Education serves many roles in society. For some, such as the French sociologist Émile Durkheim, schooling imbues children with the skills necessary to be functioning members of society. For others, as with the majority in a 2016 Phi Delta Kappan (PDK) Poll on the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, schooling is perhaps more geared towards fostering academic prowess. However, regardless of the roles one ascribes to education, most will agree on one thing: what education looks like has changed tremendously over the years.

A century ago, students walked into schoolhouses filled with chalkboards and pencils on wooden desks. Five years ago, as a student myself, I walked into classrooms filled with whiteboards and Chromebook carts. And now, as a high school teacher, I find myself in classrooms that are unfamiliar to me. Classrooms are ridden with generative artificial intelligence (AI). Indeed, according to a recent study published by The College Board, about 84% of high school students are using AI as of May 2025. Yet, this surge in AI has unfortunately presented challenges which myself, and some of my other colleagues, were not ready for.

Instead of providing students with excessive homework, essays and projects to demonstrate their knowledge outside of class, perhaps we should hold students accountable to the time we do have with them. And let’s do it without AI. 

Indeed, one insidious consequence of AI is that it has problematized the task of grading. During my time at Stanford University, I read an insightful book called “Grading for Equity” (2018) by Joe Feldman. One of the core principles I learned was that classroom grading must be as accurate as possible. Accuracy includes completely removing any source of bias, such as instructor subjectivity or late work penalties. A strategy listed to promote accuracy was to create a system where grading is based solely on whether or not a student can apply a given set of skills. However, with AI now being merely a click away, this aspiration becomes jeopardized. Assessments once used to reflect a student’s mastery of given subject-matter content, such as homework, essays and projects, are now called into question as access to AI provides any student a means of masking their true grasp of material.

Ultimately, as a first year teacher, AI sews doubt into the validity of any student work I receive that was completed outside of class. And this doubt, I’m afraid, is not isolated to one high school chemistry teacher in the Bay Area. This sentiment pervades every discipline at the high school I currently teach at and the reality simply represents a microcosm of how AI is souring the broader educational system of the United States. Indeed, according to a 2024 poll from the Pew Research Center, high school teachers are now amongst the most likely to view the use of AI in K-12 education negatively. Whether that disdain comes from skewing the accuracy of grades or curtailing the necessity of critical thinking, it is clear that there is a growing concern over the use of AI in student circles. So, what now?

Well, in light of this pervasive obstacle across the landscape of education, perhaps the best solution at this moment is regression.

In my chemistry classroom, there is little room for AI to skew your grade. While the basics remain in place, from rigorous activities to engaging worksheets to interactive simulations, AI remains absent in our formative and summative assessments. As students are spread out in class and given the space to apply their knowledge, all is done with nothing but their notes and their own mental faculties. While anxiety inducing at first, it ultimately provides students an “aha moment” where they realize that they can do this and they can do it well. And they can do it without AI.

Teachers across the country, whether they teach English, ethnic studies or chemistry, should instead maximize the instruction time they do have by filling every second with interactive and stimulating activities. And after these educational activities are over, when the teacher believes their pupils are ready, they should assess them in class. No Chromebooks. No AI. Just a pencil on a wooden desk, as it was a century ago. These will not only give students raw opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge, but also create an environment that is both conducive to grading accurately and critical thinking.

With increasing developments and expansion of generative artificial intelligence, the task of purging the classroom of AI may seem like a monumental task. However, if it is to preserve the integrity of education, perhaps it is a necessary one administrators, teachers, caregivers and students should be willing to fight for.

Gabe Nitro M.A. ‘25, a chemistry teacher in the Bay Area, holds a master’s degree in education from the Graduate School of Education (GSE).