Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Framework topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hernando school staff propose teacher‑led AI guidance as companion to district policy
Summary
District technology leaders presented an AI guidance framework the board requested, saying it will be a living, teacher‑directed companion to an existing AI policy and will limit approved tools by grade band while requiring task‑specific uses and student disclosure.
Jesse Diaz, the district’s supervisor of instructional technology, and colleagues presented a guidance framework the Hernando County School Board asked staff to develop as a companion to the board’s January 2025 AI policy. The presenters said the guidance is intended to be a practical, annually updated resource that explains how AI may be used in classrooms and by families.
The framework centers on a “learning‑first” principle and stresses teacher‑guided use, especially for elementary grades. Diaz said the guidance defines five instructional categories for AI: research assistance, data analysis, language translation, writing assistance (not a substitute for student writing) and accessibility supports. He said any classroom AI use must be tied to an explicit task and learning objective rather than allowed broadly.
Why it matters: District staff argued the guidance is needed because the policy can be broad and may be misinterpreted by teachers, parents and students. Presenters told the board they formed a 2025–26 AI task force of district administrators, school staff, parents and students that met three times to produce the document and examples for lesson plans.
Presenters described grade‑band limits and approved tools. For K–5, the guidance identifies Canva’s education AI tools for supervised classroom use; grades 6–8 would add an education‑focused assistant (referred to in the presentation materials as an education agent), and high schools may use Microsoft Copilot within the district’s managed environment with teacher permission. Diaz said the district can restrict which AI tools are available on school devices but cannot control students’ personal phones.
Board members pressed staff about state statutory requirements. One board member asked whether parents must be given an opt‑out and whether parents can view a child’s account history with a vendor; presenters said the education‑focused products they recommended provide histories and parental access features and that the district can limit which tools are available on district devices. Staff emphasized the district’s ability to lock down apps on school machines and said devices used in schools are administratively controlled through ClassLink.
The guidance also lists prohibited uses — including generating deepfakes or inserting personally identifiable information into prompts — and staff said language will be added to the student code of conduct and the staff handbook. Presenters recommended professional learning, short microlearning modules at the start of the year, and an annual AI task force review so the guidance stays current.
A board member said the steps are a strong start but urged careful, slow implementation and clear disciplinary policy so the district can respond if staff or students misuse tools. Diaz said the framework does not replace policy and is intended to clarify implementation for teachers, students and parents.
The board did not take a formal vote during the presentation; staff said the guidance will return to the board for approval and will be refreshed annually.
