Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technology Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ISD 191 outlines AI framework, literacy cohorts and a referral to policy review committee
Summary
District technology and instructional leaders presented an AI guiding framework centered on human oversight, described staff and student AI literacy pilots, recommended district-approved tools (Gemini/Notebook LM, Magic School), and asked the policy review committee to adapt MSBA model policy to local practice.
District technology and instructional leaders presented a multi-year overview of artificial-intelligence (AI) work at ISD 191, including pilots, professional-development cohorts and draft guiding principles that emphasize human oversight, equity, and student agency.
Presenters described an AI guiding framework with four pillars (understand, design, use, credit) and placed a ‘‘human‑in‑the‑loop’’ control at its center. Rachel (district lead on AI initiatives) said the district has been running departmental Notebook‑LM demos and teacher cohorts to explore practical classroom uses (standards mapping, common-assessment creation, remediation supports) while also testing student‑centric tools such as Magic School for K–12 work.
The district has run intensive, cohort‑style professional learning for staff (including a mixed cohort and a targeted AI literacy cohort of digital learning specialists and media specialists). The AI literacy cohort focused on components such as algorithmic thinking, data privacy and media literacy so staff can teach students to use AI responsibly.
Officials emphasized that many tools quickly embed AI features and that data privacy and phishing risks need ongoing attention. The district noted that Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA) released a 14‑page model AI policy in February; staff recommended the policy review committee take the MSBA model as a starting point, adapt language to local practice and return to the full board. The board asked the policy review committee to draft locally tailored language and then bring that draft back for a work-session discussion.
Directors raised classroom-level questions about plagiarism, crediting AI outputs and how to detect or address undisclosed AI use; staff described available monitoring and teacher diagnostic tools (for example, document revision and edit-history signals in Google Workspace) and cautioned that many AI‑detection tools are unreliable and can produce false positives for multilingual and special‑education learners. Rachel said the district will prioritize training, refine approved tools, and maintain transparent communications with families and staff.
Action: Board members directed staff to route a local AI policy through the policy review committee with the expectation of a subsequent work session with the full board. No formal policy was adopted at the meeting.
