Only donate if we've informed you about important Michigan issues
See what new members are saying about why they donated to Bridge Michigan:
- “In order for this information to be accurate and unbiased it must be underwritten by its readers, not by special interests.” - Larry S.
- “Not many other media sources report on the topics Bridge does.” - Susan B.
- “Your journalism is outstanding and rare these days.” - Mark S.
If you want to ensure the future of nonpartisan, nonprofit Michigan journalism, please become a member today. You, too, will be asked why you donated and maybe we'll feature your quote next time!
Opinion | Michigan schools need better AI rules, not blanket bans
Share this:
A student sits at his desk, laptop and assignment open, trying to finish his homework before his attention disappears entirely. ChatGPT and Claude are a few clicks away, ready to answer before the student has started to think. Adults ask whether this counts as “cheating.” But the student’s thoughts are more unsettling: can we still produce the first thought ourselves before the machine provides one?
As Michigan schools write rules for AI, the main question is not whether students will use AI. The question is whether they can use it without losing the ability to think independently. Not freedom from technology, because that is neither enforceable nor practical; freedom from needing technology to produce the first version of every thought. The educational problem is not that AI can help with essays; it is that students have learned to submit work that they cannot explain or defend.
This debate is already shaping student behavior. In a 2026 Common Sense Media survey of 1,204 children ages 9 to 17, 86% had used or interacted with AI, with almost a quarter using it daily. Among those users, 85% said they used it for schoolwork or homework.
AI is not a policy issue for the future or something waiting politely outside the classroom. AI is already in classrooms, browsers, phones and Google searches. Pretending otherwise prioritizes administrative comfort, not educational strategy.
That question is particularly timely in Michigan. In May, the Michigan Department of Education released guidance calling on districts to build AI literacy, maintain human oversight, promote equity and establish clear guardrails.
As a Michigan high school student, I do not experience AI as a debate topic; I experience it as a daily choice.
Blanket bans sound appealing, and if a school tells students not to use AI, the problem appears solved. This solution feels similar to putting a “Do Not Enter” sign on the internet, but students can use home Wi-Fi, browser extensions, VPNs, or AI searches.
Bans reward students who are better at hiding AI use, while still not teaching appropriate use. Vague permissions such as “use AI responsibly” are about as specific as “be careful.” Students need real distinctions: brainstorming versus ghostwriting and debugging versus creating from scratch.
The parts of learning AI removes most easily are the parts we need to protect most. Poor first attempts and confusion are not inefficiencies, but the mechanism of learning. Removing these failures too early is like removing weights from the gym and pretending that you are stronger. A 2026 Stanford review shows that research is growing quickly on this topic, but strong causal evidence is still not common. Performance can improve if AI is available, but schools should be more cautious about confusing better outputs with deeper learning.
Schools do not need a perfect AI policy, but they need a usable one.
First, require an AI-free first attempt: a thesis, outline, solution path or terrible first paragraph. Bad starts are proof of thinking, not embarrassment.
Second, require simple disclosure logs: tool used, prompt asked, output accepted or rejected, and changes made. Documentation should be made normal, not a confession.
Third, stop treating AI detectors as complete proof of ownership. Oral defenses, explanations and discussions, not whether a detector lights up, can demonstrate whether learning happened.
Bans risk making AI literacy another hidden advantage. Across Michigan, this matters because students do not have equal access to paid AI tools, tech-fluent adults, tutors or informal guidance.
Schools should teach a more modern independence: knowing when AI helps or when a shortcut empties the work. Teaching students how to face a blank page with AI available, but not in charge, is what Michigan schools need to teach now.
Related
Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission. If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, email your submission or idea to guestcommentary@bridgemi.com. Click here for details and submission guidelines.