Richmond schools favor administrative AI guidelines over a detailed board policy

The Richmond Community Schools board reviewed a draft artificial-intelligence policy and moved to retain a brief board-level statement while authorizing the superintendent to develop administrative guidelines that can be updated more rapidly than a board policy.

Board members and staff described AI as a rapidly evolving area better handled through adaptable administrative guidance rather than detailed policy. “By the time you approve any kind of policy, it's gonna be late,” said a board member during the discussion. Stacy (executive committee member) and the district’s technology staff recommended a short policy that references more detailed administrative guidelines, rather than a standalone, prescriptive policy.

Jason Blanc, a community member who identified himself as a parent and said he works with higher education, urged the board to include a definition of AI and to remove student consequences from a high-level board policy. “I would encourage as you edit the policy to add a definition for AI,” Jason said, and later recommended using the U.S. Department of Education definition as a model. District staff said a definition is included in the draft administrative guidelines and that those guidelines also separate student, teacher and staff sections and cross-reference existing academic-integrity policies.

Technology staff described the district’s current approach to classroom AI tools as a managed, licensed environment. The district uses a licensed product (referred to in discussion as a district-managed platform) that restricts student access to external AI services; staff said publicly available large-language-model tools that are not supervised by the district are blocked for students. Staff and board members emphasized training and digital-safety protections, including professional development and quarterly state cyber-training tied to federal grants.

Board members asked staff to revise the policy text so the first paragraph remains as a brief board statement, add a charge for the superintendent to create administrative guidelines, and delete a final paragraph that attempted to prescribe disciplinary violations in policy. District staff said they could produce the administrative guidelines in roughly a month and would post them for public access; board members noted administrative guidelines are available to the public through BoardDocs and would be subject to iterative updates.

No formal vote to adopt a new AI policy was taken; the board directed staff to return a revised policy that retains a short board-level statement and to publish administrative guidelines for teacher, student and administrative use of AI.