Educators urge nuanced AI rules for classrooms and flag 'Inanimate Alice' on VitaLearn

Libby Bonesteel, superintendent of the Montpelier Roxbury School District, and Mike Berry, the district's director of curriculum and technology, told the Senate Education Committee on May 4 that H.650 needs clearer language to separate student-data privacy from pedagogical decisions.

"Those two things are not the same," Bonesteel said, urging the committee to adopt the Agency of Education's two-track approach and to keep curriculum decisions at the local level. She and Berry recommended tying edtech vetting to districts' continuous improvement plans and using established frameworks such as the SAMR model to assess educational impact.

Berry warned that a blanket five-year moratorium on generative AI and chatbots would ban instructional and accessibility tools students rely on, such as speech-to-text for dyslexic learners. "A blanket ban on chatbots also outlaws the speech-to-text accessibility bots that our dyslexic and multilingual learners rely on every single day," he said, and urged lawmakers to "differentiate between instructional and accessibility AI and predatory companion AI."

A viral moment in the hearing came when a lawmaker displayed a product listing called "Inanimate Alice" on the VitaLearn bulk-purchase portal and asked whether it was appropriate for schools. Committee members and AOE staff said VitaLearn is a purchasing consortium, not a district vetting service. Josh Bloomberg, AOE's educational-technology program manager, said he searched the Vermont Student Data Privacy Alliance database and found no signed privacy agreement for the vendor; he said he would follow up.

A sophomore from Vermont Commons, Penelope Hyman, asked how the bill would distinguish "actual artificial intelligence" used in medicine or weather forecasting from generative AI tools like ChatGPT and expressed concern about how students would be taught the difference. Bloomberg and Berry both emphasized the need for clear definitions and adult training before tools are placed in front of students.

Committee members debated opt-out language, moratorium length and whether model district policies or state certification better ensure safety and efficacy. Lawmakers asked the AOE and stakeholders to work together to refine definitions, produce model guidance, and report back to the committee before further action.

No formal vote was taken; the committee adjourned after asking staff and witnesses to continue drafting and vetting language.