Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prince George’s County plans K–12 AI literacy push, with pilots and data‑privacy guardrails
Summary
IT leaders described multi‑year AI pilots, a proposed >$1,000,000 investment in PreK–12 AI literacy and plans to limit direct student access to Gemini to high school only next year, while stressing vetting, sandbox testing and human‑in‑the‑loop safeguards.
Prince George’s County Public Schools staff told the Board of Education on March 12 that the district has completed three years of stakeholder engagement on artificial intelligence and is preparing to scale AI literacy and supervised classroom tools.
Dr. Andrew Zuckerman, the district’s information technology lead, said the district has run paid and free pilots, engaged nonprofit partners and academic partners (including an AI white paper co‑authored with the Harvard Graduate School of Education), and has been using the work to design ethical, equitable pilots with training and guardrails. "We're wrapping up our third year of our 3 year implementation framework," he said.
Zuckerman told the board the superintendent has included an item in strategic planning for "over $1,000,000 investment in pre k through 12 AI literacy" to support age‑appropriate lessons, teacher training and scaling. Staff emphasized that particular tools will be vetted for safety, equity and privacy and that the district is preparing curricular alignment from pre‑K through grade 12 rather than simply unlocking tools for all grades.
On specific safeguards, staff said students are not yet interacting directly with Google's Gemini on district accounts; the district uses sandbox accounts that mimic student behavior so adults can test interactions and pilot prompts. Zuckerman added that under the district’s enterprise Google license "what we put into it is not used to train the model," framing that as a data‑privacy protection. Megan Eric, the district’s data privacy administrator, described the vetting process for new apps: review of data privacy agreements, automated rostering compatibility with Clever or Canvas, accessibility review with special education, and additional scrutiny when a vendor uses AI.
Board members pressed on recurring licensing and training costs, how the district will address bias and misinformation from generative AI, and whether AI literacy will be embedded in curriculum or rolled out via teacher training first. Staff said a pre‑K–12 AI literacy matrix is in draft and aligned with the district learner profile, and that direct student use of advanced AI tools is being limited to high school next year while curricular AI literacy is scaffolded for younger grades.
No formal policy or budget vote was taken at the work session; staff committed to provide additional cost estimates, usage data and implementation details to the board in follow‑up materials.
