Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews draft AI policy that would allow vetted classroom tools, require privacy safeguards
Summary
District staff presented a revised artificial‑intelligence policy draft that permits approved AI tools for staff and students with training, requires vendor contracts to protect data, and calls for periodic updates; board asked for faster progress updates.
Sarasota County Schools leaders previewed a revised artificial‑intelligence policy at the Oct. 7 workshop that would permit district‑approved AI tools in classrooms and for staff while setting privacy, training and academic‑integrity guardrails.
The policy revisions, developed after staff surveys and pilot work with tools (including Microsoft Copilot in staff trials), emphasize that AI use must support instruction, preserve academic integrity, avoid unauthorized storage of personally identifiable information, and require vetting and vendor contract language that meets district cybersecurity and privacy standards. The policy would allow student use for brainstorming and feedback when specifically permitted by a teacher; in AP, IB and dual‑enrollment courses staff would be required to follow program‑specific restrictions.
Staff recommended that AI detection tools be available to teachers to assist in integrity checks, but cautioned that detection results cannot be the sole basis for academic‑dishonesty decisions. The district has been piloting a detection tool (Copyleaks) for staff. The draft requires supervisor notification when staff use AI in ways that affect grading or instruction, and bans uploading of confidential tests or internal materials to unapproved platforms.
Officials said the policy will be updated regularly and that the board should expect routine implementation reports; several board members asked for faster cycles (90‑day updates) rather than an annual review because AI capabilities evolve rapidly. Staff urged a minimum of annual formal policy review while offering 90‑day operational updates to the board. The proposed policy would also require standardized contract language with vendors to guard against improper data collection and cyber risks.
No vote was taken; staff said they will incorporate the board’s comments, finalize vendor and training lists, and return with a public‑notice copy for formal adoption.
