Southern York County SD committee advances draft policy on generative AI, schedules first reading

The Southern York County SD Personnel & Policy Committee reviewed a draft policy on May 6 that would set rules for the district’s use of generative artificial intelligence in instruction and administration.

The draft, labeled policy 815.1 in the packet, would require AI to be used only for approved educational purposes, incorporate AI literacy training for staff and students, require parental consent for student use where indicated, and establish a district approval and monitoring framework for AI tools. Committee members and administrators emphasized data-privacy protections and academic-integrity safeguards.

The committee’s discussion focused on three practical concerns: whether teachers are already using AI and how much input teachers had into the draft; how the policy will coordinate with existing data-governance rules; and how the district will evaluate and approve particular AI tools. Dr. Reppert, an administrator who spoke during the session, said teachers have used AI “in a way to explore the possibilities with generative AI” and noted the district offered professional development on AI last October.

“Students, and, Mrs. Hall, did focus on this, where we will address academic integrity and guidelines for AI’s proper citation and evaluation,” Dr. Reppert said, describing components of the draft that would require teachers to address academic integrity and citation when students use AI.

Board members pressed on oversight and operational details. Mary Lee Hall, a board member, asked whether the committee included teachers and how teacher input affected the final draft; committee members said teacher leadership and building administrators participated in the AI committee. William Hall, a board member, asked whether detection tools for AI-generated student work would be governed by the general acceptable-use policy (policy 815) or by the new 815.1; administrators said detection and acceptable-use tools fall under policy 815 while generative-AI specifics would be covered by 815.1.

Committee members and staff said the draft intentionally moves from a fixed list of authorized tools to an approval framework so the district can evaluate tools for data collection, age appropriateness, bias, accessibility and security without having to amend policy each time a new tool appears. A technology-review process, run through the district technology department, would apply criteria similar to existing app-approval processes.

Speakers noted Pennsylvania state guidance on AI is limited: the committee presenter said about half of U.S. states have issued guidance for K–12 but Pennsylvania had not. The committee and administrators said that fact, combined with rapid change in available tools, creates urgency for at least an initial policy that can be revised as practice and tools evolve.

No formal vote took place. Committee members were told the draft will be presented as a first reading at the full board meeting on May 15, published for public review, and returned for a second reading and vote in June.

The committee’s packet and members’ comments cited the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA) recommendations as the source of the draft and discussed intersections with existing district policy 830.01 (data governance, storage and security) and federal privacy rules such as COPPA when applications involve children under the age of 13.

The committee adjourned after the policy discussions; no policy was adopted at the May 6 meeting.