Can teachers use AI to grade student work?

Teachers may use AI to support assessment where school policy permits it. The important distinction is how much responsibility the tool is being given. Drafting a comment, suggesting a rubric score, and determining a final grade have different implications for students and require different safeguards.

Distinguish scoring, feedback, and professional judgment

These activities often sit under the heading of "grading," but each requires separate consideration.

Scoring involves evaluating work against defined criteria. AI may help a teacher identify evidence relevant to a rubric or flag possible inconsistencies in marking. Its suggestions still require review: a tool can misinterpret an argument, overlook a valid approach, or apply criteria incorrectly. A plausible explanation does not establish that a score is accurate.

Feedback helps students understand their work and decide what to do next. AI can assist with drafting, but useful feedback must be accurate, specific, and appropriate to what the student has been taught. Teachers should check that each comment addresses something present in the work and offers a next step the student can reasonably take.

Professional judgment connects the assignment to a broader understanding of the learner. A weak argument might reflect difficulty with reading, limited subject knowledge, or an unfamiliar writing task. Interpreting that evidence requires context from instruction, previous work, conversations, and any relevant accommodations. The teacher remains responsible for that interpretation and the instructional response.

Explain AI use to students

Schools should establish disclosure expectations for teachers as well as students. Students should understand how their work is evaluated and whether AI contributes to the scores or comments they receive.

The level of explanation should reflect the use. Editing a teacher-written comment for clarity is different from generating an initial evaluation of student work. A school's guidance should make those distinctions explicit and explain how teachers review the output.

Teachers should be able to explain and support every grade and comment they provide, including those prepared with AI assistance.

Protect student information

Before submitting student work to an AI tool, teachers should confirm that the school has approved both the tool and the intended use. Approval for lesson planning does not necessarily include permission to upload student assignments or records.

Names are only one source of identifying information. Personal narratives, assignment details, and references to other students can also reveal identity. Removing a name does not necessarily make work anonymous.

School guidance should specify how student work and confidential information must be handled, including grades, disciplinary records, and IEP or 504 documentation. Teachers need clear procedures they can follow without having to interpret a provider's privacy terms themselves.

Set a practical boundary

A school may permit AI to suggest rubric scores, identify possible inconsistencies, or draft feedback, provided the teacher checks those suggestions against the student's work.

That review must be substantive. As they would expect with student AI use, teachers should read the work being assessed, verify the basis for the score, and revise or reject comments that are inaccurate or unhelpful. Students should have a clear way to ask questions or challenge an assessment.

The final grade belongs to the teacher's professional judgment. AI assistance does not reduce the teacher's responsibility to explain what the student demonstrated and why the grade is warranted.