Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
KUSD unveils draft generative‑AI policy for staff and classrooms, emphasizing human oversight
Summary
District staff presented a draft generative AI policy and accompanying website and tools, recommending Google Workspace tools for privacy, outlining levels of classroom AI use, cautioning against putting student personal data in models, and proposing teacher training and oversight.
Kenosha Unified School District presented a draft generative AI policy and a companion resource website to the Curriculum & Instruction and Audit committees, framing the district approach around instructional value, data privacy, and teacher oversight.
IT and instructional leaders said the policy is intended to be a single, streamlined document covering staff and student guidance, paired with web resources and training that can be updated as tools evolve. Presenters emphasized a core philosophy: use AI to make teaching more efficient, encourage innovation and support student learning — while keeping the human educator responsible for final judgment (a point summarized in the presentation’s “AI should be used to complement, not replace quality teaching” guidance).
District staff recommended using AI tools that operate inside the district’s Google Workspace (they named Google Gemini, Gemini Gems and a Notebook LM tool used to generate the presentation video) because content entered there is contained inside the district environment and, presenters said, not used to train external models. They also described purchased tools for student writing and formative support (Class Companion, DFIT) and a vault tool that logs prompts and outputs for review.
Committee members asked about academic integrity, the ability to detect AI‑produced work, intellectual‑property concerns for student and teacher materials, equity and access for students with restricted internet, and whether active teacher review and local oversight would be required. Presenters said tools such as Turnitin and Class Companion can flag concerns, that teachers should verify outputs and sources, and that operational controls (Google domain restrictions and 'vault' logging) and training are central to implementation.
The committee discussed exemptions and review teams; one member recommended including currently practicing classroom educators on any exemption review panels. Presenters said the policy is a foundation and that many detailed procedural items would live on the resource site and in professional‑learning sessions.
Next steps: district staff will accept feedback from committees, refine the draft, and prepare first and second readings for the board.
