A familiar summer ritual for students at Townsend Harris High School in Flushing, New York, has been fundamentally altered this year — not by a new book, but by a new technology: artificial intelligence, Ryan Chen reports in the student newspaper.
In the past, students would read a book and write a report to submit upon returning to school in the fall. This year, English teachers decided that while the reading would still take place over the summer, the writing would have to be completed as a handwritten, in-class assignment during the first weeks of school.
The change reflects growing concerns over students’ use of AI to complete homework assignments, particularly those that involve extensive writing.
“We as a department discussed this and thought that an in-class assignment will work much better as a diagnostic,” English teacher Brian Sweeney told Ryan. “Beyond giving students something to read over the summer, the point of summer reading is to get to know new students as writers and thinkers. We’ve noticed too much use of artificial intelligence in the past and think in-class writing will allow for a more authentic representation of student thinking.”
Some students say they’d prefer to type, even during class time, while others worry that completing the assignment in a single period is stressful.
“I prefer for the assignment to be done at home due to time management,” one student said. “This brings a problem to people who struggle with writing at a faster pace.”
This situation is far from an anomaly; it’s part of a wider response to a technological shift that challenges traditional education models. Increasingly, educators are moving major writing assignments and assessments into supervised settings. These include in-class essays with no Wi-Fi access, oral exams, and project-based tasks that require students to explain their process. Such approaches, like the one at Townsend Harris, make it significantly harder for students to rely on AI to generate their final product.
Teachers are also rethinking the kinds of assignments they give, designing them to be more “AI-resistant.” These might involve:
- Personal reflection: Connecting the material to students’ individual experiences or opinions.
- Process-oriented work: Submitting drafts, research logs, or journals to show progress over time.
- Primary research: Conducting interviews, surveys, or experiments that AI cannot replicate.
A major reason for these changes is the recognition that AI detection tools are unreliable. Studies, including those from major AI developers like OpenAI, have shown that these detectors can incorrectly flag human-written text as AI-generated and can be easily bypassed by savvy students. As a result, many educators believe redesigning assignments is a more effective and fair solution than relying on flawed detection technology.
Educational institutions and organizations are beginning to respond with new policies and guidance on AI use. The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, has issued policy statements aimed at empowering educators to shape how AI is integrated into schools. Districts have also updated their “academic integrity” policies to specifically address AI, clarifying when and how it can be used.
An EdWeek Research Center survey conducted in spring 2023 found that more than 40 percent of educators said students should complete math work using pencil and paper to prevent cheating with AI-powered tools. Reports from students also confirm that AI use is widespread and inconsistently addressed, with some teachers banning it outright while others never mention it — a “gray zone” that has prompted proactive changes in classrooms like those at Townsend Harris.
The move is part of a broader conversation about the role of technology in students’ lives. Alongside New York’s recent decision to ban cellphones during school hours, it reflects growing unease about how digital tools — from AI writing assistants to constant social media access — are reshaping education. Supporters of these measures argue that they protect academic integrity, reduce distractions, and safeguard students’ ability to think critically and independently.
Critics, however, caution that such restrictions may go too far. They argue that banning or limiting technology doesn’t teach students how to use it responsibly, an increasingly important skill in both higher education and the workplace. Some worry these moves could make schools feel more restrictive, prioritizing control over preparing students for a technology-driven world.
Ultimately, both the assignment changes and the cellphone ban underscore a tension many schools are grappling with: how to balance the advantages of technology — such as access to information, new tools for creativity, and communication — with the risks of over-reliance, distraction, and academic dishonesty. As technology continues to advance, educators and policymakers may find themselves repeatedly adjusting the rules to maintain that balance.
