Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Piper seniors urge board to limit generative AI in classroom assignments
Summary
Two Piper High School seniors told the board they are 'very concerned' about mandatory classroom use of generative AI tools, citing studies they said show reduced cognitive engagement and urging the district to reconsider current AI assignments and policy. The board did not take action at the meeting.
Two Piper High School seniors told the Board of Education on May 11 that mandatory classroom assignments using generative artificial intelligence are harming students’ learning. "We are very concerned about the use of generative artificial intelligence at Piper," Payton Fury and Isabella Lar Rosa said during public comment, citing a range of academic studies they said link routine AI use to diminished cognitive effort and reduced critical‑thinking practice.
The students said the district has implemented an AI use‑level system that allows or encourages AI on some assignments and that teachers have required students to use tools "such as ChatGPT" for class work. They referenced a study they identified as coming from MIT that they said showed lower brain activity in students who used AI to write essays and a 2024 multi‑author paper they said described "cognitive and emotional deskilling.” The students warned those effects conflict with the district’s graduate competencies and urged trustees to reconsider mandatory AI use.
School officials did not announce a policy change during the meeting. The superintendent and staff moved on to the next agenda item after public comment; board discussion later in the meeting focused on budget and facilities items rather than AI policy. The students’ remarks were recorded as part of the public‑comment period and the board will continue its regular policy and curriculum review cycle, where any change to district practice would be considered in future meetings.
The comment packet distributed at the meeting noted public‑comment rules and referenced KSA 45‑221 (personnel matters) as a reminder that the board will not address personnel or individual student privacy issues during an open meeting.
Payton Fury and Isabella Lar Rosa’s remarks were limited to the board’s three‑minute public‑comment allotment; the district did not offer a staff response on policy at that time.
