Ozark R‑VI board reviews draft artificial‑intelligence procedure; no vote taken

Administrators for the Ozark R‑VI School District presented a draft procedure on the use of generative artificial intelligence in classrooms and asked the board for feedback rather than approval.

The procedure, developed by a committee that met beginning in the fall and that reviewed sample policies (including MSBA materials), is designed to guide teachers’ and students’ use of AI tools. The district said teachers would vet tools through the technology department for safety, privacy and alignment with instructional practice before using them in class. Technology staff will check tools for compliance with COPPA, HIPAA and CIPA and other data‑privacy standards where applicable, administrators said.

Why it matters: the procedure defines how teachers may authorize AI use for specific assignments, explains the district’s expectations for student behavior and identifies disciplinary consequences when existing policies are violated. The district intends to follow with professional learning for teachers and a later policy amendment to JGR‑1 (academic dishonesty) that will reflect the board’s feedback.

Administrators described a “stoplight” graphic in the draft: students should assume AI is not permitted unless a teacher authorizes the tool for a particular assignment and explains how use will affect grading and collaboration. That wording was changed after committee feedback to make clear students must assume AI is not permitted unless explicitly authorized by an instructor.

Committee members and board members pressed for several clarifications. Board member James, who served on the committee, and others asked how the district will train teachers who are less comfortable with technology. Administrators said instructional coaches will partner with the technology department (named staff included Chase and Ethan in the discussion) to build adult capacity before expanding student access.

Equity and bias were raised as concerns. Committee and board members asked how the procedure would ensure equitable access for students with limited internet or device access and how teachers would minimize algorithmic bias. Administrators said the procedure asks teachers to offer AI opportunities “in an equitable manner,” for example by providing in‑class time or tools so students without home internet are not disadvantaged. The draft also emphasizes keeping a human “in the loop” to review AI outputs and make final instructional or grading judgments.

Privacy and safety also featured in the discussion. Administrators said the district’s technology review will evaluate cloud‑based tools for student‑data protections and to prevent unauthorized external contact; the district will allow only tools that meet its privacy and acceptable‑use standards.

Next steps: board members were asked to provide feedback at this meeting; administrators said they will incorporate board input and return next month with a proposed amendment to policy JGR‑1 (academic dishonesty) for board action. No formal vote occurred on the procedure itself at this meeting.