Over the last three years, the use of artificial intelligence within schools has skyrocketed. With Stanford University reporting in the “Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2025” that 86% of students across all levels of education use AI regularly, it makes sense that educators are wary of AI use in the classroom. While Poly has taken valuable measures to ensure that students gain the necessary skills for independent learning and that teachers are prepared to adapt their classrooms to an ever-changing future, there are clear gaps in how we approach AI. Looking ahead, Poly must move beyond vague, teacher-by-teacher guidelines and take deliberate action to make AI literacy a cornerstone of our academic identity while prioritizing student perspectives and voices.
Right now, Poly teachers have drastically different views about AI and often enforce contradictory standards. When I was a sophomore in English II class, Upper School English Teacher Laura Holmgren had us experiment with creating AI prompts to gain feedback. We then critically evaluated ChatGPT’s suggested revisions to our already-written drafts. By using AI as a lens for learning rather than a crutch, we learned about the limitations of AI suggestions and gained analytical skills. On the other hand, I’ve also had teachers who actively lambaste AI usage and warn that any use of it constitutes academic dishonesty. This disparity is confusing: in some classes, I’m encouraged to use tools like ChatGPT or Claude as a supplement to my learning, while in others, just mentioning AI feels like I’m risking my reputation as a student.
Currently, teachers reserve the right to determine appropriate AI use in their classrooms. That flexibility has real value because it allows teachers to adapt as the technology evolves, but at the same time, it produces inconsistency that leaves students unsure about what the actual rules are, especially when discrepancies are present within departments. Upper School English Teacher Elsie Dang noted, It’s hard to standardize policies when the personal philosophies [relating to AI and grading] of teachers differ.”
Hearing this, I understand that a sweeping policy would be impossible to implement. We can’t force teachers to shift their viewpoints about AI or enforce the same guidelines across disciplines. But philosophical diversity among teachers should not come at the cost of clarity or equity for students. When students in the same grade, studying the same subject, receive fundamentally different messages about AI, they graduate with unequal experience levels in using and analyzing AI systems based on arbitrary factors like which teacher they learned from or what class they enrolled in.
One concrete solution is a mandatory AI literacy class, where students can learn to write effective prompts, streamline research, or use AI as a tutor in order to engage with it as a tool for creativity and thinking rather than a shortcut. Poly has instituted a similar approach to technology-oriented instruction with the now-discontinued ELF (Electronic Learning Fundamentals) class, although it didn’t include AI in its curriculum An AI-centered class could be revised and rebooted to give students a sandbox for exploring emerging technology without disrupting the existing curriculum. Alternatively, cross-departmental faculty discussions could produce shared frameworks for integrating AI into lesson plans. The groundwork for that is already being laid. Upper School Media & Educational Technology Specialist Karen Barton shared, “I have worked pretty extensively this year to see where we can integrate AI literacy into the curriculum, though there are some factors that affect this. Still, in the college counseling class, I was successful in getting students to use AI in a positive way by using it for some basic college research. I also developed lessons for other classes that might be coming next year.”
While these efforts are promising, they cannot replace institutional commitment. As an academic institution that strives to maintain credibility and relevance, Poly teachers, students, and administrators must engage in discussion regarding our future visions for the integration of AI into classes. Students have year-long human development classes regarding topics like gender and sexuality. In biology we learn about how drugs and alcohol stimulate regions of the brain to learn about addiction. Though English and history discussions, we spend hours discussing contemporary political, economic, and technological issues. If these topics have been deemed important enough for our future development to necessitate hours of instruction, shouldn’t AI be taken just as seriously?
“AI 2027,” a report released by computer science and AI experts in April 2025, is an evidence-based prediction of how AI will shape the future. The report predicts that within a few years, there will be a digital workforce “equivalent to 50,000 copies of the best human coder sped up by 30x.” A World Economic Forum report stated that 40% of employers expect to reduce their workforce as skills become irrelevant. And the fear is palpable: when I attended my sister’s graduation at USC, the student commencement speaker expressed his trepidation entering an increasingly volatile job market despite reaching the peaks of academic success. As a rising senior looking ahead towards college, I realize that many skills currently valued could become irrelevant within just a few years. AI can already write analytical papers, historical reports, and analyze scientific data. And it’s only going to get better.
These trends are exactly why discourse on AI between faculty, administration, and, more importantly, students, is critical. With employers demanding AI literacy, Poly must balance two interests: equipping students with the knowledge to use AI to enhance productivity and workflow, and ensuring that students have critical thinking skills.
The biggest objection to integrating AI more broadly into the curriculum is pretty simple: cheating. Upper School Director Jose Melgoza noted, “I think what AI has done is democratized access to high-quality academic dishonesty and plagiarism, which has always existed at highly competitive schools. And we’re not immune to it here at Poly.”
Concerns about dishonesty are valid, but I don’t think cheating is unique to AI. Just as calculators and the internet required new academic norms, AI calls for updated frameworks rather than outright rejection.
Also, many Poly students – like their teachers – recognize the dangers of offloading seemingly mundane tasks. Junior Olivia Rivera-Vasquez shared, “I think AI can be useful, but it can become a crutch and can infringe upon students’ ability to think critically and in the moment because so many people will just turn to ChatGPT when they’re in high-pressure situations.”
The tension between utility and dependence is something students and faculty are grappling with. Dang emphasized, “There’s a lot of research proving that the more we outsource tasks, the less we think, and considering that the humanities are all about thinking and risk-taking, it can be antithetical to use AI.”
While teachers can provide guidance for students on responsible AI use, students offer a unique perspective into how AI should be regulated because they’re experiencing the pressures that make misuse so tempting in the first place.
Education about AI should be the first step to inform students of the detrimental risks that overuse creates. How can students make informed, ethical decisions without clear instruction? Additionally, students should be exposed to new platforms not only to study the characteristics of effective prompt generation but also to approach the use of these tools with a critical lens. AI has genuine educational potential that current policy leaves largely untapped. From foreign languages to math, AI can serve as a tutor, walking students through concepts at their own pace. I’ve personally seen how effective AI programs like Claude can be to help prepare me for standardized tests like the SAT or APs. In Pasadena, where rates for tutors can be upwards of hundreds of dollars, being able to leverage AI is game-changing. Unless informed, students won’t be able to take advantage of powerful tools that can not only save money but also enrich their educational experiences.
That’s not to say that Poly is entirely neglecting AI education. It’s just that students often aren’t included. For example, members of the faculty have attended workshops to further their understanding. Dang shared her experience attending a workshop with other Upper School faculty hosted by educational consultant Eric Hudson. She said, “He made suggestions for AI-resistant activities and gave us a ‘Learning Design Assistant’ that presented a framework for teachers to test the susceptibility of AI for our assessments.”
There are also promises of future opportunities for continual education. Upper School Science Teacher Rachel Dunham shared, “We have professional development coming up next week,” referring to the faculty’s year-end meetings.
Faculty members have also had some discussions about AI during faculty meetings this year. Dunham said, “We’ve had meetings where, for instance, [Upper School Computer Science Teacher Richard White] presented on the differences between a chatbot, a large language model, and a gen-tech AI.” Other conversations centered around widespread cheating and the potential for the regression of critical thinking skills.
The conversations happening among educators are valuable, but limiting them to faculty spaces leaves students without guidance or a seat at the table. Students would benefit tremendously if they were given similar opportunities to learn about AI from experts or even contribute to roundtable discussions about policies. Any school-wide AI policy that claims to prepare students for their futures has to actively include them in the process.
Students in Gen Z and Alpha face uncertainty at a level our parents and teachers did not have to deal with when they were our age. We’re asked to prepare for a future without any clear blueprint: the career paths, communications norms, and even the basic skills that defined success for previous generations are being rewritten in real time. On top of that, even the adults who we’re supposed to be able to turn to don’t fully understand how to address pressing concerns. Melgoza said, “Finding a policy that is going to get it right, especially as this technology is evolving and we’re learning about it, is very, very difficult. It’s going to be messy for the next few years to come. But we shouldn’t be shying away from that challenge.”
The fact that the task of developing a comprehensive AI policy that can balance the interests of students with the goals of our teachers seems infeasible is exactly why policies must integrate student perspectives. Poly is headed in the right direction. Debates about what academic honesty means or the best methods to integrate AI without trading off the development of critical thinking skills are worth having, and they should keep happening. What I’m asking is simpler: bring students into the room. Let us shape the policies that will ultimately shape our future.
