Artificial Intelligence (AI) stands as both a remarkable tool for efficiency and a complex legal and ethical minefield. As educators, we look at a future in which AI has the potential to act as an assistant—analyzing student data to create personalized learning paths and automating administrative minutiae. However, it is important to understand the "traps" that accompany these benefits. For schools and students, the intersection of AI and the law matters.

In my own research, I have discovered how implicit bias in AI outputs is influenced by the Internet ecosystem. Then there are hallucinations, such as the one that led me to park on a highway in Brooklyn. And AI slop? Regurgitated low-quality information – we can pick out the garbage someone shares in a lazy copy/paste content, but can our students? Deepfake bullying is on the rise, while English teachers ponder the challenges of AI plagiarism. And so on . . . .

As educators, our fundamental concern should be how legal implications play into all of this. Let’s unpack it in a practical way.

The Challenge of Algorithmic Bias

One of the most alarming ethical concerns is that AI is not a neutral arbiter of truth. While the technology itself is not inherently biased, the broad internet ecosystems it is trained on are, leading to "Algorithmic Discrimination."

A stark example of this is found in AI detection platforms. While often marketed to protect academic integrity, evidence has shown these tools are "near perfect" for native English speakers, yet falsely flag 61% of essays written by non-native speakers as AI-generated. For schools, relying blindly on such tools risks unfairly accusing multilingual learners of cheating, and highlights the need for good, old-fashioned analog interpretation by teachers rather than automated judgment.

Then there are my personal investigations during which I continue to see bias in prompt responses. Consider when I ask AI to show me a successful business person: The bias is glaring, typically generating images of middle-aged, thin, white males. The same holds true for high school athletes, for which the AI shows Black males. It is only when you insist on seeing diversity, both in gender and race and body type, that you begin to see realistic, balanced results.

Digital Citizenship and Behavioral Liability

The legal risks of AI extend to student conduct, particularly regarding bullying and the rise of deepfakes. Data suggests that nearly half of students and more than a third of teachers are aware of instances of school-related deepfakes.

The legal precedent is already apparent. In the 2024 New Jersey case K.W. and S.W. o/b/o A.W. v. BOE of the School District of the Chathams, a student was held responsible for using AI prompts to generate racially charged slurs. This ruling clarifies that hiding behind an algorithm does not absolve a student of liability. The federal Take It Down Act (2025) mandates that platforms remove non-consensual deepfakes within 48 hours, and introduces federal criminal penalties for those who share these. Schools must inform within their digital citizenship curriculums to ensure students understand the permanent risks of their online interactions.

Presenting on the topic of AI and the Law at FETC 2026, I was discussing a deepfake bullying incident when suddenly, a fire alarm sounded and all 10,000 in attendance had to evacuate the massive Orange County Convention Center. On my way down the escalator, two kind-faced teachers from a small rural town deep in Louisiana country approached me and remarked that it was their school from which the EdWeek article I had referenced had come. These teachers emphasized that while they were bound by FERPA restrictions of confidentiality, the media did NOT get the whole story right.

I could not have been more grateful for that fire alarm because they had illuminated such a significant point of emphasis to me: be critical of–in fact, don’t trust–everything you see online. Even from a reputable source such as EdWeek.

Deepfakes are one of the most profound issues with AI, for students and the adults who have also been victims. Leveraging the force of laws such as Take It Down and adopting policies reflecting the law can equip school communities with the best defense of provocateurs: fear of punishment.

Informing our communities about legal consequences and subsequent policies reinforcing these provides an inhibitor for most (not all). If we can reduce most issues because of this approach, isn’t it worth taking these proactive steps? The answer is obvious.

Redefining Academic Integrity

AI has fundamentally challenged traditional issues of plagiarism. Because generative models create unique content from existing materials, users do not "steal" work in the traditional sense. However, submitting AI-generated content remains a violation of school policy because it bypasses the true assessment of a student’s knowledge and schools must have electronic usage policies updated to reflect this.

Consider that this gray area has already led to litigation. In one instance, a parent in Massachusetts sued a school district after their child received a zero and detention for using AI on a project, claiming the tool was used only for research rather than writing. This reinforces the urgent need for clear, updated district policies that define the boundaries of "Fair Use" and AI assistance. Transparency tools such as AI Trust You, a free Chrome extension developed by Laguna Beach USD, also can help teachers and students be open and clear about AI use on assignments.

Of greater significance, education of the school community; families, teachers, and most importantly children is the true ethical goal necessary to avoid most instances of outright plagiarism and taking credit for work generated by AI.

Note, that I emphasize most, not all. Since the days of Socrates teaching in Ancient Greece, students have cheated because whenever there is assessment, there are those looking for short cuts.

Special Ed and the "Black Box"

In the realm of special education, AI presents a paradox. It can be a magnificent assistive technology, providing real-time text-to-speech and interactive tutoring that supports a student's Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). However, automated decision-making can be questionable. If an AI system monitors productivity without accounting for a student's legal accommodations—such as the need for frequent breaks—it may unfairly overlook those needs.

Educators must ensure that "smart" tools remain flexible enough to serve every learner. Most of this can be navigated through thoughtful prompts in an AI chatbot.

The "Human in the Loop"

To navigate these challenges, the U.S. Department of Education and legal experts advocate for a “human in the loop" approach. Before adopting AI tools, school leaders should ask critical questions:

• Does the system have inherent biases?
• Is student data being used to train third-party models?
• Are we protecting student privacy with tools that minimize data collection?

