District 5 outlines plan for limited, guided use of generative AI in classrooms

Superintendent Dr. Ross told the Lexington 05 School District board on March 24 that the district is preparing a limited, managed rollout of generative artificial intelligence tools for teachers and students, anchored by a position statement, guidelines for staff and parents, and staged professional development. The district is evaluating Magic School AI as a primary platform for classroom use.

The presentation said the district will ask teachers to provide preferences and training, pilot use in select classrooms, and give parents a guide explaining how AI will be used in instruction. “This is a tool for teachers,” Dr. Ross said, adding that the intent is to give teachers “a healthy space, to learn how to use this the right way so that the learning is never interfered with.”

Why it matters: The board framed the discussion as an instructional and safety issue rather than a technology procurement alone. Administrators said the position statement and guidelines will define permissible classroom uses, safeguards to limit student access when inappropriate, and expectations for academic integrity. The district intends to return to the board with a formal position and related materials at the May 7 meeting.

Chief of Academics Miss McCaskill described classroom examples the district used while visiting other districts. She showed how an AI workflow could score a student's writing against a rubric and generate targeted feedback teachers can review and adapt. She said the district plans differentiated professional development so teachers at different comfort levels can learn at their own pace.

Teacher of the Year Alyssa Powers was quoted by administrators as saying, “I do the thinking, it does the work,” to emphasize teachers retain instructional control while AI speeds routine tasks.

Miss McCaskill said Magic School AI offers education-focused safeguards: “Students only have access to the tools the teacher assigns,” she said, and the student-facing components limit the system to brainstorming or scaffolding rather than producing finished essays when used with the district configuration.

Board members pressed for more detail on misuse, equity and monitoring. Trustee Mike Satterfield asked whether teachers must input student profiles; McCaskill said teachers must not enter identifiable student names and instead can provide non-identifying prompts (for example, “a third grader reading at a first-grade level”) so the tool tailors lessons without transferring personally identifiable information.

Concerns about student misuse were raised by a board member who described college-exam cheating videos and asked how the district would prevent students from using third-party public AI tools. District staff said a combination of platform selection (an education-specific product), use policies, instructional design that focuses on higher-order skills, and AI literacy training for students and families will be the primary mitigations.

Administrators stressed the district will not issue an AI policy that attempts to foresee every future capability; instead they will publish a position statement, teacher and student guidelines, and a parent guide. The administration plans to include consistent terminology and give principals tools for school-level rollout. Miss McCaskill said the goal is to have those materials ready for the May 7 board meeting.

Next steps: District staff said they will (1) finalize a position statement; (2) draft teacher and student guidelines and a parent guide; (3) propose a budget request for the platform and professional learning in the FY 2026 budget; and (4) pilot the tool with supports for teachers and parents before broader adoption.

Board members asked for follow-up briefings on how the district will measure academic impact and guardrails for classroom use. Administrators said they will return in May with the proposed position statement and guidance.