South Portland advances AI plan: district endorses single AI tool, traffic‑light protocol and micro‑course for students

Andy Wallace, the district’s technology director, told the South Portland School Board the AI steering committee has completed a year‑and‑a‑half review and set a framework for classroom use of artificial intelligence.

The committee endorsed a single, district‑managed AI tool referred to in the meeting as “Magic School,” created student handbook wording about AI, and recommended staff training and subject‑level professional learning to guide classroom use. Wallace said the committee adopted a position statement largely based on a national think tank’s guidance and recommended continued, iterative committee work to keep policies current as technology evolves.

Why it matters: The committee’s recommendations set expectations for how students and staff may use AI in instruction, aim to protect student privacy, and propose practical classroom practices (the “traffic‑light” protocol) that teachers can attach to specific assignments.

Key specifics reported - Endorsed tool: The steering committee recommended the district continue with a single, vetted AI tool (referred to in the presentation as “Magic School”) because the committee judged it to align with district privacy and ethical standards and to be easy for teachers to manage. Wallace said the district vetted multiple products before recommending this one. - Student handbook and student education: The committee wrote student handbook language on AI and acknowledged current student use is low in lower grades. It recommended curriculum units and instruction on AI use at the PK–4, 5–8 and high school levels; the high school plan includes a micro‑course (4–6 weeks) offered multiple times each year with the aim of having every student complete the course before graduation. - Traffic‑light protocol: The committee recommended adoption of the AI traffic‑light protocol (credited to AJ Giuliani) to let teachers mark specific assignments as green (allowed), yellow (allowed with restrictions) or red (not allowed), so students have assignment‑level clarity about permitted AI use. - Academic integrity tools: Wallace said the committee will not endorse automated AI‑detector tools, citing concerns that detectors are “flawed” and biased against English‑learners and students from some socioeconomic backgrounds; the committee favors process‑oriented academic integrity measures instead. - Professional learning and micro‑credentials: The district will roll out staff training, make departmental meetings a venue for contextualized AI learning and offer a short micro‑credential so teachers may be authorized to use a broader set of tools after demonstrating competency. - Privacy and regional collaboration: Wallace noted district participation in a Maine Educational Technology Directors group (META) and the Student Data Privacy Alliance; the district has worked with other districts to host AI resources on a regional server to reduce data exposure.

Direct quote “We believe that AI detectors are flawed and they are biased and they usually detect students who do not speak English as their primary language,” Wallace said. “We will not endorse that use.”

Board members’ questions and follow‑up Board members asked about student access, parent outreach, district policy, and how AI would change assessment design. Wallace said the committee concluded that policy might lag behind practice and that procedures, training and ongoing committee oversight are needed; the committee plans to meet multiple times next year to refine guidance. Wallace also said teachers will be supported with assessment redesign guidance so instruction can emphasize process as well as product.

What the board did not do The board heard the report and asked questions but did not adopt a new district‑level AI policy at the meeting. Wallace said the committee favored iterative procedures and training that can be updated frequently rather than a static policy at this early stage.

Next steps The district will put the revised student handbook language and a more interactive presentation online for board review, continue staff trainings (including the summer Infotech Institute and new staff orientation), pilot the micro‑course in the fall and reconvene the steering committee multiple times next year to review evolving tools and guidance.