AI governance — a practical view from a writing classroom

Artificial intelligence has upended the writing classroom.

Four years ago, Stephen Marche was bold enough to state that the classic college essay was dead. He was absolutely right at the time. 

AI appeared on the scene as a force most educators were unable to contend with and unable to counter for the sake of academic integrity.  

A disruptor. A beacon of the future. A new modality by which all learning would be reshaped. AI was maybe even going to replace the whole university system as we knew it. 

This all still may be true, but we are now four years down the road — how has the writing classroom responded?

No one is coming to help

It is easy to get swept up in the hype or fear-mongering of AI. I will admit, I have been on both sides of this moment, writing arguments about the doom and gloom of an AI future.

However, as I drafted and advanced these arguments, I failed to see the disturbing reality that was evolving right under my nose as a writing teacher. What is more, I was shocked by how student academic well-being was actively being disregarded in the face of the most disruptive educational innovation since the pencil. 

As more and more of my students turned to AI to escape the productive struggle of writing, I looked for guidance to meet this moment and preserve the intellectual fruits of writing. 

I found many people like myself — long on theoretical concerns and short on practical in-class solutions. 

The AI governance strategies I found were overfit for private sector business development or international government compliance. 

At the federal regulatory level, I observed little, if any, worry about how AI could impact young minds. Washington, D.C., appeared pacified by a “morally binding” pledge from the current AI giants. 

At the state level, New Hampshire has promoted a framework written by the New Hampshire Learning Initiative.

While these frameworks guide districts through AI policy adoption, they offer little practical advice for managing the unprecedented intellectual challenges AI poses in the classroom.

Some New Hampshire schools have adopted these frameworks along with locally developed policies. Others remain strategically ambiguous about their approach to AI in the classroom — waiting for guidance from above to indemnify them against the legal morass AI has created. 

Maybe I was looking in all the wrong places for practical, in-class solutions. After all, answers to my concerns might lie outside of the legal and institutional purview of the places I sought them. 

In that moment, I realized no one was coming to help our most vulnerable minds in their greatest hour of need. The intellectual fruits of writing would be allowed to spoil for an entire generation. 

If I wanted AI governance in the classroom, I had to bring it in myself.

AI governance in the classroom

To counter students using AI to write essays for them, many schools have returned to pencil-and-paper process writing. I have done this myself and find it to be a useful tool.

However, districts will continue to push one-to-one device use, while teachers will continue to be pressured to accelerate curriculum to meet various “data-driven” education mandates.

Consequently, writing assignments will continue to be present on student devices, increasing the likelihood that students will turn to AI to do the work for them. 

Districts need practical AI governance frameworks that account for these realities.

The following are four in-class frameworks I have developed, along with a brief rationale behind each.

Framework 1: Establish an acceptable-use scale

Districts must develop acceptable-use scales that outline the levels of AI assistance permitted for a given assignment. Establishing these expectations in advance provides educators and students with a clear understanding of what is allowed and what is not. It also helps districts navigate the legal and accountability questions surrounding AI transparency. 

Framework 2: Require all digital writing assignments to be completed on school-assigned devices

School-issued devices typically offer native controls that can restrict access to AI applications and websites. While these restrictions can help prevent inappropriate AI use, they also have a significant blind spot that many districts may not fully recognize. On Chromebooks, Gemini cannot be turned off, and the same is true for Copilot on Microsoft devices. Districts cannot assume that issuing a managed device automatically eliminates access to AI.

Framework 3: Require all digital writing assignments to be completed at school during school hours

When school-issued devices operate on school networks, an additional layer of administrative controls can help restrict inappropriate AI access. Requiring students to complete digital writing assignments during school hours also reduces their ability to rely on AI through personal devices on home networks. Just as importantly, completing assignments in class allows educators to observe the writing process as it unfolds, rather than relying solely on a finished product to determine what a student understands and can do independently.

Framework 4: Utilize keystroke recorders to review student writing

Traditional plagiarism detection and AI-detection tools are increasingly unreliable in today’s digital writing environment. Rather than relying on a software-generated probability that a student used AI, educators should consider tools that record the development of a digital document. Reviewing a document’s revision history or keystroke playback can help educators distinguish between writing developed over time and text introduced all at once through copying and pasting.

This approach is not foolproof. Students can use AI-powered humanizers to make text appear as though it was typed naturally. Keystroke recording should therefore be treated as one source of evidence, not definitive proof of misconduct. 

Essays are not dead

I have not implemented these frameworks to catch students cheating. Rather, I have developed them to preserve the productive struggle of writing, a process that is essential to the intellectual growth of young minds.

Generation Z and Generation Alpha have grown up in an information environment that prioritizes instant gratification and offers endless opportunities for intellectual escapism from the friction of reality. School districts must recognize this reality and prevent these learned behaviors from dictating whether the classic essay remains a part of education.

Districts must choose to come to the aid of our most vulnerable minds. Without practical, in-class AI governance frameworks, we risk allowing the classic essay to die. Along with it, we risk losing the intellectual benefits that the struggle of writing provides to young minds.