Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts generative artificial intelligence policy after committee review; public questions raised
Summary
The Gettysburg Area School District board approved a baseline policy on the use of generative artificial intelligence in education (Policy 8.15.01/2004). Public commenters and board members asked about training, scope, and student data protections; administration said the policy follows PSBA guidance and interim legal review.
The Gettysburg Area School District board adopted Policy 8.15.01/2004, the district’s baseline policy governing the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in education. The policy vote followed public comment from a resident who raised specific questions about committee structure, training, and administrative resources to implement the policy.
Resident Julietta Bose (spelling corrected from transcript) asked the board to clarify whether administrative responsibilities for evaluating and authorizing AI tools would require new staff, whether department heads would be included on a curriculum committee, and whether vetted training for committee members and staff existed. Bose asked how AI literacy instruction would be staffed and whether it would replace other curricular content.
Board administrators said the policy was developed over the past year by an administrative committee working with teachers and with guidance from the intermediate unit (IU) and the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA) model policy. Dr. Perrin and district staff said a legal review was completed by the district solicitor and the draft was vetted through the IU’s EdTech solicitor. The administration told the board existing staff time would absorb committee and implementation work and that the IU offers training used by district staff. The policy establishes guidelines including age limits tied to COPPA/CIPA/FERPA protections, a district review process for tools that collect personally identifiable information, and a district‑created scale for permitted use from “none” to “integrated.”
Board members asked whether students already used AI and for what purposes; staff and the EdTech team said students are already using AI tools in consumer apps for drafting emails, brainstorming, imagery and presentations—often through platforms with age restrictions. Administrators said the policy’s main aims are to protect student data, align uses with federal student‑privacy rules, and provide teacher training and approved tool lists. They also noted that AI‑detector tools are unreliable and that teacher judgment will be the primary means of assessing appropriate student work.
The board approved the policy on a roll call vote. Board members recorded as voting yes include Alice, Al, Mike, Kenny and others; one recorded vote against the policy was cast by Jeremy. Several board members emphasized that the policy is a baseline, will be revisited as the technology evolves, and will be accompanied by summer work to build lists of approved tools and staff professional development.
