In a move that signals the growing presence of artificial intelligence in education, the Grand Erie District School Board has unveiled comprehensive guidelines for AI use in classrooms across its 72 schools serving nearly 26,000 students.
The policy arrives at a critical juncture as educators worldwide grapple with AI’s dual nature—offering both unprecedented learning opportunities and raising serious concerns about academic integrity. While ChatGPT and similar tools have become nearly ubiquitous in many professional settings, their place in education remains contentious.
“We recognize that artificial intelligence is not going away,” said JoAnna Roberto, the board’s director of education, during the recent policy announcement. “In fact, it’s becoming more prevalent in post-secondary institutions and workplaces. Our approach focuses on teaching students to use these tools responsibly while maintaining educational standards.”
The board’s balanced strategy stands in contrast to approaches taken elsewhere. Some educational institutions have attempted outright bans on AI tools—efforts that have largely proven ineffective as students find workarounds. Others have embraced AI without establishing clear boundaries, creating confusion about appropriate use.
Grand Erie’s framework instead emphasizes transparency and skill-building. Students must explicitly acknowledge when they’ve used AI in assignments, while teachers are encouraged to design assessments that measure critical thinking rather than factual regurgitation.
Lisa Munro, the board’s superintendent of education, explained the practical implications: “We’re encouraging teachers to adapt their approaches. This might mean more in-class writing assignments where process is observed, or asking students to explain their reasoning beyond what an AI tool might generate.”
The policy distinguishes between appropriate and inappropriate uses. For example, using AI to brainstorm ideas or check grammar is permitted, while submitting AI-generated work as entirely one’s own violates academic integrity standards. This nuanced approach recognizes that categorical prohibition is neither realistic nor beneficial to student development.
What makes the Grand Erie approach noteworthy is its educational foundation. Rather than treating AI solely as a problem to manage, the board is incorporating digital literacy directly into curriculum. Students are being taught to critically evaluate AI outputs, understand algorithmic limitations, and recognize potential biases in generated content.
Parent Stephanie Chen, whose daughter attends a Grand Erie secondary school, expressed cautious optimism: “I was initially concerned about AI doing the work for kids, but the way they’re teaching them to use it as a tool makes sense. They’ll need these skills when they enter the workforce.”
The policy development involved extensive consultation with teachers, technology specialists, and education researchers. This collaborative approach has helped secure buy-in from educators who will implement these guidelines day-to-day.
Grade 11 teacher Marcus Thornhill described the practical reality: “I’ve had students using ChatGPT since it launched, whether we acknowledged it or not. Having clear guidelines helps me design better assignments and have honest conversations about how to use these tools effectively.”
Financial considerations also played a role in the board’s decision. While some districts have invested in expensive AI detection software, Grand Erie has prioritized education over enforcement. This approach acknowledges both budget constraints and the reality that detection tools often struggle to keep pace with advancing AI capabilities.
The policy addresses equity concerns as well. Not all students have equal access to AI tools outside school, potentially creating technological divides. By establishing consistent in-school practices, the board aims to ensure all students develop comparable skills regardless of home technology access.
Education technology specialist Dr. Amina Patel, who was not involved in developing the policy but reviewed it upon release, noted its forward-thinking nature: “What’s impressive about Grand Erie’s approach is how it prepares students for an AI-integrated future without compromising educational fundamentals. They’re teaching critical engagement rather than passive consumption.”
The policy isn’t without critics. Some teachers have expressed concerns about increased workload in redesigning assessments, while others worry about the practical challenges of monitoring appropriate AI use in classrooms often containing 30+ students.
The board has committed to revisiting the guidelines quarterly during this first implementation year, acknowledging the rapidly evolving nature of AI technology. This adaptive approach recognizes that today’s best practices may need adjustment as capabilities advance.
As other Ontario school boards develop their own AI policies, Grand Erie’s balanced framework may serve as a template. By neither demonizing nor uncritically embracing artificial intelligence, they’ve charted a middle path that prepares students for technological realities while preserving educational integrity.
For teachers, parents, and students navigating this new landscape, the message is clear: AI in education isn’t going away, but with thoughtful guidelines, it can become a powerful tool rather than a threat to authentic learning.
