As a new academic year begins, educators find themselves grappling with the implications of large language models (LLMs) on learning and writing. The technology, which can generate text resembling academic English, raises questions about authorship and the cognitive demands of writing.

Historically, universities have treated writing as an indicator of intelligence, focusing heavily on correctness. However, this perspective overlooks writing’s true purpose as a means for students to develop and articulate ideas. Critics argue that without adapting teaching methods, students risk becoming dependent on AI and disconnected from their own creative capacities.

Experts propose redefining writing assignments, allowing students to submit works-in-progress, and integrating feedback into the learning process. This shift aims to promote originality and critical thinking. Failure to engage writing scholars in AI policy could result in students producing output that mirrors established norms rather than exploring new intellectual territories.

American classrooms are facing an unprecedented crisis of confidence. According to Discovery Education’s Education Insights 2025–26 report, a striking 70% of high school students believe the skills they’re learning today will soon be replaced by artificial intelligence (AI). This growing skepticism is forcing educators and policymakers to confront unsettling questions: What is the real value of classroom learning in a world increasingly dominated by machines? And how can schools remain relevant when students themselves doubt the future of their education?

Smartphones: The omnipresent distraction

Even before AI entered the picture, technology had already reshaped learning. The Education Insights 2025–26 report, alongside other national surveys, reveals that 97% of high school students use their phones during the school day, with 60% admitting to regular in-class use. Teachers are paying the price: more than 70% say cellphones are a major distraction, undermining focus and performance.Despite widespread school policies restricting phone use—55% of high schools now enforce bans—six in ten teachers say enforcement is ineffective, and nearly half believe that unchecked phone use is harming academic outcomes. Students, meanwhile, continue to use social media apps like TikTok and YouTube during class hours, cutting into participation and in-person interaction.

Artificial Intelligence: Tool or threat?

AI has added a new layer of complexity to the digital classroom. Discovery Education’s findings show that 40% of students admit to using AI for assignments without permission, while 65% of teachers report catching students doing so. With clear policies still lacking, the line between innovation and academic dishonesty has blurred.Yet, students are not entirely cynical. The same report shows that two-thirds of high schoolers believe AI can help them learn faster, and nearly three-quarters have already been allowed to use AI in at least some schoolwork. School leaders are even more optimistic: over 90% of superintendents and principals express enthusiasm about AI’s potential, though only half of teachers share that optimism. Concerns about plagiarism, distraction, and the absence of training weigh heavily on educators.

Existential doubts in the classroom

The 70% figure stands out as perhaps the most alarming finding from the Education Insights 2025–26 report. Students are increasingly convinced that traditional academic skills will not survive the AI revolution. This perception risks deepening disengagement, as teens question whether their time in classrooms is preparing them for meaningful futures.Teachers, meanwhile, are left navigating what knowledge remains essential when algorithms can write essays, solve equations, and generate ideas faster than humans. The fundamental role of schools—as places to impart lasting skills and knowledge—is suddenly under debate.

Policy gaps and uneven responses

Schools are experimenting with responses, from “cellphone hotel” drop-off policies to state-level bans on TikTok across school networks. Some districts are even lobbying social media platforms over their role in harming student mental health. But enforcement remains uneven, and students’ tech-savvy often outpaces school restrictions.AI integration policies are even less developed. While leaders push for innovation, teachers frequently feel underprepared and unsupported. The Education Insights 2025–26 report highlights this gap: enthusiasm at the administrative level has not translated into clear classroom strategies.

The crossroads ahead

The Discovery Education report makes clear that technology is not going away. When used intentionally, digital tools can enhance learning, foster collaboration, and build digital literacy. Many educators report higher engagement when technology is directly tied to instruction. But without urgent and thoughtful strategies, the double-edged sword of smartphones and AI risks deepening distraction, fueling distrust in education, and widening the gap between students’ expectations and schools’ offerings.The ultimate question remains: If most students already believe AI will replace what they are learning, can today’s classrooms adapt fast enough to prove them wrong?

A federal judge in Boston handed Harvard University a legal victory on Wednesday. It’s the latest in a high-profile legal fight over whether the Trump administration acted illegally when it froze more than $2.2 billion in Harvard research funding in response to allegations of campus antisemitism.

In her ruling, Judge Allison D. Burroughs said the administration’s funding freeze was issued without considering any of the steps Harvard had already taken to address the issue.

Burroughs said she found it “difficult to conclude anything other than that [the Trump administration] used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities, and did so in a way that runs afoul of [federal law].”

White House spokesperson Liz Huston said after the ruling: “We will immediately move to appeal this egregious decision, and we are confident we will ultimately prevail in our efforts to hold Harvard accountable.”

The more than $2 billion in federal funding that the administration had frozen supported more than 900 research projects at Harvard and its affiliates. That includes research into the treatment and/or prevention of Alzheimer’s, various cancers, heart disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease and autism. Burroughs also highlighted a program through the Department of Veterans Affairs “to help V.A. emergency room physicians decide whether suicidal veterans should be hospitalized.”

The case has been the subject of intense focus as Harvard has stood largely alone in pushing back against the Trump administration’s efforts to use funding cuts as leverage to win vast ideological and financial concessions from other elite institutions, including Columbia and Brown University.

In a July hearing, a lawyer for the Trump administration said Harvard’s funding had been frozen because the school had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color and national origin, by failing to address antisemitism on campus.

But Burroughs ruled that it was the administration that had run afoul of Title VI by quickly freezing funding without first following a process clearly laid out in law.

Harvard’s attorneys had argued that the cuts imposed by the Trump Administration threatened vital research in medicine, science and technology.

Burroughs wrote in her decision that, “research that has been frozen could save lives, money, or the environment, to name a few. And the research was frozen without any sort of investigation into whether particular labs were engaging in antisemitic behavior, were employing Jews, were run by Jewish scientists, or were investigating issues or diseases particularly pertinent to Jews (such as, for example, Tay-Sachs disease), meaning that the funding freezes could and likely will harm the very people Defendants professed to be protecting.”

Burroughs underlined that antisemitism is intolerable, and criticized Harvard, saying it “has been plagued by antisemitism in recent years and could (and should) have done a better job of dealing with the issue.” But, the judge concluded, “there is, in reality, little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism.”

President Trump has previously been outspoken in his criticism of Burroughs, writing on Truth Social earlier this year that she is a “Trump-hating Judge,” and “a TOTAL DISASTER.”

Following Wednesday’s ruling, White House spokesperson Liz Huston again criticized Burroughs and said “It is clear that Harvard University failed to protect their students from harassment and allowed discrimination to plague their campus for years. Harvard does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars and remains ineligible for grants in the future.”

“This ruling is huge. It is a big, decisive victory for academic freedom,” said Harvard history professor Kirsten Weld, who is also president of the Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which was a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Even though the White House plans to appeal, Weld says she hopes this ruling sends the message “that you cannot break universities in this fashion and that it is worth standing up and fighting back.”