Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ISD 191 committee reviews MSBA model on responsible use of artificial intelligence
Summary
The ISD 191 Policy Review Committee examined a modified MSBA model policy (625) on responsible AI use June 16, focusing on cross-referencing existing student-data protections, placing procedural detail in a guide rather than policy, and integrating AI tool review into the district's digital resource evaluation.
The ISD 191 Policy Review Committee on June 16 examined a proposed MSBA model policy, Policy 625 "Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence," with Rachel Gorton, the district's director of technology, presenting the draft and proposed edits.
Committee members focused the discussion on keeping policy at a governance level while placing operational details in a procedures guide. Gorton said the model was issued by the Minnesota School Boards Association and that "artificial intelligence is here" and districts nationwide are adjusting their systems as the technology evolves. She told the committee staff reviewed the model at a recent generative-AI conference and are proposing changes to align the model with district practices.
Board members repeatedly urged that the policy cross-reference existing student-data protections rather than re-defining them. A director argued that personally identifiable information "is defined in Policy 515," and urged using that single source so definitions stay consistent across district policies. Committee members also recommended referencing the district's established equity work rather than duplicating equity definitions in the AI policy.
Members discussed the placement of several technical items. The committee agreed the H-AIH concept (human initiates AI, human evaluates the output) and many classroom-level examples would be clearer in the district's procedural manual instead of in the board policy. The group emphasized a single policy-level expectation: that any AI use must align with district curriculum and board expectations, while detailed guidance (age-appropriate use, classroom implementation, assessment practices) should live in the AI procedures and teacher guidance.
On procurement and tool approval, staff explained the district already has a digital resource evaluation process and "the AI model policy really calls out this anytime an AI tool is going to be used, it goes through a process." Committee members recommended folding AI-tool review into that district evaluation process rather than creating an AI-only evaluation path, noting many modern digital tools include AI components.
Directors also raised transparency and student-impact concerns, saying the policy should reflect the expectation that the district be transparent "when AI is being used in a situation that affects a student." The committee discussed cohorts and stakeholder input used during the district's work session and agreed to revisit whether a standing AI committee is necessary or whether existing cohorts can provide sufficient cross-district feedback.
The committee agreed to pause line-by-line editing for the evening and asked staff to circulate a consolidated draft incorporating the suggested cross-references and procedural placements for the August Policy Review Committee meeting. No final board action or vote on Policy 625 occurred at the June meeting.
What's next: staff will prepare a revised draft that cross-references Policy 515 on student data, moves classroom and operational detail into the AI procedures guide, and returns to the committee in August for continued review.
