Board committee delays first reading of generative-AI policy after questions on age limits, consent and safeguards

At a Sept. 15 Personal and Policy Committee meeting, the district agreed to postpone the first reading of a draft policy titled “Acceptable Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education” until October to allow the AI committee and district administrators more time to define AI classifications, review vendor user agreements and resolve parental-consent and implementation questions.

The policy governs how generative AI tools and related technologies are evaluated, authorized and monitored for use by students and staff districtwide. Committee members and administrators said the policy is intended as a guardrail for classroom use, data handling and vendor compliance but needs clearer language on age restrictions, how parental consent will be handled and which tools will require opt-in versus opt-out procedures.

Discussion highlights

- Definitions and classifications: Committee members proposed adding a definitions section that lists AI categories the district will use for vetting (for example: generative, predictive, descriptive, diagnostic, prescriptive, reactive and autonomous). The classifications are intended to help staff determine whether a tool is subject to stricter review, parental consent or other limitations.

- Age thresholds and legal guidance: Participants noted federal guidance and industry practice on age thresholds, including the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) baseline of 13 and vendor user agreements that often require parental permission for users under 18. District staff said that, in practice, age-based licensing from vendors may force administrators to limit use by whole grade levels rather than individual students in split-age classrooms.

- Parental consent and implementation options: Administrators described trade-offs among a per-tool opt-in, an opt-out model for classes or grade spans, and an opt-in for high-risk generative tools. The committee heard that an inventory of roughly “under 10” generative-AI tools is being evaluated; staff cautioned that requiring active opt-in for every tool could leave many students unable to participate and could be administratively burdensome given typical parent response rates (administrators estimated routine return rates for mandatory forms at roughly 65–72 percent without follow-up).

- Inventory and vetting process: The AI committee and technology staff reported an ongoing inventory and vetting workflow that examines age appropriateness, bias, privacy protections, accessibility, data security and proposed additions such as “educational value.” Staff said the district already includes language in the draft policy directing ongoing evaluation and periodic data collection on AI’s impact on student learning.

- Prohibitions and enforcement: Committee members proposed inserting a specific prohibition that staff and students not use generative AI to create likenesses of any student, staff member or district official without that person’s permission. The group discussed whether to add that prohibition immediately as a standalone agenda item for the upcoming board meeting or to include it with the fuller policy revisions in October. The committee also discussed making significant prohibitions a separate subpolicy so prohibitions can be updated more quickly than the full policy cycle.

Board directions and next steps

- The committee agreed to move the first reading of the AI policy to October so the AI committee can complete its vetting of current tools, review vendor user agreements (including age and parental-permission clauses), and recommend specific implementation language for parental consent and classroom application.

- Staff were directed to continue the inventory and vetting work, to publish the approved list for community review when complete, and to return proposed language that clarifies whether parental consent will be handled per tool, by classification of tool, or by grade span.

- The committee left open the option to place the proposed prohibition on creating likenesses without permission on the board agenda as a discrete item for earlier action; members agreed to prepare wording and, if desired, to add it as an agenda item for the next board meeting.

Why it matters

District officials said the policy will determine how students and teachers may use AI tools that are increasingly integrated into instructional software, and it sets the district’s approach to privacy, equity and curriculum alignment. The unanswered questions on parental consent and vendor age limits affect whether teachers can use AI in mixed-age classes and how quickly new classroom tools can be adopted.

Ending

School administrators and the AI committee will reconvene to finish the tool-by-tool review, finalize definitions and recommend consent language before the district submits the policy for first reading in October.