Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
KUSD committee debates generative-AI policy; teachers urge clearer philosophy and training
Loading...
Summary
Committee members and teachers pressed staff on a second-reading generative-AI policy, seeking explicit limits on student use, stronger academic-integrity language, and structured professional learning; staff said the policy is meant to guide staff operations and professional learning rather than mandate classroom use.
Kenosha Unified School District staff presented a second-reading policy on staff use of generative artificial intelligence and answered extensive questions about privacy, pedagogy and academic integrity.
The policy (42.26.1) was developed over more than a year and incorporates sample language used by other districts, staff said. Several teachers and curriculum committee members told the committee they want a clearer, district-level philosophy on AI’s role in instruction before broad classroom integration and asked the board to define whether student use is encouraged, restricted or prohibited in different contexts.
"There’s a statement in there that says the district expects instructional staff to leverage AI tools to support enhanced student learning access across all grade levels and subject areas," a teacher (Speaker 22) told the committee. "I was told this is not a mandate, but gosh, this really reads to me as we expect all teachers to use AI, and we expect it to be used at all grade levels, which is very concerning to me." The staff presenter (Speaker 20) and other administrators countered that the policy is intended as operational guidance for staff and to create structured professional learning so teachers are not left to adopt tools haphazardly; they cited pilot trainings already underway and a planned resources website with do/don’t lists for instructional use.
Teachers also raised concerns about academic integrity, offloading student learning to generative tools and the potential for tool hallucinations, bias or inappropriate content. Several urged including clearer academic-integrity language (what counts as student work, required attribution) and a community-informed philosophy to guide future policy updates. Staff suggested an annual or semi-annual review of the policy to keep pace with rapidly changing tools and to anchor classroom use to curricular objectives and training.
No committee vote was taken; staff will collect committee feedback and bring a revised draft to the full board. The committee’s discussion emphasized professional learning, data privacy safeguards for student information, and clearer language on whether the policy is staff-facing rather than a classroom mandate.
What’s next: Staff will refine the policy language to emphasize staff professional learning, add recommended academic-integrity language and propose a periodic review schedule. The revised policy will return to the board for further consideration.
