Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Course Mojo Ai Pilot topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, educators urge Malden School Committee to pause Course Mojo AI pilot, demand opt‑in and metrics
Summary
Multiple parents and community members told the Malden School Committee that the district’s Course Mojo pilot lacks clear metrics, opt‑in consent, and adequate teacher oversight; callers urged pausing expansion and ensuring family notice and data protections.
Several parents and community members used the committee’s 15‑minute public comment period to press the Malden School Committee to halt plans to expand Course Mojo, a generative‑AI tutoring tool being used in some classrooms.
"Course Mojo should not be used as tier one instruction," said Dr. Liz Tanagan, a resident of 31 Grace Street, who told the committee she has seen the program "hindering teacher‑student relationships" and said the pilot lacks measurable success criteria. Tanagan asked the district to "halt any plans for the expansion of Course Mojo until the results of this pilot are thoroughly communicated to caregivers so that students and families can decide whether they would like to opt in to this program." (Public comment)
Caitlyn Peele Sloan, a member of the district AI task force, said families report that students’ work can "disappear into the black box of Course Mojo" and that teachers sometimes cannot view student responses, limiting oversight and assessment. "There's no way to assess the outcome," she said, describing a lack of control groups, thresholds for continuation, or agreed success metrics.
Parent Amanda Lahan, who said she uses generative AI tools professionally, urged caution on privacy grounds and stressed consent for minors: "It is not okay to force any students into so‑called pilot programs without their consent or the caregivers' knowledge and consent," she said, noting her 12‑year‑old was automatically enrolled without advance notice.
Other speakers called for either a full prohibition of chatbot‑based tools in classrooms or strict opt‑in use limited to students whose families affirmatively choose participation; one caller referenced an open letter signed by about 150 constituents.
District officials did not take action on the public comments during the meeting; committee members and administration acknowledged the concerns and the superintendent said the AI and learning working group and planned special‑education review would inform policy and practice going forward.
The superintendent and staff were asked to return with clearer information about the pilot’s scope, data practices, opt‑in/opt‑out procedures, and evaluation metrics in future reports to the committee.
