Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai In Schools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Souderton outlines AI strategy for classrooms, pilots focused tools and a ‘stoplight’ approach
Summary
District staff described an exploratory AI work group, pilot tools and a proposed classroom 'red/yellow/green' permission model to manage AI use in instruction; the committee discussed training, equity and assessment implications.
Souderton Area School District staff presented an update on the district’s artificial intelligence planning at the May 14 EP committee meeting, describing exploratory pilots, an AI work group and a proposed classroom permission model intended to guide when and how students may use AI tools.
Dr. Kennedy Riley, who leads the district’s AI exploratory work, said the district formed a group about 15–18 months ago to examine how AI could support learning while safeguarding student privacy, equity and critical thinking. Riley said the district envisions “artificial intelligence empowers all students, educators, and staff to achieve new heights of academic excellence and innovation while ensuring safety and understandings of AI's role and functionality.”
Staff summarized national and local survey feedback gathered through the district’s Education for the Futures questionnaire: parents want to better understand AI and its responsible use; students accepted AI’s presence but worried it could enable cheating and harm creativity; and staff sought consistent procedures and professional development.
Riley described pilot work including tightly constrained classroom AI agents — for example, a Schoology-integrated “PowerBuddy” that will respond only to assignment-specific queries — and said the district is testing vendor tools such as Google’s Gemini and Microsoft Copilot under controlled conditions. “If you're doing a lesson on photosynthesis and you engage the PowerBuddy, it will only answer questions about photosynthesis,” Riley said. The district also reported smaller pilots at the high school that explore AI support for science instruction.
To help teachers manage AI, district staff proposed a simple stoplight model: red = no AI allowed for the assignment, yellow = limited/specific use permitted, green = AI permitted. The aim is to make expectations clear for students, teachers and families and to preserve the learning process and critical thinking the district regards as central. Riley emphasized the district’s focus on professional development: “We have a lot of professional development to do,” she said, noting that staff enter this work with widely varying experience using AI.
Committee members raised enforcement and equity questions, including how to detect misuse, whether students might be required to participate in optional supports, and how use will be scaled across elementary, middle and high school settings. Board members referenced concerns about regulation and the need to maintain age-appropriate introduction: several said early elementary AI exposure should be limited and that secondary pilots should focus on supervised, instructional uses.
The committee heard advocacy for a middle path between outright bans and unregulated adoption, citing a “vintage innovation” approach described in an external excerpt staff shared that blends low-tech, human-centered learning with selective AI use.
District staff said they will continue pilots, convene county and regional conversations, develop classroom-level guidance (including the stoplight rubric), and expand professional development for teachers. No formal policy was adopted at the meeting.