The processes for taking on AI legal implications are grounded in these questions, and as importantly, educating school communities, educators, parents, and students about proper use of AI. Likewise, enforcing consequences aided by legal protections such as the Take It Down Act are important ways to inform and inhibit bad actors.

The time to do all this is now; waiting and debating means children, minorities, and girls especially, will get hurt–an all too familiar pattern and a cycle that has to be broken as you finish reading this article.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship; readers should consult with a qualified legal professional regarding their specific circumstances.

The Laguna Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) has recently launched AI Trust You, a Google Chrome extension designed to bring clarity and accountability to AI usage in classrooms.

The tool, developed in-house by the district itself, aims to foster honesty and alleviate anxieties surrounding AI in education. It essentially works as a dropdown menu option in Google Docs that allows teachers to set parameters around AI use for specific assignments, and then lets students document which AI tools they used, and to what extent.

“I don't want my teachers to be spending time trying to catch kids cheating,” says LBUSD Chief Technology Officer Michael Morrison, who oversaw the two years of development for AI Trust You. “That's the opposite of why they got into teaching.” Having this tool helps teachers be clear about their expectations and students be clear about their AI usage, which reduces stress for both.

Since formally launching AI Trust You within LBUSD in January, the district has made it available for free to school systems across the nation. At last check, the extension is already being used by 47 districts and 600 teachers, although those numbers increase every week.

“We had one person from New Jersey who said that when she showed it to the principals this one high school principal got the chills,” says Morrison. “I think it's more that they realize they've been dealing with this issue with their teachers, and their teachers are frustrated, and it's a pain point for everyone. So I think we're addressing that in a unique way with this.”

Getting Started With AI Trust You

Anyone who is interested can go to the AI Trust You home page for a demo, and to sign up to get started.

The beauty of AI Trust You is its simplicity. Once installed, the extension is accessed via dropdown menu for any assignment through Google Docs.

For teachers, they start by selecting from the four AI technique categories—Content Creation, Content Understanding, Research Assistance, and Audio-Visual Generation—to specify how students are allowed to use AI on a particular assignment. The tool generates a clear assignment guideline text for students, so expectations are transparent.

From the student perspective, they select the AI tool or tools they use while working, and identify the techniques and the percentage of their work that was AI-assisted.

AI Trust You then generates a citation documenting exactly how AI was used for that assignment, which the student can then paste into their work, either at the end or wherever it’s required.

Success So Far

Although it’s only been in use a relatively short time, the tool seems to be working as intended, especially in regard to transparency.

“In one classroom, we had the teacher make all the kids use it, and then the teacher sat down with each kid and looked at the results,” says Morrison. “They went over what the kids said they used it for, where and how it was used in that assignment, and incredibly, it was right on accurate! The teacher said, ‘I could not believe how honest they were about how they used it.’ I think it proved to show that kids want to be honest, and given an opportunity, a lot will be. It's pretty cool to see.”

AI Trust You is not designed for every assignment, Morrison cautions, but for key ones in which teachers want to be clear about AI usage.

“I can picture teachers saying, ‘No, don't use AI at all,’ right? And that's appropriate at certain times,” he says. “I think teachers need to think about being more intentional about what they expect from kids with a specific assignment.” He suggests using AI for research isn’t all that different from using Google, so AI Trust You at least allows students to document the research process.

Improving School Culture

As mentioned, the extension itself is free, and will remain so, says Morrison. The district is working on providing a way to monitor stats on usage, for which it will charge to recoup development costs. To protect student privacy, no personal data is collected. Any information tracked is around the actual platforms used.

Ultimately, AI Trust You has lessened student apprehension about using AI, and reduced teacher suspicion around potential cheating–a big win-win as far as Morrison is concerned.

“I think this has the potential to make our school culture better,” he says. “And that's a pretty hard thing to accomplish with other tools, and this is so simple. I feel like it's almost a no-brainer.”

• 5 Ways Schools Can Prepare Students For AI
• 10 Free AI Trainings and Certifications for Educators

Students can make a difference in their communities by joining 6 million other young people trying to change the world for the better. As part of Do Something, they can home in on their interests, use the resources available, and share their expertise to create positive change. 

Brought to you by Knovation, powered by ACT  

Parable of the Polygons

Dynamic interactive helps classrooms explore topics of bias, diversity

Pros: The interactive games help students see and understand how “harmless choices can make a harmful world.”

Cons: Some may have difficulty understanding the connection between shapes and bias; others may feel it oversimplifies a complex topic.

Bottom Line: A fascinating way to address how communities become segregated due to individual bias.

Read more here.

App of the Day picks are selected from the top edtech tools reviewed by Common Sense Education, which helps educators find the best ed-tech tools, learn best practices for teaching with tech, and equip students with the skills they need to use technology safely and responsibly.

By Common Sense Education

In an effort to spark a social movement against hatred in all forms, USC Shoah Foundation and Discovery Education today launched the fifth annual IWitness Video Challenge

First, students will hear testimonies of survivors and witnesses of genocide. They will then complete a research-based and standards-aligned activity. After being inspired to counter hate, participants will develop a community action project. To be considered for the IWitness Video Challenge, students must document their experience in a video essay for submission.

The student who creates the national winning entry will receive a $5,000 scholarship. Second place will receive a $1,000 scholarship; third place, a $500 scholarship.

The educator associated with the national winning entry will receive a $1,000 grant to inspire, impact and implement change in their local school.

The school or organization associated with the national winning entry will receive a $2,500 grant to implement change in their community.

Submissions for the 2018 IWitness Video Challenge are being accepted now until April 13, 2018. For more information and complete rules, visit IWitness.usc.edu.