Pacific Grove Unified reviews generative-AI policy, limits student use to those 13 and older with consent

Pacific Grove Unified School District officials on Tuesday canvassed parents, teachers and students about a newly adopted board policy and administrative regulation that restricts generative artificial‑intelligence (AI) use by students to those aged 13 and older with parental consent and requires disclosure when AI is used.

Director of technology Louis Algazi led the presentation, saying the district’s materials and the revised EdTech plan will focus on “guidelines and best practices for technology usage in the classroom,” including generative AI. "Most of the tools we found do not allow people 13 to utilize them," Algazi said, and he urged families to review tools’ terms of service and to avoid entering personally identifiable information into AI systems.

The new policy and accompanying administrative regulation, presented at the feedback session, distinguish between a board policy (which the district said can be changed twice a year) and an administrative regulation that can be updated more frequently to keep pace with rapid changes in AI technology. The regulation allows teachers to permit AI use "only with parental consent" for students 13 and older, requires students to disclose when they used AI on assignments, and gives full access to staff, who are adults and will receive training.

Why it matters: the policy touches on classroom practice, student privacy and equity. District staff said they are weighing federal privacy rules — listed in district briefings as COPPA, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and, where relevant, HIPAA — and examining whether AI tools use student input to further train vendor models. Those factors will shape what tools are allowed and what data protections are required.

During public comment, speakers offered differing views. Jeremy Goldbug, a Pacific Grove resident and professor at Stanford’s Hopkins Marine Station, questioned whether K–12 education should adopt AI broadly: "Should we be doing this at all at K through 12?" he asked, saying he favored caution and more human interaction in learning. Robbie Hyde, a coach of the Pacific Grove High School robotics team who also works for an AI software company, praised the district’s policy as “well balanced” and urged the district to pursue partnerships so students have equitable, supervised access to current AI platforms; he said PGUSD blocks Google’s Gemini for student accounts and that creates a new digital‑divide problem.

Teachers and a student who spoke urged careful integration. A high school English teacher said on‑demand, in‑class writing assignments can help ensure students do their own thinking: "I want them to be able to come up with the thoughts themselves," she said. A 13‑year‑old student, Elizabeth, said she was concerned peers might be too young to develop the ethical judgement needed for AI use: "I feel like it might not be a good idea, like, to do it to them."

Staff described technical and classroom safeguards under consideration. The district uses Securly, a safety and device‑management system that can limit sites and let teachers see student screens, and staff said the EdTech plan (the current plan reportedly ended in 2025) will be rewritten as a practical guide for teachers that includes screen‑time recommendations, AI guidance, and ideas for lesson designs that limit opportunities to misuse AI (for example, hands‑on projects or in‑class writing). Algazi demonstrated examples of AI “hallucinations” — incorrect but plausible responses from generative models — and said bias, data handling and security are central concerns.

No formal vote or action was taken at the session. District staff said they will collect feedback via a QR‑code survey made available at the meeting and in a follow‑up announcement, refine the administrative regulation as needed, and develop training materials for teachers and staff to accompany the revised EdTech plan.

Details and next steps: the administrative regulation limits student AI use to those 13 and older with parental permission and requires students to disclose AI assistance on assignments; staff will retain broader access and are slated to receive training. The district will continue to review vendors’ privacy practices, whether tools use user inputs to train models, and will consider partnerships to expand supervised student access to major AI platforms. no formal votes or ordinance actions were recorded at the feedback session.