The widespread adoption and rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has had far-reaching consequences for education, from student writing and learning outcomes to the college admissions process. While AI can be a helpful tool for students in and outside of the classroom, it can also stunt students’ learning, autonomy, and critical thinking, and secondary and higher education institutions grapple with the promises and pitfalls of generative AI as a pedagogical tool. Given the polarizing nature of AI in higher education, university policies for engaging with AI vary widely both across and within institutions; however, there are some key consistencies across schools that can be informative for students as they prepare for college academics, as well as the parents and teachers trying to equip high school students for collegiate study amidst this new technological frontier.

Here are five defining elements of Ivy League schools’ approach to AI in education—and what they mean for students developing technological literacy:

1. Emphasis on Instructor and Course Autonomy

First and foremost, it is important to note that no Ivy League school has issued blanket rules on AI use—instead, like many other colleges and secondary schools, Ivy League AI policies emphasize the autonomy of individual instructors in setting policies for their courses. Princeton University’s policy states: “In some current Princeton courses, permitted use of AI must be disclosed with a description of how and why AI was used. Students might also be required to keep any recorded engagement they had with the AI tool (such as chat logs). When in doubt, students should confirm with an instructor whether AI is permitted and how to disclose its use.” Dartmouth likewise notes: “Instructors, programs, and schools may have a variety of reasons for allowing or disallowing Artificial Intelligence tools within a course, or course assignment(s), depending on intended learning outcomes. As such, instructors have authority to determine whether AI tools may be used in their course.”

With this in mind, high school students should be keenly aware that a particular teacher’s AI policies should not be viewed as indicative of all teachers’ attitudes or policies. While students may be permitted to use AI in brainstorming or editing papers at their high school, they should be careful not to grow reliant on these tools in their writing, as their college instructors may prohibit the technology in any capacity. Further, students should note that different disciplines may be more or less inclined toward AI tolerance—for instance, a prospective STEM student might have a wider bandwidth for using the technology than a student who hopes to study English. Because of this, the former should devote more of their time to understanding the technology and researching its uses in their field, whereas the latter should likely avoid employing AI in their work in any capacity, as collegiate policies will likely prohibit its use.

2. View of AI Misuse as Plagiarism / Academic Dishonesty

Just as important as learning to use generative AI in permissible and beneficial ways is learning how generative AI functions. Many Ivy League schools, including UPenn and Columbia, clearly state that AI misuse—whatever that may be in the context of a particular class or project, constitutes academic dishonesty and will be subject to discipline as such. The more students can understand the processes conducted by large language models, the more equipped they will be to make critical decisions about where its use is appropriate, when they need to provide citations, how to spot hallucinations, and how to prompt the technology to cite its sources, as well. Even where AI use is permitted, it is never a substitute for critical thinking, and students should be careful to evaluate all information independently and be transparent about their AI use when permitted.

Parents and teachers can help students in this regard by viewing the technology as a pedagogical tool; they should not only create appropriate boundaries for AI use, but also empower students with the knowledge of how AI works so that they do not view the technology as a magic content generator or unbiased problem-solver.

Relatedly, prestigious universities also emphasize privacy and ethics concerns related to AI usage in and outside of the classroom. UPenn, for instance, notes: “​​Members of the Penn community should adhere to established principles of respect for intellectual property, particularly copyrights when considering the creation of new data sets for training AI models. Avoid uploading confidential and/or proprietary information to AI platforms prior to seeking patent or copyright protection, as doing so could jeopardize IP rights.” Just as students should take a critical approach to evaluating AI sources, they should also be aware of potential copyright infringement and ethical violations related to generative AI use.

3. Openness to Change and Development in Response to New Technologies

Finally, this is an area of technology that is rapidly developing and changing—which means that colleges’ policies are changing too. Faculty at Ivy League and other top schools are encouraged to revisit their course policies regularly, experiment with new pedagogical methods, and guide students through the process of using AI in responsible, reflective ways. As Columbia’s AI policy notes, “Based on our collective experience with Generative AI use at the University, we anticipate that this guidance will evolve and be updated regularly.”

Just as students should not expect AI policies to be the same across classes or instructors, they should not expect these policies to remain fixed from year to year. The more that students can develop as independent and autonomous thinkers who use AI tools critically, the more they will be able to adapt to these changing policies and avoid the negative repercussions that come from AI policy violations.

