MSAD 51 presents administrative guidelines for generative AI; committee recommends staff and student boundaries, pilot platforms and professional development

MSAD 51 board members heard a presentation May 22 on draft administrative procedures for generative artificial intelligence and the district's plan to roll out training, classroom guidance and pilot platforms.

The procedures, developed this year using a draft from the legal firm Drummond & Woodson as a starting point, are administrative guidelines rather than formal board policy, Mari told the board. They outline expectations for staff and student use: AI should enhance, not replace, lesson planning or learning; users must respect copyright and data-privacy agreements; staff must protect confidential information and model ethical use; students must obtain teacher permission for generative AI on assignments, cite AI sources and be taught to critically evaluate AI outputs.

Why it matters: The district said it wants flexible rules that can change quickly as tools evolve while creating consistent classroom practices. Board members and students urged caution about punitive uses of AI-detection software and asked for clear, school-by-school professional development so teachers and students know how to use — and when not to use — generative tools.

Key points from the presentation and discussion: - Development process: A stakeholder committee focused on middle and high school usage adapted Drummond & Woodson's draft to MSAD 51's settings and reviewed changes with building leadership, technology teams and student government, Mari said. The committee recommended keeping guidance at the administrative level for flexibility. - Staff guidance: Procedures emphasize that AI is an instructional enhancement, not a substitute for planning; staff should avoid exposing confidential data to third-party tools and should teach proper citation when work incorporates AI output. - Student guidance: Students should seek teacher permission before using generative AI to produce assignment content; academic integrity rules apply and teachers should explicitly teach students how to evaluate and cite AI outputs. - Professional learning and curriculum: The committee recommended ongoing, grade-span–tailored professional development for staff and matched instruction for students. The district plans to incorporate AI topics into its digital citizenship work and consider future curricular additions (for example, an exploratory computer science course in middle school) as the field evolves. - Pilot platforms and procurement: Two school-focused platforms — SchoolAI and MagicSchoolAI — were identified for limited pilots this spring and fall. The district aims to propose a platform purchase in its FY27 budget to provide a safer, district-managed environment for student AI instruction, Mari said.

Student perspective and detectors: Katie Wallace, the student board representative who also took part in committee work, described how reliance on AI-detection tools has created a “cycle of distrust” in some English classrooms: students, anxious about being accused of cheating, submit work to public AI checkers, which then can be flagged later as AI because such detectors are unreliable. “Students who are trying to do the right thing are feeling caught in ways they should not be,” Katie said. Carl Francis, the high school principal, confirmed the English department uses AI detectors and is aware of their limitations; he said department procedures and document edit-history checks are also used to assess authorship.

Implementation steps: Mari said some professional development has already begun and the district will recruit teachers for pilot platforms. The policy committee will consider small policy updates that explicitly reference generative AI in the district’s existing technology policies (GCSA‑R and IJNDB‑R). Because the procedures are administrative, the board will be informed rather than asked to adopt the guidelines; policy updates tied to technology use will return to the board for formal action.

What board members asked for: Board members and teachers urged the district to include parents in outreach and to ensure guidance distinguishes between using AI as a research or scaffolding tool (for example, to generate an outline or find sources) and using it to produce final assignment content. Several speakers also emphasized teaching citation and critical evaluation skills as the essential classroom responses to generative AI.

Next steps: The district will continue building professional development and student curricula, expand pilots of district-approved AI platforms, forward policy language updates to the policy committee and return technology policy revisions to the board for action.