Where AI Suspicion Starts to Reshape Classroom Trust
New research from the Center for Digital Thriving shows how artificial intelligence strains relationships between teachers and students. The report, titled An AI Policy Isn’t A Playbook, examines classrooms amid rapid adoption of generative AI. Its authors include CDT co-founders Beck Tench, Carrie James, and Emily Weinstein, alongside Allison Starks and Sara Konrath.
The research draws upon a national survey of more than 1,000 U.S. public school teachers and principals. It also includes interviews with educators and 31 students about generative AI’s effects on classroom relationships. A quarter of teachers and 29% of principals reported AI related dilemmas or difficult decisions. Among those reporting dilemmas, 74% of teachers and 69% of principals cited suspected student AI cheating.
That concern exists alongside another problem: most surveyed schools lack specific rules for generative AI use. Only 18% of teachers and 24% of principals said their schools had such policies. Without clear schoolwide standards, teachers must establish classroom rules about acceptable AI use themselves. This leaves students with different expectations across classrooms, while teachers face difficult choices about when AI assistance crosses a boundary.
When Teachers Become Referees in an AI Classroom
With school policies still scarce, teachers increasingly must decide how students may use generative AI. Only 18% of teachers and 24% of principals reported specific school policies for generative AI use. That gap leaves individual educators responsible for rules that can differ from one classroom to another.
The researchers describe this situation as a “Ted Lasso moment” for educators across schools. The comparison reflects how teachers must coach a game they never learned to play themselves. As AI tools enter classrooms, educators must learn about them, determine their proper role, and respond to changes in student work. Their role can therefore shift from coach toward referee, with constant attention to possible AI use and unclear boundaries.
That referee role creates another problem because suspicion now travels in both directions. Teachers may suspect students used AI to complete assignments, either partly or entirely. Students, meanwhile, may fear accusations of AI use even when they completed work without such assistance. The report describes this dynamic as a “two-way suspicion” problem that can weaken trust between both sides.
Under these conditions, attention can shift away from the relationships that support learning and classroom connection. Teachers must judge uncertain cases while students navigate inconsistent expectations about acceptable AI assistance. The resulting tension can make ordinary classroom interactions more difficult for both groups. CDT researchers argue that both sides risk losing sight of the student teacher relationship that learning depends upon.
New Language for an Unfamiliar Classroom Reality
Against that uncertainty, CDT has developed tools that give educators and students shared language for AI related challenges. One example is “AI To Z,” a resource that invites people to describe cultural shifts caused by AI. The approach aims to support AI literacy while giving students and teachers greater agency over its classroom use.
The resource includes terms that describe experiences emerging from AI use in schools. “AI-dar” refers to a teacher’s perceived ability to detect AI use within student work. “Chatplomacy” describes the use of AI to soften a message’s tone and make it sound more diplomatic. These terms give educators and students a way to discuss unfamiliar situations that can otherwise remain difficult to name.
Those tools form part of CDT’s Imagine AI classroom practices, which emphasize agency and human connection. The center’s agency-centered AI literacy framework serves as the basis for these resources and recommended mindset shifts. CDT also developed five sports-focused “plays” that adults can use with young learners around AI dilemmas.
Together, these resources encourage adults to reconsider how they approach AI with students in classrooms. The center argues that educator mindsets can strongly affect whether educational experiences engage students or fall flat. Its approach seeks to help students and teachers develop AI literacy while preserving agency and trust. The goal remains human connection between teachers and students as classroom norms continue to change.
Why Trust May Matter More Than AI Rules at School
The center’s approach also places youth perspectives at the center of discussions about AI and its effects on education. Earlier research with Hopelab examined how teens and young adults used AI for emotional support. Those findings offered insight into different reasons young people turn to AI and highlighted areas that merit deeper youth engaged research.
That emphasis reflects a broader concern about the speed of AI adoption across young people’s lives. Weinstein warned that researchers must avoid repeating mistakes from the social media era by listening earlier. Research into potential social media harms among teens emerged after widespread platform adoption had already occurred. CDT therefore seeks closer attention to young people’s individual perspectives as educators and researchers respond to AI’s rapid expansion.