Teachers are divided. Some see AI as a legitimate learning tool; others worry about academic integrity. We hear from both sides and outline a practical middle-ground approach.
Few questions divide English language teachers more sharply right now than this one: should students be allowed — or even encouraged — to use AI for their homework? The debate cuts across every level of the profession, from primary school teachers to university lecturers, and there are no easy answers.
Those who support student AI use argue that it reflects the real world. In most professional environments, AI assistance is not only permitted — it's expected. Preparing students to work effectively with these tools is part of preparing them for life after education. They also argue that a student who uses AI to get a first draft and then revises and personalises it is still engaging meaningfully with the language.
Those who oppose it — or who support tighter restrictions — make an equally compelling case. Language learning is fundamentally about building internal competence: the ability to produce and process language in real time, without assistance. If students outsource the production of language to a machine, they may pass their homework but fail to develop the underlying skills that actually matter. "My job isn't to get students to produce a correct piece of writing," said one teacher. "My job is to develop the cognitive and linguistic processes that make them capable writers."
A practical middle ground is emerging in many institutions. Teachers are redesigning homework to focus on process rather than product — asking students to submit AI drafts alongside their own revisions, or to annotate AI output explaining what they changed and why. Others are moving high-stakes writing back into the classroom, where AI use is not possible, while keeping homework as a lower-stakes space for exploration.
Whatever position schools take, transparency is essential. Students need to know clearly what is and isn't permitted — and teachers need to be able to have honest, non-punitive conversations about how these tools are being used.
