Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Tech Ai topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carteret County schools present AI guidelines limiting student use, requiring teacher oversight
Summary
District technology staff presented a new AI guidelines framework that restricts direct chatbot use for elementary students, requires school- and district-level review of generative-AI tools, and mandates disclosure of student prompts and citations when AI is used.
Carteret County Public Schools technology staff presented a proposed AI guidelines and framework to the Board of Education on June 3 that would limit direct chatbot interactions for younger students and require multiple levels of review before generative-AI tools are used in classrooms.
The presentation, given by Mike McKay, explained the review process the district proposes: a teacher-level review, a school-level Media/Technology Advisory Committee review, a curriculum/instruction review for pedagogical alignment to the North Carolina Standard Course of Study, and a technical/compliance review for data storage and vendor safeguards. McKay said the district uses a living Google document to track updates: “It's a Google doc that our schools have and is also on our website.”
Why it matters: The framework sets practical limits and documentation requirements intended to protect student data and to create consistent classroom practices as AI tools enter K–12 instruction. The district described the plan as a learning year for staff and students, emphasizing literacy before tool use.
Key points from the presentation: - Grade limits: students in pre-K through grade 5 would not have direct classroom access to chatbots; teachers may model AI interactions in front of small groups using age-appropriate, education-focused tools. - Review steps: teacher review → school Media/Technology Advisory Committee → curriculum instruction review (new this year) → technical/compliance review (questions include server location and vendor data safeguards). The district said it requires vendor documentation of data practices and applies DPI-style submission requirements to any application that receives student data. - Academic rubric and disclosure: the district proposes an “AI academic rubric” with levels (AI-free, AI-assisted, AI-enhanced, AI-empowered) and would require students to disclose prompts and provide works cited or links to AI conversations when AI is used in assignments. - Human oversight: the framework repeatedly stresses “human in the loop” review and student responsibility for accuracy and fairness of AI-generated content.
During discussion, an unnamed board member commented on the human oversight approach: “I really love this the human in the loop approach because as a parent that admittedly knows nothing about AI, this gives my heart a lot of comfort because I would not be the 1 to guide them through this. I will be learning right with them.”
No formal adoption vote was recorded during the meeting; the item was presented for board consideration and described as a “living” guideline that will be updated as technology and practice evolve. District staff said AI literacy training for staff already occurred this year and will continue through summer and the next school year.
