A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Katy ISD lays out AI framework: generative tools limited to older students with teacher permission

July 20, 2026 | Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Katy ISD lays out AI framework: generative tools limited to older students with teacher permission
Katy ISD presented a new AI framework and broader technology guidance to the Board of Trustees on July 20, framing artificial intelligence as an instructional tool rather than a substitute for teacher‑led learning.

Assistant Superintendent Dr. Sinead Bell described a scaffolded access model. Under the framework, elementary students (K–6) will not have access to generative AI; 7th graders may use AI only under explicit teacher direction and supervision for specific tasks; and 8th–12th graders may access district‑approved AI tools for narrowly defined educational purposes only with prior teacher permission. The framework emphasizes four core beliefs — humans first, clear expectations, integrity and safety — and requires that any approved tool meet FERPA, COPPA and CIPA standards before student use.

Dr. Bell said the district will publish vetted tool lists, bring parents into an expanded district AI advisory committee, and launch an AI literacy course for teachers before the 2026–27 school year. She emphasized academic integrity and guidance that students must disclose AI use, maintain original voice and cite AI outputs. During Q&A, trustees asked whether enterprise accounts would be used and whether AI systems would be kept from learning from students; staff answered that district contracts and data‑privacy agreements will be part of the vetting process and that existing district enterprise accounts are being used where feasible.

Board members and parents on the dais raised questions about screen‑time measurement, whether campuses could be required to follow consistent minute allotments, and how schools would monitor passive vs. active device use. Staff responded that the district currently monitors log‑ins and filter events and can explore additional active‑time tracking technologies, but the existing emphasis is on curriculum‑linked, purposeful use of instructional technology.

Next steps: Administration will publish the district’s AI framework and an approved tool list on the district website, expand the district AI advisory committee to include parents and continue training for staff and principals.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee