Interboro board discusses AI in schools, approves second reading of generative-AI transportation policy
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Board members debated the district's approach to artificial intelligence in instruction and approved the second reading of several policies on Oct. 15, including a policy on use of generative artificial intelligence in transportation.
The Interboro School District Board of School Directors discussed the district's approach to generative artificial intelligence in education during its Oct. 15 interim meeting and approved the second reading of several policies, including a policy addressing use of generative artificial intelligence in transportation.
Board member Robert Stewart opened a general discussion about AI and schools, saying, "AI is, very, as we all feel in our regular lives, challenged by it at times, aided by it at times, and trying to determine its proper role and how it's going to play." Stewart added that courts and legislation lag behind technology: "the courts are at a completely, totally different pace. We just don't keep up with each other," and urged the board to consult with peers, PSBA and educators while policy guidance develops.
Later in the meeting, Board member Michael Goldsboro moved that the board approve the second reading of policy changes listed as "200, pupils; 290.2 diabetes management; and 800 operations," and specifically cited policy 8,815.1, described in the motion as "the use of generative artificial intelligence in transportation." The motion was seconded, called for a voice vote and carried 7-0.
The board's action was a second-reading approval; by practice in this meeting the item advanced without further amendment. The policy list presented on the motion referenced pupil and operations policy categories as well as a discrete policy number tied to generative-AI use in transportation. The transcript did not contain the full text of policy 8,815.1 or implementation details beyond the policy number and its stated topic.
Board members framed the AI discussion as a balance of risks and benefits and emphasized consulting existing professional associations for guidance while statutory and legal guidance develops. No changes to the policy text were described on the record during the meeting.
The board did not set a specific implementation timeline or list enforcement procedures for the AI policy during this meeting.
The board approved the second reading by voice vote; the motion carried, 7-0.