Board weighs student AI policy for handbooks, staff AI policy to follow

The board discussed two related new policies on artificial‑intelligence use: a student policy (6038) that administration proposed for inclusion in student handbooks and a staff policy (4065) still under development for the staff handbook.

Key agreed points were a strong emphasis on protecting student data, limiting student exposure to external AI tools that would transfer identifiable student information, and requiring students to disclose AI use where required (for example, as an accommodation). Board members pressed for clearer guidance on how teachers should assess whether student work is acceptable when AI tools are used and whether students may opt out of AI‑enabled tasks.

Technology and curriculum leaders described preliminary decisions: restricting unsupervised student use of external AI browsers and preferring district‑managed AI (e.g., a filtered Gemini instance) to preserve data protections; treating AI attributions like citations; and training teachers to design assignments that require evidence of student thinking. "We can't just go, okay, Gemini is your only resource. Boom," a board member said, summarizing concerns about vendor lock‑in and access inequities.

The board directed administration to: 1) revise the student policy language to remove a clause that allowed staff authorization for placing a person’s name/photo/voice in an AI tool (4.3F) and to add a catch‑all prohibition on activities that may be "deemed inappropriate or constitute a violation of law"; 2) ensure student handbook references point to policy 6038 (so handbook language can defers to an evolving policy); and 3) accelerate professional learning and a district AI review group to produce an implementation guide for teachers. Trustees requested a standing review cadence (suggested: every six months) to keep the policy aligned with rapid AI changes.

The student policy (6038) was the more immediate priority for handbook publication; the staff policy (4065) will be refined and returned for board review in July. The board did not adopt the staff policy at this meeting.

The discussion also covered the operational question of how existing vendor tools with AI features (for example, platforms like Khan Academy or Canva) will be handled; staff said those tools are reviewed for data‑sharing practices and that the district will document how each approved vendor’s AI features are allowed (if at all).