Ultimately, students should approach AI with a curious, critical, and research-based mentality. It is essential that high school students looking forward to their collegiate career remember that schools are looking for dynamic, independent thinkers—while the indiscriminate use of AI can hinder their ability to showcase those qualities, a critical and informed approach can distinguish them as a knowledgeable citizen of our digital world.

LIMA, Peru — At a Roman Catholic elementary school on the ramshackle outskirts of Lima, students are rambunctious and seemingly carefree. By contrast, school administrators are stressing out.

One tells NPR that gangsters are demanding that the school pay them between 50,000 and 100,000 Peruvians sols — between $14,000 and $28,000.

“They send us messages saying they know where we live,” says the administrator — who, for fear of retaliation from the gangs, does not want to reveal his identity or the name of the school. “They send us photos of grenades and pistols.”

These are not empty threats. A few weeks ago, he says, police arrested a 16-year-old in the pay of gangs as he planted a bomb at the entrance to the school. The teenager had not been a student or had other connections with the school.

Schools in Peru are easy targets for extortion. Due to the poor quality of public education, thousands of private schools have sprung up. Many are located in impoverished barrios dominated by criminals — who are now demanding a cut of their tuition fees.

Miriam Ramírez, president of one of Lima’s largest parent-teacher associations, says at least 1,000 schools in the Peruvian capital are being extorted and that most are caving into the demands of the gangs. To reduce the threat to students, some schools have switched to online classes. But she says at least five have closed down.

Miriam Ramírez is president of one of Lima’s largest parent-teacher associations and she says at least 1,000 schools in the Peruvian capital are being extorted and that most are caving into the demands of the gangs.

John Otis for NPR

hide caption

toggle caption

John Otis for NPR

If this keeps up, Ramírez says, “The country is going to end up in total ignorance.”

Extortion is part of a broader crime wave in Peru that gained traction during the COVID pandemic. Peru also saw a huge influx of Venezuelan migrants, including members of the Tren de Aragua criminal group that specializes in extortion — though authorities concede it is hard to definitively connect Tren de Aragua members with these school extortions.

Francisco Rivadeneyra, a former Peruvian police commander, tells NPR that corrupt cops are part of the problem. In exchange for bribes, he says, officers tip off gangs about pending police raids. NPR reached out to the Peruvian police for comment but there was no response.

Political instability has made things worse. Due to corruption scandals, Peru has had six presidents in the past nine years. In March, current President Dina Boluarte declared a state of emergency in Lima and ordered the army into the streets to help fight crime.

But analysts say it’s made little difference. Extortionists now operate in the poorest patches of Lima, areas with little policing, targeting hole-in-the-wall bodegas, streetside empanada stands and even soup kitchens. Many of the gang members themselves are from poor or working class backgrounds, authorities say, so they are moving in an environment that they already know.

“We barely have enough money to buy food supplies,” says Genoveba Huatarongo, who helps prepare 100 meals per day at a soup kitchen in the squatter community of Villa María.

Even so, she says, thugs stabbed one of her workers and then left a note demanding weekly “protection” payments. Huatarongo reported the threats to the police. To avoid similar attacks, nearby soup kitchens now pay the gangsters $14 per week, she says.

But there is some pushback.

Carla Pacheco, who runs a tiny grocery in a working-class Lima neighborhood, is refusing to make the $280 weekly payments that local gangsters are demanding, pointing out that it takes her a full month to earn that amount.

Carla Pacheco runs a tiny grocery in Lima and she is refusing to make the $280 weekly payments that local gangsters are demanding.

John Otis for NPR

hide caption

toggle caption

John Otis for NPR

She’s paid a heavy price. One morning she found her three cats decapitated, their heads hung in front of her store.

Though horrified, she’s holding out. To protect her kids, she changed her children’s schools to make it harder for gangsters to target them.

She rarely goes out and now dispenses groceries through her barred front door rather than allowing shoppers inside.

“I can’t support corruption because I am the daughter of policeman,” Pacheco explains. “If I pay the gangs, that would bring me down to their level.”

After a bomb was found at its front gate in March, the San Vicente School in north Lima hired private security guards and switched to online learning for several weeks. When normal classes resumed, San Vicente officials told students to wear street clothes rather than school uniforms to avoid being recognized by gang members.

