Since the release of large language models like ChatGPT, administrators at Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy have debated how to use AI in school- if at all. Now, as the 2026-2027 school year begins, FSHA faculty are confronting difficult questions about the purpose of education and how to accommodate a range of opinions on AI.
The school’s current AI policy (available in the Parent-Student Handbook) encourages teachers to help students think for themselves, while remaining open to constructive uses of AI in the classroom. Despite uniting under the handbook’s general framework for AI use, many teachers still disagree on the specifics of implementing AI in the classroom.
“You have a group of people who are strongly against it, you have a group who are more favorable to it and want to use it with students,” says Honor Council moderator and Social Studies teacher Mrs. Stephanie Gonzalez-Doo.
Those in favor of using AI at school believe technology can optimize high schoolers’ limited learning time.
“There is value lost in [students using AI], but it’s a fair trade-off,” says Research Department Chair/Computer Science, Science & Engineering Faculty teacher Mr. Ty Buxman, “[With AI], we can shortcut the process of reading forty papers and… get to the next stage [of research] sooner.”
Others argue that deferring any academic tasks to AI damages students’ intellectual development.
“The consistent takeaway for me is that AI prevents students from developing critical thinking skills,” says Social Studies teacher Dr. Julie Kim. “This concern alone shapes my pedagogical approach for a policy of zero tolerance of AI use among students in my classes.”
In order to respect teachers’ autonomy and expertise, administrators have invited each teacher to determine their own Integrity Policy-informed approach to AI.
“What I have found is that I don’t think a shared AI policy is the right approach,” says Principal Rebecca Bostic, “We have a lot of opinions. We have different teachers who have different comfort levels [with AI] and… I welcome differing opinions.”
Additionally, administrators have offered the faculty more opportunities to openly discuss how, or if, AI should be used in school.
“We’re talking about and thinking about the moral implications of AI at large,” says Mrs. Bostic, “If we’re not having the conversation then students are going to be using [AI] without any guidance.”
By allowing teachers to independently decide on and converse about AI, administrators hope to balance individual attitudes towards AI with collective goals for students. Similarly, the teachers seek to accept their colleagues’ approaches to AI, even when they disagree. In prioritizing mutual respect, communication, and open-mindedness, the FSHA faculty model a rare quality in the age of AI: humanity.
