Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Generative Ai topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RSU 20 board reviews draft generative AI guidelines, plans staff training and parent outreach
Summary
RSU 20 presented draft administrative guidelines for generative AI use by staff and students and outlined next steps including external review, staff professional development and parent informational sessions; the draft emphasizes ethical use, transparency and student data protections.
The RSU 20 School Board on March 11 heard a presentation of draft administrative guidelines for generative artificial intelligence aimed at governing student and staff use in classrooms and district work.
Bob Radford, RSU 20 director of IT and the district’s roadmap‑to‑AI team representative, told the board the draft is based on a template from Drummond & Woodsom and is intended to sit alongside existing district policies. "We did not use any generative AI tools to generate any portion of this," Radford said while describing the provenance of the document. He said the guidelines emphasize an ethical framework that includes transparency and data protection and that the student and staff sections set distinct expectations for professional and classroom use.
Why it matters: The Department of Education’s road map to AI offers broad recommendations but leaves local policy details to districts, and RSU 20’s draft is intended to provide clear, plain‑language rules before staff begin using generative tools with students. Radford said the guidance is meant to augment—not replace—instruction and to set procedures for confidentiality and student data privacy agreements.
Board members pressed for specifics on implementation. Sera asked whether wider classroom access to generative AI could increase homework expectations and how families without reliable home internet would be supported; Radford said the team is still defining those operational details and will treat parental opt‑outs as they would other instructional delivery modifications. On integration with district services, Radford said Google’s core services are covered by the existing student data privacy agreement, but add‑on features such as Gemini currently lack a SDPA and therefore cannot yet be rolled into student accounts without additional agreements.
Next steps outlined by the district: send the draft back to the template authors for a compliance check, remove the "draft" label after any needed edits, circulate the finalized guidelines to staff, provide train‑the‑trainer professional development, publish web resources, and hold parent informational sessions in advance of fall implementation. Radford said the team aims to have professional development and parent outreach completed before the start of the next school year.
The board did not take a formal vote on the draft at the meeting; Radford asked trustees to send any significant suggested edits to him and to Mr. Downing for consideration before the next step of publishing the guidance.
