Greenville County Schools adopts new device‑use rule and limits student access to a district‑approved generative AI platform

The Greenville County Board of Trustees Committee of the Whole heard a detailed presentation on Administrative Rule IIA, a new district administrative rule that sets grade‑band device expectations, tightens app approvals and rostering, and restricts student‑facing generative artificial intelligence to a district‑approved platform for grades 6–12, staff said.

District academic staff framed the rule as balancing instructional quality and student safety. Dr. Stevens, who presented the rule, said the district developed the guidance after stakeholder input (students, teachers, parents and administrators), usage analytics from student Chromebooks and app telemetry, and reviews of research and practices in other large districts. The rule is intended to align with recently revised board policy IA and Greenville County's strategic goals for student success.

Rule highlights include small‑group device deployments in primary classrooms (three to five Chromebooks per K4–1 classroom used in rotation), restricted use of supplementary apps for grades 2–5 to a vetted list, and an expectation that, except for required district or state testing, no more than about half of a secondary class period should be spent on devices. The rule also requires that students be rostered to approved applications through the district's ClassLink system so the district can limit personally identifiable information and use analytics to monitor use.

Dr. Stevens described controls on generative AI as one of the rule's key safety measures. He told trustees that broad student access to open generative models is difficult to vet and said the district will permit generative, student‑facing AI only through a vetted, district‑approved platform for grades 6–12 under teacher discretion. "We are not out there in the ChatGPT world," a board member summarized during Q&A; Dr. Stevens confirmed that the approved platform will include teacher training and built‑in safety controls.

Staff reported an app review that began with 30+ candidate applications: 14 apps were retained on an approved list, three remain under review pending additional data collection, and roughly 14 were discontinued for safety, redundancy or historical issues that allowed students to bypass controls. To control PII and app access, the district will continue using ClassLink rostering and contract reviews by security and academic teams.

Board members pressed staff on implementation details. Questions included whether devices will be sent home routinely for elementary students (district and principal discretion), how parents can see students' work or analytics (teachers and administrators can pull analytics; parents should raise concerns with school leadership), and how the district will enforce the secondary goal that no more than half of class time be device‑based (a combination of planning, in‑class observation and analytics reports). Dr. Stevens said guidance and professional development were released to schools in early June to give principals and teachers time over the summer to adapt curriculum maps and schedules.

Staff also clarified assessment constraints: some state and district formative assessments require online administration and currently have no universal paper opt‑out unless a student's individual education program (IEP) requires an accommodation. On Amira tutoring and other intervention tools, staff said data show benefits for targeted lower‑achieving early learners and that implementation guides and Chromebook performance fixes are in place.

The board did not take a formal vote on Rule IIA at this meeting; trustees asked for continued updates as implementation proceeds. Staff said they will monitor analytics, provide twice‑yearly briefings and revisit the rule based on ongoing data and stakeholder feedback.

Sources: presentation and Q&A with Dr. Stevens and Dr. Royster during the committee meeting.