Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District AI committee outlines draft guidelines, calls for teacher pilots and ongoing evaluation
Summary
An AI team presented draft guidelines and an implementation plan to the Fremont County School District #25 board, urging training, tool vetting, equity protections and building-level policy adaptation. The board heard plans to publish a draft, pilot recommended tools, and provide resources for administrators and teachers.
An internal team convened by Fremont County School District #25 presented a draft set of artificial-intelligence use guidelines and an implementation plan during the Jan. 27 board meeting, urging training for staff, tool vetting, and local building-level adaptation of any policy.
Why it matters: The committee argued that AI is already present in workplaces and classrooms and recommended a districtwide approach that balances academic integrity, student privacy and equitable access to vetted tools.
What the committee proposed Marcy Campbell, speaking for the AI team, said the group formed after attending the Future of Education and Technology conference and began drafting a comprehensive AI-use guidance document that the team described as a working draft published on the district website. "AI is here, and it's here to stay, and we need to be prepared," Campbell said, urging clear guidance and protective policies for students and staff.
The draft guidance the committee is developing includes: - A draft policy for district leaders and a set of recommended vetted tools for classroom use; administrators will tailor building-level rules and disciplinary consequences to local needs. - Training and literacy work for staff and students emphasizing critical thinking, ethical awareness and data privacy. - An implementation plan that includes pilot teachers who will test recommended tools, mini professional-development "pop-ups" in buildings, and recurring evaluation of tools and policies as AI evolves. - Vendor engagement: the team said it is working with an outside advisor, Evergreen, for rollout guidance and cautioned about vendor data practices.
Classroom examples and academic integrity High school English teacher Michelle Anderson (identified in the meeting as a participant on the team) discussed classroom examples used to teach students about AI’s limits — including image-generation prompts that produce inaccurate or culturally inappropriate results. "That just doesn't make sense," she said of certain AI outputs, adding that exposing students to inaccuracies helps teach verification and critical thinking.
Alicia Sears, the district’s English-language-learner coordinator, described next steps: four additional sessions with Evergreen, teacher surveys to recruit classroom pilots, mini professional-development sessions, and an AI-literacy push that goes beyond technical skills to include collaboration, adaptability and ethical awareness.
Board response and requests Board members responded positively and asked for broad staff representation in pilots and for a summary that can be shared with parents. One board member noted that state-level conversations have emphasized similar points: teaching students to use AI for drafting while requiring them to verify and substantiate claims.
Implementation timeline and materials The committee said it would continue work through the school year, publish its draft guidelines, solicit feedback (including a short survey for staff and parents), and provide a written draft policy to district administrators Christina and Jody for consideration.
Ending The board did not take formal action on the draft at the meeting but thanked the team for beginning the work. The committee requested feedback through the survey and said it will return with pilot results and a recommended policy later in the year.
