District subcommittee advances draft generative‑AI policy to guide classroom use
Loading...
Summary
The Conewago Valley SD policy subcommittee reviewed a draft generative‑AI policy that would define permitted uses, require teacher transparency in lesson plans, set academic‑integrity limits and assign oversight to specific administrators; the committee directed additional stakeholder feedback before a full board review.
Dr. Perry presented a draft policy (8.15.1) intended to govern generative artificial‑intelligence use across the district, saying the tools "already exist within our schools" and the district needs standards in place before broader implementation. The draft defines generative AI and open‑source AI, outlines responsibilities for the superintendent, the director of information technology, the director of curriculum and instruction and the assistant superintendent, and proposes a tiered approach to classroom use.
The administration emphasized academic integrity as a central concern: "If somebody is writing a 20‑page paper, is it really that person in their thinking who's writing that paper," Dr. Perry said, arguing the policy must set boundaries for when AI is and is not appropriate. The draft would require teachers to list AI tools used in lesson plans and make AI usage transparent to students and families.
Committee members asked about timing and training. The draft calls for an administrative rollout and professional training for staff, including a planned back‑to‑school administrative retreat with an AI expert from Millersville. Dr. Perry said the subcommittee expects a "soft launch" early in the next school year and a review in September after collecting stakeholder feedback.
On privacy and parental choice, staff told members the district will use its existing COPA/FERPA informed‑consent process to present resources and opt‑out options for parents. A staff member explained that the district maintains an annual list of approved resources and that principals initially review automated alerts from technology monitoring, with serious flags escalated to central administration.
The subcommittee did not vote to adopt the policy. Instead, members asked for clarifying language about parental notification, monitoring safeguards and training timelines and directed administration to gather more feedback from stakeholders and state authorities before bringing a revised draft to the full board.
The subcommittee plans to revisit the policy during the next policy‑review cycle; administration suggested an early‑September review after an initial implementation period.
