Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Niskayuna board debates specific AI language for student code of conduct
Summary
Board members and administrators debated whether to add explicit prohibitions on generative AI to the district Code of Conduct, with some urging a firm ban on using large language models for student work and others pushing for policies that teach responsible AI use. The item was referred to the policy committee for further work.
The Niskayuna Central School District Board of Education spent the bulk of its June 16 meeting debating whether and how to add artificial intelligence guidance to the student Code of Conduct.
Superintendent Carl Mth described draft guidance developed by district committees and proposed a clear prohibition on generative text in student work: "Any use of large language models to generate or edit any work is plagiarism and cheating and will be referred to as such under the code of conduct," he said. The sentence was offered as an example to show the form of language administrators are considering.
Board members differed on how strict the code should be. One board member warned against treating AI only as a threat and urged the district to teach students how to use the tools responsibly, saying, "If our students were to graduate not knowing how to use AI, we would be doing them a disservice." Another board member, speaking to the risk of unvetted outputs, pointed to legal and professional examples of "hallucinated citations" to argue for careful limits on using generative text for assignments.
Students and other board members also weighed in, noting classroom variability: some teachers have begun integrating AI platforms to generate teaching prompts that cannot output full essays, while others strictly prohibit generative uses. A student representative said the district faces challenges because teacher practice varies and consistent classroom implementation will be difficult without clearer policy.
Administrators recommended routing any formal policy or code changes through the board’s policy committee, with an accelerated summer timetable if the board wishes to publish language before the school year. "We can accelerate the AI and machine learning and educational technologies discussion to the front of that committee's agenda," an administrator said, adding that employee unions and other stakeholders will want to participate.
The board did not adopt a final prohibition at the meeting. Instead, members asked staff to draft a revision and to bring AI policy language to the policy committee and the July public hearing process so the board can consider both a policy and whether the Code of Conduct should be revised concurrently. The board discussed the option of publishing new language in July to ensure printed student booklets reflect any changes before the school year.
The next procedural step is referral to the policy committee and further stakeholder review; no formal change to the Code of Conduct was voted on in this meeting.
