Charles County Public Schools releases AI guidance for staff, students and families

Charles County Public Schools officials presented a districtwide guidance document for artificial intelligence at the school board meeting on Aug. 12, outlining permitted and prohibited uses, training plans for staff and staged classroom adoption by grade level.

The guidance — described by system leaders as a living document rather than a board policy — prohibits placing personally identifiable information into third‑party generative AI tools, requires human review of AI‑generated work and disallows automated decisions that replace staff judgment, speakers said.

Why it matters: The guidance aims to let teachers use AI’s productivity benefits while protecting student privacy and academic integrity. District leaders said the rules are designed to reduce misuse, limit false positives from AI detectors, and preserve teachers’ authority over grading and final judgments.

Charmaine Thompson, chief of instructional technology, opened the presentation with a short primer: “AI is teaching technology how to think and respond like human,” she said, adding district work has focused on balancing the technology’s benefits and risks. Thompson said the board charged staff to research best practices and produce guidance the district could update quickly as tools change.

Laura Bennett, executive director of IT strategy, told the board the guidance draws on federal privacy laws and widely used education toolkits, and sets a strict rule on data protection: “No use of PII is supposed to be put into any sort of AI that is not controlled by us,” Bennett said. She explained the rule applies to public-facing services such as commercial chatbots unless an approved vendor holds a privacy agreement covering student data.

Major provisions - Privacy: No student names, health data or internal documents may be entered into uncontrolled third‑party AI services. Approved instructional tools that incorporate AI and maintain district privacy agreements are treated differently. - Human authority: AI may make suggestions but not final decisions in subjective areas such as grading; teachers must give final grades and verify feedback. - Academic integrity: AI can be used for brainstorming, summarizing and helping with revision, but not as a substitute for submitting one’s own original work; teachers should use investigations and conversations before levying disciplinary sanctions for suspected misuse. - Age and grade appropriateness: Elementary classrooms will emphasize foundational skills and critical evaluation of information; more direct AI instruction and supplemental tools will be introduced in upper elementary and secondary grades.

District leaders also listed practical classroom uses: differentiation for multilingual learners, creation of study aids, lesson plan supports for teachers, and administrative workflows to reduce paperwork. At the same time the presentation warned about hallucinations, bias in model outputs, and current limitations of AI detectors that can inaccurately flag high‑quality or multilingual student writing.

Implementation and training Kevin Lowndes, chief of teaching and learning, said instructional specialists will work with teachers during preservice to translate the high‑level guidance into subject‑specific practices. “All of our instructional specialists will be talking to the teachers during preservice week about the new guidance,” Lowndes said.

Staff said the district is not issuing a policy now because tools and state guidance are still evolving; MSDE has formed a task group and a statewide bill (SB0906) did not pass this session. Instead, the district will publish the guidance, finalize grade‑level literacy benchmarks and expand training for teachers, staff, students and families.

Board and community reaction A student board member said she sees students using AI to shortcut homework and asked how the district will encourage authentic learning. Thompson and Lowndes said the emphasis will be on classroom‑based assessments, conversations that surface student thinking, and making AI a teachable moment rather than immediately punitive.

Educator and union representatives told the board they welcome tools that reduce administrative burdens for teachers but urged care to avoid adding time to a teacher’s workday. Board members discussed whether to pursue a policy or keep the flexible guidance model; presenters recommended guidance because it can be updated quickly as technology changes.

Next steps District staff said they will finalize the guidance, publish resources for families and run additional professional learning sessions this fall. The district intends to formally vet any AI vendors it approves for classroom use and to keep human review and data privacy as central requirements.