Theme: The Ethical Dilemma of ChatGPT at School

Done by: English Language Teacher
School-Lyceum “Nurorda”
Mnazhev Berik Abibullayevich

The Ethical Dilemma of ChatGPT at School

ChatGPT and other AI writing tools have entered classrooms faster than schools can update their rules. For many students, AI feels like a personal tutor: it explains difficult topics, suggests ideas, and helps organize thoughts. For many teachers, it can also feel like a shortcut that threatens academic honesty. This tension creates an ethical dilemma: how can schools use ChatGPT to improve learning without undermining fairness, independence, and trust?

A Tool for Learning—or a Tool for Cheating?

The biggest concern is simple: if a student submits AI-generated work, is it still the student’s learning? In traditional education, assignments are evidence of skills—reading, reasoning, writing, and problem-solving. When ChatGPT produces an essay, a lab report, or homework answers in seconds, the assignment may no longer measure those skills.

However, labeling all AI use as “cheating” is not fully fair either. Students already use calculators, spell-checkers, dictionaries, and online videos. ChatGPT can be similar—a support tool—but it becomes ethically problematic when the student’s contribution disappears. The dilemma is not “AI or no AI,” but where to draw the line between assistance and replacement.

Authenticity and Ownership

Another ethical question is authorship: who owns a text created with AI? If a student uses ChatGPT to write a paragraph and then edits it, is it their work? If the student only changes a few words, does that count as plagiarism? These questions are difficult because AI does not copy from one source in a simple way—yet it can still produce content the student did not create.

Authentic learning requires struggle: forming arguments, choosing evidence, making mistakes, revising. When AI does too much, students may lose the chance to build confidence and real competence. In the long term, over-reliance can weaken critical thinking and make students less prepared for exams, university, and work.

Fairness and Inequality

ChatGPT also raises issues of fairness. Not all students have equal access to paid versions, stable internet, or quiet spaces to work. Students who use AI effectively may gain an advantage over others, even if both groups work equally hard. This can widen existing inequality.

There is also a skills gap: students who already write well may use ChatGPT as a brainstorming partner, while struggling students may rely on it to replace their writing entirely. The ethical dilemma is that the tool can both support weaker learners and mask their difficulties—making it harder for teachers to help them.

Accuracy, Bias, and Misinformation

Schools are responsible for teaching truth-seeking and evidence-based reasoning. But ChatGPT can generate confident answers that are incorrect, incomplete, or misleading. Students who trust AI without checking sources may learn false information and repeat it in assignments.

Bias is another risk. AI systems are trained on large datasets that may contain stereotypes or one-sided perspectives. If students use AI for history, literature, or social topics without guidance, they might absorb biased interpretations and present them as facts. This creates an ethical responsibility for schools: students must learn how to verify, question, and cite information properly.

Privacy and Student Safety

When students use ChatGPT, they may share personal information—names, grades, family issues, or school details—without realizing the risks. Schools must think about digital privacy and data protection. The ethical dilemma here is that AI can feel like a private conversation, but it is still a technology platform with rules and limitations.

Teachers also face privacy challenges if they upload student work into AI systems for feedback or detection. Schools must ensure that student data is handled responsibly and that policies align with local laws and ethical standards.

Trust Between Teachers and Students

Education is built on trust. If teachers assume students are using AI to cheat, classrooms can become suspicious environments. At the same time, if students feel rules are unclear or unfair, they may hide their AI use rather than discuss it honestly.

The dilemma is that strict bans often fail, while unlimited permission can damage academic integrity. Schools need approaches that protect trust and encourage transparency.

Toward Ethical Use: Clear Rules and Smart Teaching

The best ethical response is not panic—it is guidance. Schools can reduce harm and increase benefits by creating clear expectations:

1. Define acceptable vs. unacceptable use.
   Acceptable: brainstorming ideas, practicing grammar, getting explanations, generating outlines, checking clarity.
   Unacceptable: submitting AI-written work as original, using AI during closed assessments, copying answers without understanding.

2. Require disclosure when AI is used.
   Students can write a short note: “I used ChatGPT to generate an outline and I revised it.” This supports honesty and allows teachers to evaluate learning.

3. Teach AI literacy.
   Students should learn how AI works, why it can be wrong, how to verify information, and how to cite responsibly.

4. Redesign assignments for authenticity.
   Oral defenses, in-class writing, personal reflections, process journals, drafts, and project-based learning make it harder to “outsource” thinking.

5. Use ChatGPT as a learning partner, not a replacement.
   Teachers can ask students to critique an AI answer, compare it to textbooks, or improve it using evidence. This turns AI into a tool for critical thinking.

Conclusion

The ethical dilemma of ChatGPT at school is not simply about cheating. It is about the purpose of education itself: learning, fairness, truth, responsibility, and trust. AI can be a powerful tutor that helps students grow—but only if schools set clear boundaries and teach students how to use it wisely. The goal should not be to eliminate ChatGPT from education, but to ensure that human thinking remains at the center of learning.