Greenville County ad hoc committee reviews draft AI and device-use policy; staff to refine training and transparency

The Greenville County Schools ad hoc committee for AI and electronic device use reviewed a draft three-section policy and asked staff to return with a revised version after committee feedback.

Doug Webb, the presenter, said he used the district’s Policy IA as a starting point and organized the draft into an introduction, a detailed section on artificial intelligence in instruction and a district-technology section that would limit unnecessary screen time. "AI is a supplemental tool for education. It's not there to replace teaching, but it's a supplemental tool," Webb said.

District staff member Susan Stevens described how the draft would be used to shape training and monitoring. "This tool has, not only the initial training platforms, but has multiple different, modules, online modules that they can navigate throughout the course of the year or a semester," Stevens said, adding that the district can pull usage reports at the school level and will work with principal supervisors to support building-level monitoring.

Committee members pressed for clearer, enforceable language about who is responsible for school-level implementation. "I noticed on two occasions, we said 'schools shall' ... I would like to see consideration ... about who exactly is responsible for that," said Dr. Stiles, urging that the language specify school administration accountability.

Members also raised concerns about student misuse and bullying via AI and academic integrity. A participant asked for examples of unethical use; Stevens said students sometimes provoke chat tools or use system outputs as their own work. "Any form of plagiarism, any form of... opportunity to take a response from a system and pass it off as their own thinking," Stevens said, would be addressed under discipline and monitoring provisions in the draft.

The committee discussed procurement and the district’s relationship with the vendor Magic School. Staff said the district maintains an annual contract and follows procurement policy when selecting platforms; the district is focusing training and support on the chosen platform to avoid sending mixed messages to schools.

Members asked how parents will be notified and given access; Stevens said Magic School requires a parent letter and the district plans an implementation handbook that will define what transparency looks like and how parents can request more information.

On data-retention concerns, staff told the committee the Magic School platform is not a large language model that retains student information between assignments. "It doesn't retain information and then build on that over subsequent uses," Stevens said, describing the vendor workflow in which teachers create assignments and control which tools students may access.

The committee did not vote on the policy today. It approved the minutes from the Oct. 28, 2025 meeting at the start of the session. Members were asked to submit written feedback; the chair said staff would circulate an email with a deadline ahead of the next meeting, anticipated after Thanksgiving.

Actions recorded in the transcript include approval of the prior meeting minutes and a motion to adjourn that closed the session.