AI-Generated Imagery in a Digital Art Portfolio
You teach a digital art elective with 22 students in grades 10–12. The district provides Chromebooks and filters some sites, but several free text-to-image generators load. Your department has no AI policy; the acceptable-use policy is silent. A senior submits a semester portfolio in which 80 percent of the imagery in his 'digital collage' was generated by a text-to-image tool. He discloses this in a thoughtful artist statement and says the tool was the point. Two other students used AI to generate reference images and then drew from them without disclosure. The principal wants the program to look innovative; the technology director wants AI blocked; a parent emails that AI 'isn't art and shouldn't count.' Your rubric already includes composition, color, and conceptual clarity.
1. How do you grade the senior's disclosed work without either automatically accepting or automatically rejecting it?
Read the worked answer
Grade against the rubric and the learning goals, not against the tool. The rubric asks for composition, color, and concept; if the collage meets those, the tool alone is not a violation. But the assignment also had an unstated goal of developing digital composing skill, and 80 percent generated imagery may mean the student did not practice that skill.
Distinguish authorship from curation: selecting and editing outputs is a real skill, but it is different from drawing. Ask for process evidence such as prompts, iterations, edits, and a short oral defense. Then either accept the work with a revised criterion or require a hybrid that includes hand-built or vector elements. The disclosure matters ethically because he did not hide the use. The two students who did not disclose are a separate integrity issue and should not be folded into his grade.
2. What class policy would you adopt, and why is a ban weaker than a tiered policy?
Read the worked answer
Adopt a tiered policy: red for foundational skill assignments where AI is not allowed; yellow where AI is allowed with disclosure and a process log; green where AI is the medium and critical reflection is required. Require a process log with prompts, dates, what was kept or rejected, and edits. Teach AI literacy: dataset bias, copyright uncertainty, labor questions, and what 'original' means in a given context.
A ban is weaker because it is leaky, unenforceable, and does not teach judgment. Students can access tools outside school, and a ban pushes use underground. A tiered policy aligns with the standards for creating, responding, and connecting, and it gives you a basis for consistent grading. Make it visible in the syllabus and apply it to the next assignment rather than retroactively punishing the senior.
3. How do you respond to the parent and the technology director while keeping the principal's innovation goal honest?
Read the worked answer
To the parent, explain that the class teaches judgment about tools, not only manual rendering. Share the rubric and the disclosure requirement, and invite them to see the process log. Do not dismiss the concern that AI isn't art; it is a real question and a teachable one. To the technology director, agree on network-level limits during assessments, but note that blocking is leaky and that students need supervised practice. To the principal, frame the policy as innovation with accountability, not resistance.
The consistency principle is what matters: the senior's disclosure should be treated differently from undisclosed use, and all students should know the rule before the next project. That is fair to the senior, fair to the two other students, and defensible to a parent who thinks the tool is doing the work.