Last Updated:
According to experts, students with strong fundamentals can use AI as a learning partner — challenging explanations, testing their reasoning and generating alternative questions.
Do schools and colleges need to assesses how much AI dependence is too much? (AI Image)
Generative AI has entered classrooms faster than education systems have been able to decide what to do with it. Schools and universities are now confronting a difficult question: should AI be banned, detected or simply incorporated into learning? However, some recent decisions across the world show just how divided the response is.
New York City has imposed a one-year moratorium on student-facing generative AI for public-school students from 2-K through Class 8. University of Chicago is moving some Social Sciences Core courses to an “analog” format, banning AI tools along with laptops and phones in those classes.
In India, Lucknow University has tightened its rules around AI use in PhD research, treating unacknowledged AI-generated content as plagiarism and imposing penalties depending on the extent of AI-generated or plagiarised material. As per the revised PhD rules, 10%-40% AI-generated content or plagiarism can be returned for revision, 40%-60% can result in a one-year bar on resubmission, and levels above 60% can lead to cancellation of PhD registration.
But these examples raise a bigger question: do schools and colleges need to assesses how much AI dependence is too much?
Dr Ted Mockrish, Head of School at Canadian International School, Bangalore, argues that neither unrestricted access nor a permanent ban offers a satisfactory answer. “Banning AI doesn’t get you anywhere, nor does unfettered access. However, until schools have clear, enforceable guidelines, then banning may not be a bad option. With that said, it’s not a permanent solution.”
He believes Mayor Mamdani and New York City’s education authorities are likely looking to curb unrestricted AI access first, followed by the creation of clear, practical guidelines to regulate its use among young people. “The truth is, unfettered access to technology in the hands of minors and even adults doesn’t lead to anything that is positive. It’s too susceptible to corruption. An example of this would be AI glasses that can be misused and even cause damage or harm and have real implications for child safeguarding,” he added.
Prof Raghuram Bharadwaj, Assistant Professor in the Department of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence at IIIT-Bangalore, says institutions should focus on what students are actually expected to learn. “There is a fundamental difference between AI doing the thinking and AI helping communicate or execute ideas that the student has already developed. If AI is generating the arguments, analysis or reasoning that the student is expected to develop, then it is replacing the learning. But using AI for grammar, presentation or other forms of assistance is different. The key question universities should ask is: did AI do the part of the work that the student was supposed to learn?” said Prof Bharadwaj.
Is Reducing AI Dependence The Way Forward?
Karan Gupta, Co-founder of AssessPrep, argues that the technology is now too embedded in students’ lives for blanket prohibition to be a realistic long-term strategy. “ChatGPT only went public in November 2022, and Common Sense Media’s survey this year already found 86% of children aged nine to seventeen using AI. So banning it isn’t really an option. What matters is keeping a human in the loop, where AI does the heavy lifting and the teacher still looks at the work and makes the call.”
He further added that in case of India, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be the answer. Instead, schools could focus on teaching AI ethics, give teachers the flexibility to decide when AI is appropriate, and require students to disclose when they have used it. But for this to work, schools also need a system that makes such disclosure meaningful and visible.
Santanu Mishra, Co-founder of Smile Foundation, makes a similar distinction between using AI and depending on it. “The real concern is not that children will use AI, but that they will stop asking questions because the technology has already provided an answer. Younger students need age-appropriate, teacher-guided exposure. They should learn to question AI, verify what it tells them and understand that AI can be confidently wrong. The distinction we need to make is between learning about AI, learning with AI and depending on AI.”
Can AI Actually Strengthen Critical Thinking?
Used properly, AI could even strengthen critical thinking rather than weaken it. Bharadwaj says students with strong fundamentals can use AI as a brainstorming and learning partner — challenging explanations, testing their reasoning and generating alternative questions.
“The challenge for education, therefore, is not to keep AI away from students, but to make sure students are sufficiently well-educated to challenge the AI. You cannot critically evaluate an answer if you do not understand the subject well enough to recognise when that answer is wrong.”
For Bharadwaj, universities should prepare students to learn, adapt and contribute to problems they have not encountered before. “When they leave the university, they are not merely good at producing answers. They should be able to ask the right questions, solve unfamiliar problems, think critically and continue learning when the world changes.”
UNESCO’s AI Competency Framework for Students offers a useful model, structuring AI learning around three stages — understanding, applying and creating — while integrating critical judgement and ethical awareness throughout, explains Mishra. “The important question is not whether AI appears in an assignment, but whether the student remains intellectually responsible for the work,” he added.
Quick Answers
Ask News18Lucknow University has updated its PhD rules, treating unacknowledged AI-generated content as plagiarism. Penalties range from revision for 10-40% AI content, a one-year resubmission bar for 40-60%, and PhD registration cancellation for over 60% AI-generated or plagiarized material.
Ask News18About the Author
Sukanya Nandy is a sub-editor at News18.com. She has been writing and reporting for the education and careers section of the website since 2021. She completed her graduation in English followed PG in …Read More
September 10, 2026, 2:27 pm IST
Read More
Source link
[ad_3]
