Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Artificial Intelligence In Schools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Provo district committee proposes AI guidelines, launches short pilot of screened classroom tools
Summary
District AI committee presented proposed guidelines and a limited pilot of two vetted generative-AI vendors for classroom use; pilot licenses are discounted through the end of the school year and district staff emphasized data privacy and training.
District instructional staff presented draft AI guidelines and a short pilot of vetted classroom AI tools during the Provo City School Board study session.
Camille Furrias, instructional coach at Timpview High School and a member of the district AI committee, told the board that ‘‘AI is rapidly transforming the landscape of education throughout the world right now’’ and framed the committee’s work as creating intentional, evidence-based guidance rather than ‘‘opening Pandora’s box’’ of unvetted apps. Camille told the board the goal is to support teachers’ work, protect student data and improve student outcomes rather than simply replacing teaching tasks.
Jenny Thurston, the district’s AVID and innovative learning specialist and the AI committee lead, summarized the committee’s process: a needs assessment and district-wide survey of staff (210 teacher responses on AI use), review of the state framework and neighboring districts’ guidance, and drafting a set of Provo guidelines that include educator, student and parent guidance pages. The committee recommends starting with guidelines and pilot licenses rather than immediate board policy changes, then evaluating results for possible future policy.
Pilot details and data privacy: Jenny and other staff described two vendors offered under state contracts—referred to in the meeting as Magic School and SchoolAI—and gave per-student pilot pricing the committee received: Magic School at $2.91 per student and SchoolAI at $4.33 per student. Staff said both vendors meet district data-privacy requirements for classroom use, and that the district would control what materials the systems could access and what students could do in class. Staff said the pilot licenses are available through the end of the school year (possibly into June) under favorable terms from the vendors while the district evaluates the software.
Equity and training concerns: Board members and staff discussed whether licenses should be provided districtwide K–12 or targeted to secondary classrooms first. Jenny said initial responses showed more secondary teacher adoption but that some elementary teachers are already using AI in developmentally appropriate ways. Staff emphasized training, centralized vetting of products, and consideration of state contract/licensing opportunities to avoid inequitable access if individual schools buy tools from local budgets.
Board direction: The board signaled informal approval to proceed with the pilot and put the committee’s guidelines on the district’s web resources for staff training and reference. Staff said they will collect end-of-pilot feedback from users, report results to the board, and consider whether to recommend district-wide licensing and further policy work later this year.
What the board was not asked to do today: staff presented guidance and requested permission to run the pilot and continue developing the guidelines; there was no formal board vote to adopt a new district policy on AI during the study session.
