AI and Education: The Struggle Continues

AI is already reshaping education, and schools cannot simply ban it and return to the old classroom. Recent reporting in the New York Times shows how quickly AI has participated in homework, essays, lesson planning, and classroom routines.
 
The biggest concern is academic honesty. “Student Cheating Is Becoming Impossible to Detect in an A.I. Era” (NY Times, June 18, 2026) explains that AI can help students generate or revise writing instantly, making take-home assignments harder to judge. And AI detectors are becoming less reliable, as AI, whose grammar is typically flawless, can insert predictable grammatical errors to disguise that it created the content. Thus, teachers can miss cheating or wrongly accuse honest students, creating more suspicion and less certainty among educators.

 
In response to this challenge, teachers are redesigning lessons. “Adapting to a New World: Teachers on How A.I. Is Reshaping the Classroom” (NY Times, February 26, 2026) notes that teachers are bringing more writing into the classroom, asking students to describe their writing process and strategy. Others are using AI carefully for brainstorming, feedback, or practice while teaching students to recognize its limits.

 
“This Teacher Has Doubts About A.I. But He Won a Prize Using It” (NY Times, June 17, 2026) tells the story of a New York City teacher who won a prize with help from AI to create history lessons for his students while still having reservations about AI's use in the classroom. Teachers do not have to blindly accept every new tool, but they cannot ignore a technology students will—and should—continue to use. In fact, our very ambivalence should be the fuel to fire new ideas on when and how to use AI in the classroom, office, and boardroom. 

 
The goal should be responsible use: clear policies, better lessons, and practical assignments that teach students the difference between making AI a writing assistant and avoiding due diligence. AI may change how students write and study, but education should still help them think for themselves. 

A Return to the Lighthouse International Film Festival

For the fourth consecutive year, I attended the Lighthouse International Film Festival (LIFF) in Long Beach Island (LBI), New Jersey, from June 10 to 14. This year, the 5-day festival screened in 198 films from 31 nations in 4 venues scattered across the island. The films ranged from short length to feature length, narratives to documentaries, TV and web series to film house productions, and included specialties like darkhouse (horror), surfing, high school and college productions. Thus, much of the world and the entire film community were represented on the barrier island. And the entertainment, for the most part, was first rate.

To start with, LBI is a nice 5-day destination in early June, when the LIFF perennially runs. You can count on Atlantic surf walks along uncrowded beaches, or a lighthouse visit on the northernmost point of the island, sunrises on the beachside and sunsets on the bayside, plenty of specialty shops, great breakfast places like Uncle Will's or The Chicken or the Egg, and cool restaurants with bay views like the Bird and Betty's and Tucker's Tavern, or with a garden courtyard like The Gables, many of them with entertainment. So if you want to just lie low, LBI will give you that. 

During the film festival, I saw 40 shorts ranging from 2 to 25 minutes and 7 feature length movies, some of them exceptional, most notably Union County with Will Poulter (97 minutes) and 5th with Eric Roberts (16 minutes), both about people trying to overcome addiction. For most of these shows, the moviemakers or actors attend a Q & A directly after their film. 

One of best things about getting a festival pass for only $125 is the freedom to attend any of the movies as well as other special events, such as breakfasts and parties with the filmmakers. After a while, one feels they are a part of a community of like-minded people. Keep open early June 2027 to experience this singular event.

What's Standard English, Part 8: The F Word

I could get in trouble for this one.

I conclude this series with the word that prompted me to start it. While the F word is far from standard writing in the workplace, it is becoming increasingly pervasive in office speech, and you might find it here or there in writing. I have seen "WTF" in business text messages. You know what that means.

That spread does not mean the F word has lost its shock value. It still seems overtly and inappropriately aggressive, which is exactly why people use it. In speech, it may function as anger, emphasis, surprise, admiration, or even solidarity, depending on who says it, to whom, and under what circumstances. A close colleague may utter it jokingly and strengthen rapport; the same word from a manager in a tense moment may feel threatening or abusive. As with so much language, meaning lies not only in the word itself but in the relationship and context.

One thing for sure: Using the word would have ended a politician’s career a long time ago; now it’s little more than an understandable, innocuous sound bite.

