San Mateo‑Foster City board studies AI in classrooms; trustees stress privacy, equity and teacher support

The San Mateo‑Foster City Board of Trustees on Thursday held a study session on artificial intelligence in education, where district staff outlined how AI tools could personalize learning while emphasizing data privacy and plans for a district guidance process.

District technology presenter Mr. Joe opened the presentation by summarizing the current landscape and listing examples of AI in education, including large language models and vendor products. “We ask vendors to be transparent with how they store our data and what it is used for,” Mr. Joe said, adding that the district requires vendor certifications and parental consent when appropriate.

The presentation cited guidance from the California Department of Education and underscored that human relationships remain primary in schools. A presenter summarized: “Student‑teacher connections are truly irreplaceable. Student safety is paramount, and privacy and data protection are crucial.” The staff identified federal and state protections — the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and California’s student privacy law — as frameworks the district will use when contracting with vendors.

Trustees said they welcomed AI’s potential for personalized learning and teacher support but urged careful rollout. Trustee Proctor said AI could help teachers synthesize student data and suggested district‑approved, student‑safe tools: “I would rather our students be using a safe, AI tool that’s for kids and for students where they’re not on ChatGPT,” she said. Another trustee warned that AI must not become “a crutch” for learning and called attention to environmental and workforce impacts tied to rapid private investment in AI.

Board members asked how assessments should evolve if students increasingly use AI outside school. One trustee asked whether the district is reconsidering assessment formats and suggested complementary in‑person demonstrations or other ways to verify student learning. Staff responded that professional development has not yet been rolled out because the board is in the early stages of conversation and that committee work through the district’s strategic planning process would examine assessment, age‑appropriate use and teacher supports.

Staff proposed forming an AI working group, beginning in January, that would include staff, families and students and be guided by district leaders. The superintendent, Superintendent Ochoa, urged that decisions be driven by teacher expertise and student voice and said the community strategic plan provides a structure for the work.

During public comment a community member who identified as a computer scientist said AI can be applied creatively in classrooms and urged the board to distinguish between different types of AI applications when weighing risks and benefits.

The board took no formal policy vote at the study session but approved routine procedural motions to open and close the meeting. Trustees directed staff to continue developing guidance, explore professional development and return with next steps as part of the strategic‑planning work.