Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety Ai topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents urge Radnor school board to correct record and tighten policies after AI-generated image incident
Summary
Two public commenters told the Radnor Township School District board that a January community email downplayed an incident in which students’ images were manipulated by AI; they urged clearer discipline, precise policy language, enforceable off‑campus rules and defined victim protections.
At the April 21, 2026 Radnor Township School District regular meeting, two public commenters pressed the board to correct a community message and to strengthen district policy after students’ images were manipulated into non-consensual AI-generated sexual content.
"That email was not accurate," Morgan Dorfman, a Wayne resident, told the board. She said the January 16 communication framed the situation as having "no evidence" of inappropriate conduct despite, she said, an admission that led to criminal charges and the creation and sharing of sexualized videos of students without their consent. "When communication lacks accuracy and transparency, it erodes trust," Dorfman said.
Audrey Greenberg, who identified herself as a Radnor resident and a parent whose daughter was affected, said images of at least five girls were manipulated into non-consensual AI-generated sexual content and that peers reported the conduct. She acknowledged that board policy updates now "recognize that AI generated sexual content is harassment and cyber bullying," but outlined four gaps she said remain: discipline language that allows only discretionary responses; imprecise terminology; unclear standards for when the district must act on off-campus conduct; and an absence of defined response times and communication standards to protect victims.
"For something this serious, expectations around discipline, jurisdiction, and student protection should be clearly established in board policy, not left to administrative interpretation," Greenberg said, and asked the board to "clarify enforcement, define accountability, and center protections for students in the policy itself." She said it has been more than four months since the district was first notified on December 3, and asked for clearer, binding standards.
The board’s policy committee report earlier in the meeting noted second reads of updates related to generative AI; committee members described the updates as intended to reflect recent federal law and to treat AI-generated sexual content as harassment. The full board did not take action on the policy changes during the meeting.
Board members did not offer a substantive response to the public commenters’ requests during the comment period. The public comments set the issue for further consideration at committee and future meetings; parents and advocates at the meeting urged the board to adopt explicit, board‑level policy language and enforceable procedures rather than leaving key definitions and enforcement thresholds solely to administrative regulations.
Next steps: the policy committee has ongoing meetings and the board’s next regular business meeting was scheduled in May; the commenters asked the board to issue corrected communications and to move promptly to adopt clearer, enforceable policy language and defined victim protections.
