If that is the goal of a specific task, be explicit about that. From my personal experience, it's just what old teachers say because they can't deal with the new reality. The teachers who incorporated AI and other tech into their lessons are much more successful and better rated - by parents as well as children, and the final exams too.
They were explicit about that! There was an AI policy that the student knew about and blatantly ignored. I am not sure how much more did you want.
Here is a relevant quote from the TFA:
> Although students were permitted to use AI to brainstorm topics and identify sources, in this instance the students had indiscriminately copied and pasted text from the AI application, including citations to nonexistent books (i.e., AI hallucinations).
(And re better rating: sadly making classes less useful usually improves the rating. I sure if there was a class where they were just watching cartoons, with super-simple quizzes at the end that everyone could answer, it'd have highest ratings from most students, as well as high ratings from many parents, and best scores on finals. Now, it might not work that hot in real world, but by that time the school would be long over...)
The problem is that the school simply didn't teach them about the tool enough, and they taking something that should be just another lesson as disciplinary action.
Why do you expect children to know math only after months of tries, but understand the perils of AI after hearing one sentence regulation? That's not going to help the kids. You need to spend time practicing using the tool with them, showing them the pitfalls in practice, and only after enough time you can start rating them.
The school handed them a gun and they're Pikachu surprised a kid got shot, and now they're blaming it on the kid that had it in hands - but the school is to blame. And it's certainly not newsworthy, or where is the math exam results article?
> they taking something that should be just another lesson as disciplinary action.
Remember the "disciplinary action" here is giving the student a bad grade, with the opportunity to redo the assignment.
Are you seriously asserting they should've gotten a good grade for a paper that cites sources that don't exist? In an advanced placement class no less?
If anything they're getting of lighter than students who did a bad job on their own without using AI. I know I was never given a chance to redo a paper I phoned in.
I know my paper was never in the national news.
Did your parents sue over it? It's not like the school went running to the media.
Why do you think that it’s in the national news!? Can you please re-state your actual view because I’m really not sure of it anymore.
Something that can be read 10k kilometers away from the school by people who never met the kid.
The students are not expected to understand the perils of AI, they are expected to follow the policies the teacher gave them. And the policies were very clear: they can use AI for inspiration and web search, but they cannot use it to write text to be submitted.
What you are describing might make sense for "ChatGPT class", but that wasn't it, that was AP History.
(And that's how schools work in general: in real life, no one integrates matrixes by hand; and yet calculus classes do not teach CAS systems or their perils)
The current trend in education is to blend subjects and methods together and create cohesive interdisciplinary lessons practicing multiple skills at once. "ChatGPT lesson" is the 19th century way.