Avon Grove committee recommends two paid AI platforms, advances draft AI policy to second read

Avon Grove School District staff told the education committee they had evaluated four AI platforms and recommend the district proceed with two paid tools — a developmentally focused platform for elementary students and a platform that integrates tightly with Google Workspace for secondary classrooms — and asked that the purchase be placed on the May or June legislative agenda.

"Our goal ultimately with looking at these AI applications is to instruct students in the ethical and safe use of generative AI," said Dr. Koch (presenting), describing pilots in sixth‑grade writing, third‑grade projects and a middle‑school health class that tested automated feedback and chat‑bot interactions. Staff said pilots demonstrated fast, actionable student feedback on text‑dependent analysis and allowed teachers to give students more practice cycles.

The review team tested Magic School AI, School AI, Brisk Teaching and Class Companion. Staff recommended Magic School AI for elementary because of its suite of developmentally appropriate tools and recommended the secondary campus purchase Brisk Teaching because it embeds directly in Google Workspace so students receive feedback inside their existing documents.

Staff said the recommended platforms met district privacy and safety checks (FERPA and state privacy rules), offered teacher dashboards to monitor student chat sessions, included accessibility features (text‑to‑speech, speech‑to‑text, translation) and offered chat‑monitoring that redirects off‑task or inappropriate prompts. "The chat bots themselves effectively redirected off task behaviors of the students or addressed inappropriate comments," the presenter said.

Action and policy: the committee voted to forward the purchase proposals to the May/June legislative agenda and to move draft Policy 8.815.1 (generative AI / academic integrity) to a second read. The draft policy requires technology staff to evaluate district purchases for age appropriateness, bias, privacy protections and data security and clarifies that student conduct involving AI may be subject to the board’s student discipline policy even when occurring off school property.

Budget and timing: staff said the FY25–26 technology budget includes the proposed subscriptions and that the purchase would fall within that proposed budget. The committee asked for a classroom demonstration and additional parent‑facing materials before wider rollout.

Why it matters: the district is proposing a dual‑platform approach to limit reliance on any single vendor, while building AI literacy and classroom practice expectations. Staff emphasized instruction on validating AI output and avoiding uncritical use of generated text.

Next steps: the procurement proposals will be presented on the May or June legislative agenda for formal board action and the draft AI policy will proceed to second read with no changes from first read other than clarifying procedural delegation.