Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Artificial Intelligence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cheltenham staff urge an AI literacy program, vendor pilot and a platform-neutral policy
Summary
District curriculum staff recommended creating an AI workgroup, running a small teacher pilot (30—50) with wrapper tools like Magic School, conducting stakeholder surveys, and drafting a platform-neutral AI policy that addresses privacy, equity, teacher PD and parent permission.
Cheltenham School District staff presented a multi-part proposal to integrate artificial intelligence into curriculum and professional development and to draft district policy governing AI use at the Educational Affairs Committee meeting on Jan. 21.
Rachel Berman (data and secondary curriculum) and Tammy Flood (teacher on assignment, social studies) told the committee AI literacy should be part of the district's work to prepare students for rapid technological change and to close opportunity gaps. "AI education is no longer optional," Berman said, urging a structured, phased approach.
What staff proposed
- Create a stakeholder AI work group and conduct short surveys of students, families and staff to gauge needs and concerns before drafting policy.
- Draft a platform-neutral district AI policy (drawn from PSBA, MCIU and Department of Education toolkits) covering usage guidelines, privacy and security, transparency, disclosure, responsibility delegation, bullying, plagiarism and program review.
- Launch professional development across a three-year cycle (in-person, asynchronous and PLC models) and train selected teachers as trainers to scale internal capacity.
- Pilot a supervised "wrapper" tool with a small teacher cohort (staff proposed 30—50 participants) so teachers can monitor student prompts and usage before broad student rollout; Magic School was demonstrated as an example that offers teacher controls and, staff said, claims not to retain student data.
Privacy, equity and vetting
Board members asked specific questions about student data retention, COPPA/FERPA-like safeguards and whether vendors destroy stored data. Presenters said wrapper tools should meet child-data safeguards and that the district's technology director would perform a technical review; presenters also reported Magic School asserted it does not store data but staff would confirm retention timing.
Members raised equity concerns over free-versus-paid vendor tiers and asked for cost estimates; staff said they have a quote on file and could provide cost details.
Board reaction and next steps
Several members urged pairing technical skills with media literacy and ethics so students can critically evaluate AI-generated content and preserve authentic student work. Staff recommended returning a draft policy and a proposed pilot plan to the committee for further discussion and detailed vetting by the technology director before any procurement or student rollout.
