Committee holds first reading of AI policy; members urge clarity on attribution, classroom control and review cycle

The school committee received a first reading of a proposed district policy on artificial intelligence for staff and students, and members raised questions about disclosure, classroom-specific rules, age limits and the need for frequent review.

Policy scope and requirements: The draft policy addresses acceptable uses, prohibited uses, discipline, professional development and required attribution. One passage the committee singled out requires students to disclose AI use in submitted work and to include an entry in a works-cited page describing portions generated or processed by an AI tool. A committee member called that language “powerful” and suggested the committee flesh out the expected citation format and examples for teachers and students.

Teacher discretion and classroom parameters: The draft states that students must follow “additional parameters set forth by their classroom teacher” for use of generative AI. Committee members supported that clause as a way to preserve teacher control over classroom assignments, but noted it could create inconsistency across classes and asked staff to clarify how the district will support teachers in applying consistent protocols.

Age and grade considerations: Committee members discussed a draft limit keyed to age 13 and recommended the policy consider grade-band distinctions (elementary, middle, high) rather than a single age number because ages and grade levels can vary across students.

Next steps: The policy committee reported it sought input from IT and legal counsel and intends to bring the draft back for a second reading with clarified citation examples, age/grade guidance and an explicit annual review cycle to respond to rapidly evolving AI tools. No vote was taken; this was a first read.