Governing in an AI Environment: Students Offer Experience-Based Perspectives

By Gary Fasules

Part 3 in a Series

School boards across Illinois are increasingly sharing a common commitment: Ensuring that the student voice has a seat at the table in governance. Districts that wel­come students into the governance process as partners, advisors, and thought leaders have gained invalu­able perspectives that strengthen decision-making and school cli­mate, while also gaining insight into their concerns.

However, it remains common for school boards to make decisions that profoundly shape the student experience, often without students’ perspectives or with them filtered through adult lenses, especially when it comes to technology and AI use in school environments.

A refrain among students speak­ing about the decisions made on their behalf is, “Nothing about us without us.”

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more deeply embedded in daily life, school boards are grappling with new and complex questions about how AI should be used in classrooms and how to guide students in its responsible use. Adult conversations about AI often focus on preventing misuse, particularly cheating, plagiarism, or over-reliance on AI-generated answers. These concerns are valid and central to the board’s role in safeguarding academic integrity.

However, districts are devel­oping AI policies at very different rates, leaving many students and teachers uncertain about what constitutes appropriate AI use in schools. National surveys show that approximately 80% of middle and high school students have used AI for school-related work, making the question no longer whether students will use AI, but how schools will teach and govern its responsible use.

Yet when IASB convened stu­dent leaders for the Student Board Member Leadership Summit in November 2025, the students offered a more experience-based perspective, one that balanced ethi­cal awareness with a practical vision of how AI can enhance their learn­ing. Their insights revealed not only a deeper understanding of AI’s benefits and risks but also a sharp sensitivity to double standards that arise when adults use AI while restricting student access.

During the summit, participat­ing students from across Illinois demonstrated a mature under­standing of the ethical dimensions of AI. They clearly distinguished between ethical uses, such as seek­ing concept explanations, generat­ing practice problems, obtaining writing feedback, or asking AI to clarify material, and unethical uses, such as submitting AI-gener­ated work as one’s own, bypassing critical thinking, or using AI to complete tasks intended to measure individual mastery. Students stat­ed that they view AI as additional learning support, particularly when they encounter challenging content or when they feel hesitant to ask questions in front of their peers. They agreed that school boards must address unethical uses but argued that ethics-driven instruc­tion is far more effective than puni­tive restrictions.

The message was clear: “Teach us the difference between ethical and unethical AI use — don’t just assume we will misuse it.”

Their request for guidance rather than restrictions mirrors what students are expressing nationwide. The Stanford Univer­sity AI Index Report (2026) found that only about half of middle and high schools currently have AI policies. Even where policies exist, only about one-third of students describe them as very clear, while nearly half report being uncertain whether AI is permitted for school­work. These findings reinforce what our student leaders empha­sized: Students are not asking for fewer expectations; they are asking for clearer ones.

A concern raised by students was the presence of double stan­dards within schools. They have observed increased teacher use of AI for lesson planning, drafting communications, or generating questions, while restricting students from using AI even in contexts that support learning rather than replace it. They expressed confusion when AI is treated as an acceptable tool for adults but as inherently suspi­cious for students. They recom­mended that boards adopt policies that reflect fairness, transparency, and consistency for all members of the learning community (students and adults), making everyone accountable to the same principles of responsible use.

This theme echoed strongly in a separate Student Summit dis­cussion on cell phone use. While unrelated to AI on the surface, the underlying governance challenge was identical. Students reported that adults are permitted to use their own phones during the school day, including in instructional settings, even as students are dis­ciplined for similar behavior. This inconsistency, they said, under­mines student confidence in school policies and makes enforcement feel discretionary rather than princi­pled. The connection to AI became unmistakable when adults’ accept­able behavior contradicted the students’ expectations. When this happens, the students view policies as unfair or selectively applied.

According to today’s students, “If teachers can use AI in their work, students need clear, fair rules for how we can use it in ours.”

The student discussion included recommendations on when and where AI should be permitted. They advocated for AI access during homework, studying, independent practice, and assign­ments designed for exploration or skill-building. They noted that AI can provide immediate feedback and explanations, functions that support learning rather than replace it. They also agreed that AI should be restricted during exercises that assess individual understanding or during assignments where the learning objective must be the student’s original ideas or analysis. They recommended that adults explicitly define expectations at the start of each unit or assignment.

Another recommendation was a structured “traffic light” model for AI use, offering a straightforward framework that balances student clarity with teacher expectations. This “traffic light” would work as follows:

This, students argue, enables responsible learning while preserv­ing academic integrity.

The students’ recommendations also align with broader national trends. According to the Stanford University AI Index Report (2026), a majority of students believe schools should teach them to use AI responsibly rather than simply restrict its use. That perspective reinforces what our student leaders advocated throughout the summit: Ethical AI use is best developed through instruction, transparency, and clearly communicated expecta­tions — not through uncertainty or blanket prohibition.

Today’s students say, “Show us where AI is appropriate, where it’s limited, and where it’s not allowed — don’t leave it up to guesswork.”

Students also highlighted the equity implications of thoughtful AI policy. For students who strug­gle to ask for help or benefit from hearing information in multiple ways, AI can supplement teacher instruction. They cautioned that entirely restricting AI could inad­vertently widen learning gaps. Students acknowledged legitimate concerns about inaccuracies or misinformation produced by AI but saw these concerns as oppor­tunities to teach digital literacy rather than grounds for prohibi­tion. They believe that students must learn to evaluate AI outputs critically, just as they are taught to evaluate information from any other digital source.

Their thoughts reinforced an important governance truth: Poli­cies are most effective when shaped by those directly affected.

For school boards, the path forward is not a choice between caution and innovation. While states and the federal government continue to develop guidance for AI in education, much of the responsi­bility for implementation rests with local school districts and their gov­erning boards. That reality makes student participation especially important. Policies are far more likely to be practical, understood, and embraced when informed by the experiences of the students who will live with them every day.

Incorporating student voice will not diminish board authority; rather, it strengthens governance by producing policies that are more practical and equitable, and more likely to be understood and followed by the students they are intended to serve. This enriches decision-making and strengthens policy implementation. By engag­ing students, the board will ensure that governance and policies reflect not only the concerns of adults but also the realities of those learning in today’s classrooms.

As AI continues to transform the educational landscape, Illinois school boards have an opportunity to lead. The students at the Sum­mit have shown they understand ethical boundaries, recognize AI’s instructional potential, and are eager to develop responsible habits that will serve them well beyond high school. Their voices offer a roadmap for balanced, thoughtful policy — one that treats AI neither as a threat nor a shortcut, but as a tool to be understood, guided, and used responsibly.

At IASB, we advocate for stu­dent leaders. The organization has written, “At the school board level, when youth representation is inten­tional and supported, school boards benefit from student members’ point of view, creative thinking, inquiring natures, and open-mind­edness.” This was evident at the Joint Annual Conference Student Board Member Leadership Summit in November 2025. If your board does not have a student leader, we encourage you to consider one by first downloading our brochure, “Bring Student Representatives to the School Board Table,” from our website, which will take you through the process of appointing a student leader.

Gary Fasules is Director of Outreach & Training with IASB. He works with districts statewide on training initiatives and building customer engagement programs. This is the third in a multi-part series by Fasules connecting school board members with the world of artificial intelligence.

Read the series:

Part 1: Governing in an AI Environment: Responsible AI Use in School Board Governance
Part 2: Governing in an AI Environment: Where Boards Must Draw the Line and How They Govern Responsibly
Part 3: Governing in an AI Environment: Students Offer Experience-Based Perspectives