Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Instructional Materials topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
WJCC declines six‑year Writable (HMH) contract after extended debate on classroom AI and controls
Summary
The board considered a six‑year supplemental contract for Writable (HMH) — an instructional writing‑practice tool that uses a custom ChatGPT API instance — and after extended discussion about AI, screen time and teacher controls the motion to purchase failed on a roll‑call vote.
Staff recommended a supplemental purchase of Writable (an HMH writing‑practice product) to complement the adopted HMH literature curriculum for grades 6–12. The proposal was presented as a six‑year contract with a total cost in the mid‑$300,000 range (staff described the six‑year aggregate as about $357,000 and an initial annual cost in the $55–60K range), with the purchase intended to provide aligned writing practice and classroom feedback tools integrated with Canvas.
Staff and the selection committee framed Writable as a teacher‑directed supplement that increases students' practice opportunities and provides immediate formative feedback (grammar, mechanics, short proofreading cues) while leaving final grading and substantive writing instruction to classroom teachers. Dr. Kever and instructional staff said the resource addresses teacher requests for higher‑volume writing practice tied to the curriculum and that the division would use year‑end funds typically reserved for instructional materials to pay the initial year(s).
Board members pressed staff on AI controls, data privacy and procurement terms. Staff and other participants explained that Writable uses a custom API instance of a large language model provider (described in the meeting as a custom ChatGPT instance) and that the product integrates with HMH curriculum and Canvas. Concerns voiced by board members and some attendees included the role of AI in student work, potential expansion of AI use beyond intended supplemental practice, screen‑time considerations for younger students and the length of a six‑year contract for a rapidly evolving technology.
After prolonged discussion—balancing teacher interest and curriculum alignment against reservations about AI, contract length and long‑term commitment—the board took a roll‑call vote and declined to approve the purchase.
Next steps: Staff said they will continue curricular implementation review, provide further information to the board on screen‑time and AI topics in upcoming meetings, and may revisit supplemental resources if concerns are addressed or terms change.
