Writing to a rubric involves thinking, but it’s an artificial form of thinking. The messier human mode is bypassed in favor of following a formula to gain a reward – a move to perverse incentives.
Once something can follow the formula faster, why not use it – a move with no incentive. This follows a broader path that moved higher education from a place of learning to a place of training. Students became trained to write before AI was given training data to help it ‘learn’ how to write essays for students.
Teachers and Parents Can’t See AI Chat Transcripts While Gemini may be “student safe,” only administrators can review chat histories. That’s a huge blind spot. If a student is confused by a Gemini response, misuses the tool, or gets inaccurate information—teachers and parents won’t know unless the student says something.
Is AI doing the thinking—or the student? Many features encourage speed and convenience, but could inadvertently promote over-reliance. Students can get summaries, answers, and explanations so easily that critical thinking risks taking a backseat.
There’s no way to track edits or usage Gemini doesn’t offer version history for AI-generated content. That means teachers can’t see how a document evolved—or how much of it came from AI.
Equity gaps may widen Some schools have tech coaches, training time, and infrastructure to support thoughtful AI use. Others don’t. Without equitable implementation support, Gemini’s benefits may be limited to already well-resourced districts.
