Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hudsonville teachers demonstrate Brisk AI pilot to board; district says use remains in piloting phase
Summary
Teachers from Bauer Elementary demonstrated classroom uses of the Brisk AI extension — including automated feedback, quizzes from videos and reading‑level adjustment — and district staff said the tools are being piloted across the district while leaders weigh costs, equity and implementation details.
Teachers from Bauer Elementary demonstrated how an AI browser extension called Brisk can generate targeted student feedback, convert instructional videos into quizzes or slideshows and adjust article reading levels during the Hudsonville Public School District board meeting.
The demonstration, led by Bauer Principal Josh Meersma and teachers Delaney Overman and Kaylee Allstaff, showed teachers using Brisk to attach a fourth‑grade rubric to student work and instantly generate “next steps” feedback, create auto‑graded Google Form quizzes from video subtitles, and change article text to a lower reading level for individual students. “As a teacher, it is just a huge time saver,” Carrie Allstadt said during the presentation.
District administrators told the board the software is being used in classrooms in “pockets” and that the district is still in a piloting phase. “We are still very much in the piloting phase,” an unnamed district administrator said, and the district’s instructional technology director, Craig Steenscher, has been leading feedback collection and presentations about available tools.
Presenters described specific classroom uses: attaching a scoring rubric so Brisk generates individualized suggestions, a “boost” one‑on‑one tutoring activity students called a “robot friend,” and the ability to produce printable activities or podcasts based on student performance. Teachers said the tool can surface red‑flag notifications when a student goes off topic, allow teachers to review and edit computer‑generated feedback before returning it to students, and free time for small‑group instruction.
Teachers also described licensing and cost considerations: the features shown to the board were available under a free teacher account when logged in with district credentials; the presenters said they received a three‑month pro trial that enabled additional features such as image generation. District staff warned the board about the risk of depending on free versions that later carry significant costs for a full district rollout.
Board members asked about districtwide strategy and oversight. Presenters and administrators said decisions about expectations (what parts of student work are assessed automatically, who sets learning targets) have been made at the grade‑team level in pilot classrooms and are still being discussed for broader rollout. The district emphasized teacher control: teachers said they review and, when necessary, edit AI feedback before releasing it to students.
No formal board action on procurement or districtwide adoption was recorded in the transcript; presenters asked the board to note pilot results and the district’s ongoing work to gather teacher feedback and consider equity and cost before wider rollout.
The demonstration took place during a board meeting that also covered unrelated agenda items. District staff said they will continue to collect teacher input and evaluate possible district strategies and budget implications before recommending wider adoption.
