TEACHER JUDGMENT · STUDENT OWNERSHIP
My approach
to AI.
AI helps me build. Students do the thinking.
How I build and review lessons.
I put substantial time and care into designing these lessons, often starting with my own existing materials. I “vibe-code” with ChatGPT: I describe what I want an activity to do, then review and revise the code and content it helps produce. I set the teaching goals, check the sources, and remain responsible for what I share.
Transparent with students, always. I explain what I created myself, what I have “AI-ified”—adapted or made interactive with AI assistance—and what I have borrowed from other creators. Using AI does not turn someone else’s work into mine.
“I would never use AI for something I could not do by myself otherwise.”
— David Cutler, Edutopia · October 24, 2025 ↗
In that article, I explain why teacher judgment matters: educators bring knowledge and experience to evaluating AI’s output. Students are still developing those foundations. Having AI do their writing can bypass the reasoning and practice they need. I distinguish explicitly supervised learning activities from using AI to produce students’ work, and explain my own use openly.
In practice.
See how I revised this year’s AP course →
Eyeballs over screens: my classroom approach & Horvath interview →