Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Central Falls school district holds first read of draft AI policy after surveys show mixed teacher views and widespread student use
Summary
The district presented a first-read draft artificial intelligence policy developed with students, teachers and an AI steering committee; surveys found 65% of students use AI and teachers were divided between support, caution and opposition. The draft includes student/employee use rules, privacy provisions and a CF Patrol tool-review protocol.
The Central Falls School District presented a first reading June 1 of a draft artificial intelligence policy aimed at guiding student and staff use of AI tools in classrooms and district operations.
Policy intern Liz Pelleter summarized a community-driven process that began in October 2025, including literature review, two surveys (173 teacher responses; nearly 500 student responses) and input from an AI steering committee and RIDE guidance. Student responses suggest roughly 65% report using AI to some degree; teachers were split among strong opponents (ethical/privacy concerns), neutrals (wanting more PD) and supporters (arguing for instruction to prepare students for future work). The draft defines AI and generative AI, addresses student-permitted and prohibited use, outlines employee use and data/privacy considerations, and proposes supplemental toolkits and a CF Patrol protocol for vetting AI tools before adoption.
Board members raised concerns about staff protections, the role of AI-detection tools (accuracy and bias concerns), equity impacts on multilingual learners, and whether age or grade-level restrictions should be defined explicitly rather than by age alone. Pelleter said prior drafts had red/yellow/green guidance that could be provided as optional supplemental teacher resources; the steering committee favored flexibility and a supplemental toolkit approach while recommending that platforms be vetted for privacy standards. Pelleter and the superintendent recommended further refinement and professional development before a second read.
Why it matters: With widespread student use of AI tools and changing vendor privacy practices, districts face the twin challenges of protecting student data, preserving teacher discretion, and ensuring equitable implementation. Pelleter noted RIDE has published LEA guidance but no binding regulations yet; districts are expected to align policy with evolving state guidance.
Next steps: Staff will refine the draft for a second read with additional language on teacher protections, tool-vetting procedures, grade-level alignment and professional development. The board will provide feedback and the policy will return for consideration.
