Sartell‑St. Stephen district issues AI guidance for secondary classes, allows limited student use starting third quarter

The Sartell‑St. Stephen School District presented a new guiding document for artificial intelligence use in classrooms and told the board that secondary students may begin using approved AI tools in the third quarter.

The presentation, given during the district's regular meeting, summarized four topics: a brief history of AI, examples of generative tools, the district's ISE 740 plan for staff training, and a short demonstration of ChatGPT. A staff member leading the presentation said the district had trained secondary teachers on AI tools and had developed a nonbinding guiding document — not a formal policy — for staff and students.

Why it matters: The board was presented with a plan intended to give teachers consistent guidance on when AI is appropriate, how to protect student privacy and how to teach students to cite and fact‑check AI outputs. Board members said they want consistent expectations across classrooms so students know when AI use is permitted and when it is not.

Key details: The presenter said the district provided professional development sessions on October 30 and November 27 for grades 6–12 and special education staff, and that the district purchased access to a training portal with multiple sessions staff can complete. The document uses a “stoplight” model defining three tiers — “AI free,” “AI assist,” and “AI enhanced” — to help teachers decide permitted uses. The presenter said the guiding document was placed on the district website and that the district will emphasize compliance with student‑privacy laws.

Privacy and legal safeguards: The district told the board it is prioritizing student privacy and will rely on vendor privacy statements before recommending tools; the presenter referenced the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and said the district reviews vendor terms for third‑party data sharing. The presenter also said the student group advised teachers to require students to disclose when AI assisted their work and to include a fact‑check step.

Rollout and next steps: The presenter said the district recommends staff use one of two approved AI platforms through the end of the school year and may consider paid versions for additional features. Secondary students (grades 6–12) were authorized to use approved tools starting in third quarter; the presenter said principals plan to include AI language in syllabi next year. The district will also include the AI training in new‑staff onboarding.

Board questions and concerns: Board members asked about detection of AI‑generated work, costs and training coverage. The presenter acknowledged current AI‑detection tools are imperfect and described pedagogical approaches to reduce misuse (for example, layered or in‑class tasks that emphasize process over the final product). Board members sought clarification about which staff have completed training; the presenter said training focused on grades 6–12 and special education staff and described positive teacher feedback.

What to watch for: The guiding document is not a binding board policy; the district described it as a staff guidance tool to be refined as technology and vendor offerings change. Principals were named as responsible for communicating classroom expectations to teachers and students.