Nashoba launches AI literacy framework and opens Google Gemini for high‑school use

NASHOBA — The Nashoba Regional School District on Sept. 10 unveiled an AI literacy framework that will guide teacher and student use of generative artificial intelligence and open Google’s Gemini to high‑school students under the district’s enterprise workspace.

The framework, presented by Judd Stefanowicz, the district’s director of digital learning and innovation, includes a district AI handbook, a classroom guide for grades 6–12, tutorials, family resources and a new cohort of “AI Leads” who will support professional learning. Stefanowicz said the district will launch Gemini for student use at the high school "on Friday" and that the district chose Gemini for its enterprise‑grade data protections and classroom tools. "Gemini is the only tool that provides this level of protection," Stefanowicz said, noting features he described as learning tools, double‑check features and an onboarding experience for students.

The nut graf: District leaders said the framework aims to move the conversation beyond blocking tools and toward teaching students how to use AI responsibly and to preserve authentic student learning. The rollout will pair classroom rules and syllabus language with professional development, including a full‑day district PD on March 27 that will feature a keynote by the author identified in the presentation as Tony Frontier.

Stefanowicz outlined how the classroom guide uses a red/green model to mark when AI is allowed and when work must be completed without AI "in order to demonstrate individual knowledge and skills." The guidance recommends documentation of students’ steps and thinking — what the presenter called "transparency and explainability" — when AI is used as a thought partner or feedback tool.

Student perspective: Ryan Neisher, the district student representative, told the committee the guidance is helpful because students are already using AI. "We're all using AI already, so it's really helpful to know when we can and when we can't use it," Neisher said.

Committee members raised data‑privacy and implementation questions at the meeting. Assistant superintendent of finance and operations Ross Mulcahren told the committee the district will receive notifications when filters identify concerning content and that notifications escalate to the building principal, the superintendent and the technology manager as appropriate. Stefanowicz said the district will also monitor use inside Google Classroom and can review conversational logs to support teacher‑student conversations about academic integrity.

Implementation details presented to the committee include: - AI Leads: district intends to appoint two AI Leads per school and three at the high school as extra‑duty roles, supported in part with Title IV grant funds. Stefanowicz described the assignment as extra duty rather than a new full‑time position. - Syllabus language: the high‑school syllabus language being added states that AI tools "may be used to support creativity in original work, but only with instructor approval on assignments specifically designated as AI appropriate," and that inability to explain completed work may indicate a need for additional instruction rather than punishment. - Professional learning: an optional book study and a March 27 full‑day PD with a keynote speaker were cited as next steps to train teachers.

Where things stand: The committee discussed evaluation and benchmarks for the initiative. Stefanowicz said the AI Leads will be tasked with developing benchmarks and collecting feedback from teachers and students. The district intends to align the work with guidance from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).

The presentation prompted a variety of reactions: some committee members welcomed an instructional approach to the technology; others urged careful evaluation and expressed concerns about monitoring, data retention and how to distinguish legitimate student use from outsourcing the work. Stefanowicz and staff said they will return with more details as the AI Leads and evaluation protocols are established.

Ending: The committee did not adopt formal policy at the meeting; staff described the framework and next steps and signaled plans to bring policy and evaluation language back to the committee for review.