Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the AI Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board holds second reading of AI policy; teachers and students urge broad input
Summary
During a second reading of a proposed AI policy, board members and administrators debated citation requirements and classroom implementation; a teacher and a student urged teacher/student involvement before adoption.
The board conducted a second reading of a proposed artificial intelligence policy and asked for more faculty input before adopting final language. Board member Janine proposed wording that recognizes students should not be disadvantaged by not using generative AI while also avoiding disproportionate advantage for students who do use it. "No student should be disadvantaged by not using, GenAI, but also disproportionately benefit from using it," Janine said.
Members debated whether the policy should require students to cite AI use and how classroom implementation should be handled at the teacher level versus through a standardized district rule. The superintendent said academic dishonesty procedures already exist and that the AI policy should set foundational expectations while curriculum and media specialists provide classroom guidance.
Public comment reinforced the call for broad teacher and student engagement. Teacher Eric Olsen told the board "you really have to get a lot of teacher input here," praising the phone policy in the first weeks of school and warning boards that unilateral policy decisions without teacher involvement risk pushback. Student Logan Austin said he has seen peers use AI and urged that schools not summarily ban the tools but rather consider how they are used.
Board members agreed to circulate the draft for 30 days and to convene additional policy‑committee discussions with teachers, students and parents before a final vote. The board emphasized the AI policy is a framework expected to evolve as tools and classroom practices change.
