Quakertown committee advances generative AI policy language; administration to use ARs for approved tools
November 04, 2025 | Quakertown Community SD, School Districts, Pennsylvania
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Quakertown Community SD administrators told the Nov. 3 policy committee that proposed edits to a new generative-AI policy (Policy 815.1) had been reviewed by legal counsel and the district's internal AI team and were ready to move forward, while committee members urged a regular review cadence and clearer operational guidance.
"We did look through dozens, if not more, of other policies," the presenting administrator said, noting the language reflects PSBA guidance and district review. Members raised three concerns: whether to include named examples of LLMs to aid reader comprehension, how frequently the policy should be revisited given rapid change, and whether day-to-day standards should live in an accompanying administrative regulation (AR) rather than in policy text.
Administrators responded that they purposely omitted product names from the core policy to avoid rapid obsolescence but recommended placing approved tools (for example, Gemini, the district's approved Google model) and operational standards in an AR that the administration can update without the full policy-review process. The administration also described a local "AI Vanguard" professional-development effort to build staff capacity and recommended a six-month review to adjust guidance as necessary. One member suggested moving the policy forward now and returning a specific AR and a review schedule at the next check-in.
The committee agreed to advance the policy as revised and asked the administration to provide the AR and to schedule a follow-up review in six months.
"We did look through dozens, if not more, of other policies," the presenting administrator said, noting the language reflects PSBA guidance and district review. Members raised three concerns: whether to include named examples of LLMs to aid reader comprehension, how frequently the policy should be revisited given rapid change, and whether day-to-day standards should live in an accompanying administrative regulation (AR) rather than in policy text.
Administrators responded that they purposely omitted product names from the core policy to avoid rapid obsolescence but recommended placing approved tools (for example, Gemini, the district's approved Google model) and operational standards in an AR that the administration can update without the full policy-review process. The administration also described a local "AI Vanguard" professional-development effort to build staff capacity and recommended a six-month review to adjust guidance as necessary. One member suggested moving the policy forward now and returning a specific AR and a review schedule at the next check-in.
The committee agreed to advance the policy as revised and asked the administration to provide the AR and to schedule a follow-up review in six months.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting