Greeley‑Evans District 6 outlines red/yellow/green AI framework, aims for draft policy by May
Summary
District 6 presented an AI task force framework categorizing assignments as red, yellow or green to guide permissible AI use, announced selected pilot tools and stakeholder listening sessions, and said a draft board policy is targeted for May 2026 with a three‑year implementation plan.
Greeley‑Evans School District 6 officials on Jan. 12 presented a districtwide framework to manage artificial intelligence in K–12 classrooms and described plans for teacher training, stakeholder input and a policy draft targeted for May 2026.
The presentation, led by Assistant Superintendent Anthony Alspice and Dr. Degan Andrews, laid out a three‑color system for classifying assignments: red‑light assignments must be completed without AI, yellow‑light assignments allow AI for brainstorming or outlines, and green‑light assignments permit AI use as a copilot. Officials said students would be asked to submit prompt histories — a record of AI queries and drafts — so teachers can evaluate process as well as final products.
"We want to use AI as a tool that enhances student thinking, not replacing it," Dr. Degan Andrews said, describing the district’s approach to retain student voice and focus on process. The presenters identified a small group of vetted tools for pilots, naming Magic School (lesson planning and language supports), Course Mojo (reading and close‑reading prompts at the middle‑school level) and EDIA (a math coaching/tutoring tool under consideration for the 6–12 adoption).
Officials emphasized professional development and policy alignment across departments. Tony Cech, the district’s chief information officer, said the task force will draft a policy roadmap that considers security, privacy and procurement while the district conducts listening sessions and formal feedback rounds with teachers, students, families and staff. Alspice said the work is aligned to the district’s Innovation 2030 goals and involves collaboration with the Colorado Education Initiative and industry partners.
Board members and student representatives asked detailed questions during the Q&A about detection tools, teacher workload and the scope of listening sessions. Director Campos Spitzi said she was "nervous" about unfettered AI use and reported firsthand concerns about students using AI to cheat; Dr. Andrews acknowledged academic‑integrity risks and said detection tools are imperfect. Several board members urged strong teacher training and robust digital citizenship instruction.
Presenters said the next steps include assembling stakeholder groups for listening sessions, continuing pilots and returning a draft policy for board review by May 2026, followed by a three‑year implementation plan. The board did not take a formal vote on policy at the meeting; presenters characterized the timeline as ambitious but achievable.
