Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Of Conduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews code‑of‑conduct changes to add AI definition, tighten device and cybersecurity language
Summary
Staff proposed limited updates to the district code of conduct adding an AI definition, new language on academic-integrity consequences for misuse of AI, prohibitions on food deliveries and wearable recording devices, and added cybersecurity protections; the technology officer urged careful vendor and data‑privacy review.
Board members reviewed targeted revisions to the district’s code of conduct on June 22 that would add definitions and strengthen language around artificial intelligence, personal devices and cybersecurity.
Dr. Iverson summarized the edits as minimal and alignment‑focused: the code now includes a definition for artificial intelligence and a definition for food deliveries, clarifies academic‑integrity violations that can include AI misuse, and tightens consequences in some sections. He told the board the changes were the result of committee work with principals, teachers and central office staff.
Miss Thompson, the district’s chief technology officer, told the board that technical guardrails and student data privacy were a priority. “I also have to look at tools to ensure that student data is protected, that the tool is safe,” she said, and cautioned that pilot programs can fail if vendors do not protect student data. She referenced a high‑profile incident in another large district as a caution and urged thorough vendor due diligence and district‑wide vetting of detection tools.
The new language also adds explicit cybersecurity protections for systems that house student information and broadens existing prohibitions to include wearable devices that can record audio or video; staff said the additions reflect incidents principals and administrators have encountered.
Board members asked for clarifications and student‑friendly wording. Several members expressed concern that some phrases—such as a new reference to “annoying or harassing communication”—could be subjective and should be further specified so students and families understand expectations. Legal and operational questions about AI detection tools and false positives also surfaced; staff said the district plans to recommend a standardized detection tool and provide teacher training on interpretation and due process.
Officials also discussed the state’s newly passed phone restrictions, described in the meeting as the Maryland “Phones Free Schools Act,” which requires a bell‑to‑bell device approach by 2027–28. Staff said superintendent rules will be updated to implement the law and that the district will coordinate family communication and school‑level implementation plans.
Next steps: staff said they will revise some wording for clarity, provide examples and guidance for students and families, choose district‑standard AI detection tools with training for teachers, and prepare superintendent rules implementing the state phone law.
