Eastern York SD outlines classroom uses of AI; steering committee offers draft guiding principles

Miss Gurney, the district’s technology innovation specialist, told the Eastern York School District board that the district has begun training teachers on classroom uses of artificial intelligence and that a newly formed AI steering committee has drafted guiding principles and an “acceptable use” chart to help teachers and students decide when and how AI may be used.

The presentation matters because it frames how schools will balance instructional benefits — personalization, faster feedback and simulated experiences — with student-data privacy and academic-integrity risks. The committee’s draft guidance and the policy the district is planning will shape classroom practice and parent and teacher expectations.

Gurney described summer and fall professional development for staff and said the district trained “about 66 to 75” teachers on AI tools for lesson planning, formative feedback and student engagement. She said teachers reported that tasks that once took “hours or days” could be completed in minutes when AI was used for planning, freeing time for student-facing work.

The steering committee has met three times since November and produced draft “guiding principles” the district summarized as: transparency when teachers or students use AI; using AI to enhance research skills rather than replace them; prioritizing student privacy and data security; teaching students about bias and so-called hallucinations; and surrounding classroom use with clear expectations and safety practices.

Gurney showed an “acceptable use” chart the committee drafted that runs from “no AI use” to “full AI use with human oversight.” She told the board those categories require classroom conversations because tools that some would treat as AI (for example, Grammarly or spell‑check) may be viewed differently by different teachers and students. She said the chart is intended to help teachers and students decide whether a task is AI‑assisted editing, brainstorming or a full product produced by AI.

Gurney also demonstrated examples. She said Google’s Gemini does not use user inputs to train its models, a distinction she flagged for privacy considerations: “Because it is Google, it does not take any data for training.” She warned about hallucinations and said, plainly, “AI can just mix stuff up,” citing examples in which AI has invented court cases when asked for legal citations.

Gurney summarized a student panel featuring two students, Ali and James, who reported using tools such as Photomath and a homework‑helper chatbot at home. She said students described AI as a tutor when teachers are not available at night and stressed that many peers “didn’t know the best practices for using AI.” She emphasized that those student perspectives shaped the committee’s work.

The presentation ended with a district acknowledgment that a formal AI policy still needs to be developed. Gurney and the steering committee recommended that the policy codify the draft guiding principles, clarify acceptable uses and define how the district will teach students about AI’s limits and risks.

Board members thanked the presenters and said they valued parent and student input; the board did not take a formal vote on an AI policy at the meeting.

A follow‑up policy draft and additional community feedback were identified as next steps.