The Southern York County School District Board of Education held a first reading Wednesday of Policy 815.1, which outlines district guidance for the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) by staff and students.

The draft policy frames district AI use around educational benefit and risk reduction. During discussion the board and solicitor asked for stronger, explicit language that undisclosed use of generative AI that a person represents as their own original work be treated as plagiarism under existing student academic‑integrity policies.

Dr. Reppert, the superintendent, described the policy as an effort to “harness AI’s potential while ensuring responsible use.” The draft lists prohibited uses and requires staff and students to comply with district rules on personally identifiable information and academic integrity. The solicitor and board members noted several specific prohibitions recommended for clarity, including a ban on inputting personally identifiable student or staff data into third‑party generative AI tools to create IEPs, evaluations or other personnel/student records.

Solicitor Jeff Litz and other members also discussed age and consent considerations. Several board members pointed out that many generative AI platforms have age restrictions in their terms of service — typically 18 as a minimum, with access for 13–17 requiring parental consent — and asked administration to clarify how the district will handle parental consent for student use.

Board members asked administration to produce more granular administrative regulations that could set grade‑level guardrails for permitted direct student use, address indirect or teacher‑mediated usages, and identify how tools will be vetted and tracked. The board’s AI committee will continue to review platforms and usage and report back to the board.

The board asked administration and legal counsel to add language stating that violations of the prohibition on representing AI‑generated work as original will be treated as plagiarism under the student handbook. Members agreed to post the revised draft for public comment and return the policy for a second reading at the August board meeting.

No vote was taken; the item remains a first reading with a directed revision to incorporate the plagiarism language and to bring additional administrative guidelines for board review.