“They could shoot the students in revenge,” explains Violeta Upangi, waiting outside the school to pick up her 13-year-old daughter.

Due to the threats, about 40 of San Vicente’s 1,000 students have left the school, says social studies teacher Julio León.

Rather than resist, many schools have buckled to extortion demands.

The administrator at the Catholic elementary school says his colleagues reported extortion threats to the police. But instead of going after the gangs, he says, the police recommended that the school pay them off for their own safety. As a result, the school ended up forking over the equivalent of $14,000. The school is now factoring extortion payments into its annual budgets, the administrator says.

“It was either that,” the administrator explains, “or close down the school.”

The repercussions from the decimation of staff at the Education Department keep coming. Last week, the fallout led to a delay in releasing results from a national science test.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is best known for tests that track reading and math achievement but includes other subjects too. In early 2024, when the main reading and math tests were administered, there was also a science section for eighth graders. 

The board that oversees NAEP had announced at its May meeting that it planned to release the science results in June. But that month has since come and gone. 

Why the delay? There is no commissioner of education statistics to sign off on the score report, a requirement before it is released, according to five current and former officials who are familiar with the release of NAEP scores, but asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak to the press or feared retaliation. 

Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

Peggy Carr, a former Biden administration appointee, was dismissed as the commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics in February, two years before the end of her six-year term set by Congress. Chris Chapman was named acting commissioner, but then he was fired in March, along with half the employees at the Education Department. The role has remained vacant since.

A spokesman for the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees NAEP,  said the science scores will be released later this summer, but denied that the lack of a commissioner is the obstacle. “The report building is proceeding so the naming of a commissioner is not a bureaucratic hold up to its progress,” Stephaan Harris said by email.

The delay matters. Education policymakers have been keen to learn if science achievement had held steady after the pandemic or tumbled along with reading and math. (Those reading and math scores were released in January.)

The Trump administration has vowed to dismantle the Education Department and did not respond to an emailed question about when a new commissioner would be appointed. 

Related: Chaos and confusion as the statistics arm of the Education Department is reduced to a skeletal staff of 3

Researchers hang onto data

Keeping up with administration policy can be head spinning these days. Education researchers were notified in March that they would have to relinquish federal data they were using for their studies. (The department shares restricted datasets, which can include personally identifiable information about students, with approved researchers.) 

But researchers learned on June 30 that the department had changed its mind and decided not to terminate this remote access. 

Lawyers who are suing the Trump administration on behalf of education researchers heralded this about-face as a “big win.” Researchers can now finish projects in progress. 

Still, researchers don’t have a way of publishing or presenting papers that use this data. Since the mass firings in mid-March, there is no one remaining inside the Education Department to review their papers for any inadvertent disclosure of student data, a required step before public release. And there is no process at the moment for researchers to request data access for future studies. 

“While ED’s change-of-heart regarding remote access is welcome,” said Adam Pulver of Public Citizen Litigation Group, “other vital services provided by the Institute of Education Sciences have been senselessly, illogically halted without consideration of the impact on the nation’s educational researchers and the education community more broadly.  We will continue to press ahead with our case as to the other arbitrarily canceled programs.”

Pulver is the lead attorney for one of three suits fighting the Education Department’s termination of research and statistics activities. Judges in the District of Columbia and Maryland have denied researchers a preliminary injunction to restore the research and data cuts. But the Maryland case is now fast-tracked and the court has asked the Trump administration to produce an administrative record of its decision making process by July 11. (See this previous story for more background on the court cases.)

Related: Education researchers sue Trump administration, testing executive power

Some NSF grants restored in California

Just as the Education Department is quietly restarting some activities that DOGE killed, so is the National Science Foundation (NSF). The federal science agency posted on its website that it reinstated 114 awards to 45 institutions as of June 30. NSF said it was doing so to comply with a federal court order to reinstate awards to all University of California researchers. It was unclear how many of these research projects concerned education, one of the major areas that NSF funds.

Researchers and universities outside the University of California system are hoping for the same reversal. In June, the largest professional organization of education researchers, the American Educational Research Association, joined forces with a large coalition of organizations and institutions in filing a legal challenge to the mass termination of grants by the NSF. Education grants were especially hard hit in a series of cuts in April and May. Democracy Forward, a public interest law firm, is spearheading this case.

Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or barshay@hechingerreport.org.

This story about delaying the NAEP science score report was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.