Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Instructional Coaching And Ai topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Onteora board hears instructional‑coaching plan and broader AI risks; trustees propose community outreach
Summary
Assistant Superintendent Stephanie Laughen described instructional coaching, K–5 math and literacy supports, and the 2026–28 professional learning plan; trustees later reviewed an AI study, noted privacy and developmental risks for teens, and proposed fall community outreach informed by AI circle surveys.
The Onteora Central School District board received two substantive presentations on April 21: a district instructional‑coaching overview and an extended discussion of artificial intelligence risks and next steps.
Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Stephanie Laughen described the district's instructional coaching model, which pairs K–5 teachers with coaches in math, literacy and instructional technology. Laughen said coaches may provide team‑based supports and one‑on‑one feedback, illustrated examples from partnerships with Olster Boseies and the Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility, and noted plans to finalize the 2026–28 professional learning plan. She told trustees coaches work in buildings on a scheduled basis, support teachers in classroom modeling and book studies, and are sometimes assigned in response to principal or teacher requests.
Trustees asked how coaching is delivered, whether it is primarily team‑based or individualized, how the PTA provides input and whether coaching supports teacher retention. Laughen said models vary by need, coaches are often long‑term partners that build trust, and parent representatives are included on the professional learning plan team.
Later in the meeting trustees turned to a district AI study and the work of the district AI circle. The board discussed risks identified in the study: student data collection and privacy, an apparent regulatory gap for 13–17‑year‑old users, the dependence on large language models for schoolwork, and concerns about companion/social bots and targeted data harvesting. Trustees noted students surveyed express worry about AI harming critical thinking and discussed mitigation strategies framed as "prosper, prepare, protect." Several trustees recommended waiting for AI circle survey results, then holding a back‑to‑school community forum in the fall to present findings, invite parent and student input, and consider a district ethical statement on AI.
Superintendent McLaren and trustees emphasized teacher communication and agreed to use the AI circle surveys to inform next steps. No policy vote was taken at the meeting; trustees signaled continued study and outreach would guide any future district policy.
