops, facilitated discussions between younger students and administrators, and even developed an AI chatbot designed to assist other districts in drafting their own AI policies. A 2024 Harvard report found that many students want to be involved in decisions regarding AI's role in education. The study also noted that students often have a nuanced understanding of both the risks and potential benefits of these technologies.

The Reality of AI Use in Classrooms

In many academic settings, students are already using AI tools to enhance their learning. In one high school, students frequently utilize large language models like ChatGPT and Claude to clarify complex topics, prepare for exams, and generate ideas. For instance, in an AP Physics C class, when students struggled to solve a problem about electrical circuits, one student turned to an AI assistant. After interacting with the tool for a few minutes, the class was able to grasp the concept and solve the problem together. Students also use AI tools in other subjects, such as compiling study notes for advanced math, reviewing concepts before tests, and learning programming syntax for academic projects. According to a Pew Research Center survey, 54 percent of U.S. teenagers use AI chatbots for school tasks, with research and brainstorming being the most common applications, rather than simply copying answers. Despite the growing prevalence of AI tools, many schools continue to impose broad restrictions, forcing students to use these tools informally, while official policies often overlook how they are actually being used in educational settings.

Why Students Should Be Part of the Conversation

Students who regularly engage with AI technologies possess invaluable firsthand knowledge of how these tools function within educational contexts. Their experiences can offer insights that policymakers might lack. Since AI policies have a direct impact on academic performance and future opportunities, excluding students from policy discussions raises significant concerns about fairness and representation. If educational institutions are committed to preparing students for active participation in democratic societies, this principle should extend to the creation of policies that affect their education. The central question now is whether students will remain passive subjects of policy decisions or whether they will become active participants in shaping them.

Sources:

• EdSurge
• The Chronicle of Higher Education
• NBC News
• Opinion: When It Comes to Developing AI Rules, Who Asked the Students?

Author: Ava Mitchell
Ava Mitchell is a journalist covering culture, art, and literature. She is known for her creative approach and ability to produce in-depth features and interviews.