Some educators are responding to artificial intelligence (AI) by retreating to “safe” strategies, such as requiring all writing to be done by hand on paper. That move may feel like a responsible guardrail, but it is neither responsible nor future-facing. It also has real equity consequences. It disadvantages students with disabilities and learning differences who rely on assistive technology, as well as multilingual learners who may need translation, vocabulary support, or language scaffolds to fully express what they know. If the goal is authentic student thinking, removing tools that increase access does not protect learning. It restricts it.
Responsible use of AI in schools does not begin with tools. It begins with clarity.
Before students ever open an AI-powered app, innovative educators ask a foundational question: What is the learning goal? From there, decisions about whether, when, and how students use AI become far more intentional and far less controversial.
This goal-driven approach is something strong teachers have been modeling long before AI entered classrooms. The difference now is that AI gives educators new opportunities to personalize feedback, extend creativity, and support learning.
Writing First. AI Second.
Imagine a teacher who is explicit with students about the purpose of their learning and how technology fits into it.
If the goal is for students to learn and gain experience in how to write an “About Me” story, including understanding structure, voice, and clarity, then AI is not part of the initial drafting process. Students begin by writing on their own because the skill they are developing is writing. They also end up with a class set of stories that helps classmates get to know each other better, which is part of the purpose, too.
Once that learning goal is met, AI becomes a support rather than a shortcut.
Students can paste their completed drafts into an AI tool and ask targeted questions such as:
- Are there places in which the story is unclear?
- What questions does a reader still have?
- Is anything missing that would help a reader understand me better?
- Are there grammar or structural issues I should fix?
At this stage, AI functions like a personalized writing tutor, offering feedback that helps students revise with intention. From there, students might push their work further by asking AI to help them transform the story into a poem, a song, or another format. This is not about replacing student thinking. It is about extending student work.
This mirrors what I outlined in The New Writing Process in the Age of AI, in which writing is no longer a single linear act but a cycle of drafting, feedback, revision, and reimagining. AI does not replace writing. It expands what happens with the students and their work.
The key is transparency. Students understand why AI is being used and why it was intentionally excluded earlier in the process.
Math, Struggle, and Support
The same principle applies outside of writing.
In math, the learning goal is often reasoning, not simply arriving at an answer. Students need space to wrestle with problems, test strategies, and make mistakes. AI should not short-circuit that productive struggle.
This is where tools such as Khanmigo can play a valuable role when used correctly. Students attempt a problem first. Only after that initial effort do they turn to AI for guidance.
Instead of giving answers, AI can ask probing questions, explain alternative approaches, or help students identify where their thinking went off track. Used this way, AI functions as a tutor, not a solution engine.
Again, the distinction matters. The learning goal drives the use of the tool, not the other way around.
Across subjects, what separates responsible AI use from misuse is not the sophistication of the technology, it is the conversation educators have with students.
Students become far more thoughtful users of the technology when they understand:
- What they are learning
- Why they are learning it
- How AI can support that learning without replacing it
This approach pushes back on the simplistic narrative that AI is something schools must either ban or blindly adopt. When educators design learning intentionally, AI becomes another tool students learn to use with judgment, purpose, and creativity.
The question is not whether students will use AI–they already are.
The real question is whether schools will help students understand when it strengthens learning and when it gets in the way.