Why I Use AI Transparency Statements in My Classroom
Transparency Builds Trust Where AI Detectors Fall Short
Rather than depending on unreliable AI detection tools, teachers can foster transparency by encouraging students to openly share how they use AI—building trust, clarity, and collaboration in the learning process.
By Dani Kachorsky, PhD
One of the biggest concerns I hear—directly from teachers and administrators, or indirectly through the rumor mill of friends and family in education—is the fear that students will use AI to cheat. That they’ll just bypass the hard work of thinking and learning. And honestly, that’s a legitimate concern.
Here’s the reality: AI detection software is always going to be behind AI generation software. Every time detection tools get better, the ways to slip past them get better, too. Which means if we’re counting on detectors to solve the problem for us, we’re always going to be playing catch-up.
So instead, I think we need ways to hold students accountable while also teaching them how to use AI authentically, in ways that help rather than harm their learning.
What I Use: The Four-Part System
I’ve landed on a system that blends transparency, accountability, and honesty. None of this is perfect, but for me, it works, and I think it will work for you as well.
1. AI Transparency Statements
This is the centerpiece. Students certify how (or if) they used AI for a given assignment. They put a statement at the end of their document where they either declare they didn’t use AI, or—if they did—they explain how.
I give them templates:
One is boilerplate “I didn’t use AI.”
The other is a Mad Libs–style fill-in-the-blank (or brackets), where they say what tool they used, what they asked it, and how they used the output.
At our school, we’ve employed built-in tiers of usage:
Tier 0 – No AI Allowed (reserved for in-class, secure assessments).
Tier 1 – Research & Ideas
Tier 2 – Minor Revisions
Tier 3 – Content Generation
Brophy College Preparatory’s AI Usage Levels. More information available at www.brophyprep.org/ai.
If an assignment only allows Tier 1, but a student admits to using Tier 2, that starts a conversation. It is rarely about “I caught you cheating.” It is about a misalignment with the expectations. The statement helps surface that.
2. Google Drive & Google Docs (with editor access)
Every assignment gets dropped into a Google Drive folder that students have shared with me. Students make me an editor, not just a viewer. That’s key—because then I can see the writing process, not just the final product.
3. Revision History Chrome Extension
This little tool is a game-changer. It lets me see:
How many times students copied and pasted into the document.
How long they spent in the document.
Uncommon editing patterns or red flags.
A full playback of their writing process.
If I see that a 5-page essay “appeared” in two minutes with 12 paste actions, that’s a red flag. If I see a kid rewording AI-generated notes line by line for an hour? Weirdly enough, that’s fine by me (so long as they are transparent in their usage) because ultimately, they’re processing and actually engaging with the material. (If you don’t feel comfortable with it, feel free to let students know that it isn’t acceptable in your classroom.)
4. MLA AI Citations
I also require MLA-style AI citations. The MLA says that AI can’t be an author, so students must take ownership of their prompts. The prompt is the title, so students have to include the full prompt and link to the conversation. It looks clunky on a Works Cited page, but that’s the point—I want the transparency.
How This Looks in Practice
I recently ran my first “at-home” AI usage assignment of the semester. Students were encouraged (but not required) to use AI for note-taking. The instructions went like this:
Watch a video and take notes on your own.
Give the transcript (or video) to an AI and have it take notes too.
Compare both sets. Merge, reflect, ask questions, and cite everything—including the AI.
Add the transparency statement.
About 65 kids did this, and honestly? Most of them did okay. Sure, some misunderstood the directions. Some weren’t sure how to prompt. Some paraphrased the AI’s notes line by line. Some had some issues with citations, but that is nothing new in an English classroom. I assessed their usage, including their transparency, and provided them with feedback on what they are doing well and what they can improve upon. Then, we revised. Students had the opportunity to fix their mistakes and to see what authentic engagement in an AI note-taking process looks like.
Why I Like This Approach
A couple of things I’ve learned through using this system:
Students often make mistakes, not malicious choices. Most “misuse” I see comes from confusion—misunderstood instructions, unclear prompting—not from a desire to cheat.
The onus is on them. They certify their AI usage. They own it. If they’re dishonest, that breaks trust—but if they’re honest, we can talk about it.
Thinking is the real evidence. I don’t just want notes or summaries. I want questions, reflections, connections. The transparency statements, revision history, and citations help me see where that thinking is (or isn’t) happening.
Sometimes “cheating” is more work. Kids who reword AI notes line by line spend hours doing it. That’s not nothing. It’s still processing. At this stage, I don’t consider this cheating unless they fail to cite their usage or include this process in their transparency statement.
The Bigger Picture
We live in an era of disinformation, dishonesty, and easy shortcuts. But classrooms don’t have to mirror that. By requiring transparency, we’re building spaces where students learn to own their choices and reflect on their processes.
At the end of the day, AI isn’t going away. Our students will use it in college, at work, in life. The least we can do is teach them to use it honestly, authentically, and with evidence of their own thinking.
And honestly? That feels a lot better than trying to “catch” them.
AI Transparency Statement
This post was created using the AI-assisted workflow I described in a previous essay. I began by audio recording my thoughts and experiences, then used AI to transcribe and synthesize my reflections while maintaining my voice. I added and revised material through a few additional prompts in the LLM interface before copying the content into a document, where I made further revisions. I read the sources that are linked and cited in this post in advance of my audio recording and verified the accuracy of the information prior to posting the essay.
AI Prompts
ChatGPT prompt for blog post: I am writing a substack/blog post about the use of AI Transparency Statements and the other tools associated with how I require transparency in students work. Use the following transcript to draft the content. Keep my informal tone of voice and do not use any material not covered in the transcript: [inserted transcript]
Image prompt in ChatGPT
A warm-toned illustration in an isometric minimalism style with soft 3D relief. Show a diverse group of high school students sitting in a semi-circle, each with a laptop open on their lap. From every laptop, multiple overlapping snippets of text, chatbot icons, and note outlines flow upward in soft, semi-transparent layers, as if floating thought-clouds. At the center sits a female teacher with long hair and glasses, calm and engaged, gently gesturing as she guides the discussion. The perspective should be slightly elevated and isometric, with smooth shading and carved, dimensional forms rather than flat vectors. The color palette should use warm, muted tones like beige, terracotta, peach, and soft browns. The overall atmosphere should feel collaborative, professional, and focused on trust and learning.
Thanks for reading! Please feel free to restack and link.
Wonderful post @Dani Kachirsky. I am writing about the same issue over on my Substack. Would you mind if I restocked your post in my post and linked out to several of your key points? Thanks, Steve Peha