The issue is bigger than one taboo word. It is about the steady migration of informal speech into professional environments. Workplaces now absorb the habits of texting, social media, streaming culture, and casual conversation far more quickly than they once did. What earlier generations would have considered plainly unprofessional may now pass without notice in some offices, especially in fast-moving, high-pressure, or highly familiar teams. The standard has certainly loosened.

It makes sense to remember that expanded acceptance is not the same as universal acceptance. A word that passes easily among peers may damage credibility with clients, offend a reader, or create risk in a difficult Human Resources situation.

Has the F word entered standard English? Not fully. But it has undeniably moved closer to the center of ordinary usage than many people are willing to admit. Standard English changes as culture changes, and professionalism now depends less on rigid rules than on audience, judgment, and timing.

What's Standard English, Part 7: :-) 😀 :-( 👍

The emoticons and symbols in the heading of this post represent the first time I have used them in the 21-year history of this blog—or anywhere, for that matter. I try to let my words speak for me in print. But that doesn't mean I am following some kind of usage convention. The standard is to use them. Such devices, once reserved for text messaging, have been the norm in business email for some time. They have specific meanings known by the writer and reader, so I suppose they count as language.

Still, their rise creates an interesting tension. Emojis can clarify tone in the quick, stripped-down medium of email. A brief “Thanks” may seem abrupt; “Thanks 🙂” may appear warm and appreciative. A thumbs-up can save a whole sentence. In fast-moving exchanges, these marks can do the work that facial expression, gesture, and speaking voice do in conversation.

On the other hand, they also blur the line between informal and formal writing. A smiling face or laughing symbol may seem harmless between teammates, yet the same mark may appear unserious in a difficult message, a disciplinary response, or a communication with a client. As with salutations, punctuation, and word choice, context governs everything. The writer must ask not merely, “Is this common?” but “Is this right for this reader and this moment?”

So are emoticons and emojis now part of Standard English? In practice, yes—at least in many everyday forms of digital writing. They may not belong in every document, and some writers and readers (like me) will resist them, but they are no longer fringe devices. They have become one more way that writers signal meaning, attitude, and relationship. Once again, the lesson is the same: standard English is not fixed. It changes because people do.

What's Standard English, Part 6: Ain't

This post ain't going to take long to read. Ain't might not have become more standardized in workplace writing, but it is becoming more common in speech. And you can bet that standardized speech eventually becomes standardized workplace writing. You can do your own research on this fact.

You'll never get an opponent to concede that ain't is Standard English, but you will win this one: Ain't has a long history of standard usage before it was discredited by prescriptive grammarians, and I completely understand why. We have standard contractions for you, we, and they are not (aren't) and he, she, and it is not (isn't). But we don't have one for I am not, although amn't has a history of standard English usage. Thus, we have ain't.

Since ain't has not disappeared from English for over three centuries, I believe it will become standard in both speech and writing. Ain't is gaining momentum.

What's Standard English, Part 5: Comma Splice

Consider these sentences:

• I am your technical consultant, you can contact me for any problem you encounter with the system.
• Margo is in the conference room, she is checking the technology for her presentation tomorrow.
• Please do not sign out during a break, doing so will make it harder for you to return to the program. 
• Thanks for your help, we will use your guidance throughout the project.

Grammatical purists would call all four examples comma splices, the technical error of substituting a period with a comma to separate two sentences. Yet four strong writers wrote them to me in emails that were otherwise flawless in complying with standard English rules. I am sure they were aware of the miscue, but they might have written them for various reasons, including variety in sentence composition, rebellion against stringent grammar rules, or carelessness amid volumes of writing tasks. 

The speed required of workers who need to process hundreds of emails a day has undoubtedly contributed to the rise of comma splices. For this reason, it is not easy to say any longer that comma splices are mistakes.

What's Standard English, Part 4: Compose / Comprise

If you keep getting it wrong long enough, don't worry. The wrong way will become the standard sooner or later. We learned the distinction between compose and comprise by remembering the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole. Therefore, we might say, "Canada comprises 10 provinces and 3 territories" or "10 provinces and 3 territories compose Canada." Thus, using passive voice we should say, "Canada is composed of 10 provinces and 3 territories." Then "Canada is comprised of 10 provinces and 3 territories" should be considered nonstandard usage.

Really? You can spot is comprised of in respected publications such as The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Atlantic. And once they use it, we all will. In fact, Merriam-Webster considers comprised of a standard phrase. Here is another case of the difficulty in defining and demanding standard English when English standards change.