Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technology Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mountain Lakes board reviews district AI policy and schedules staff training
Summary
Mountain Lakes administrators presented a recommended artificial intelligence policy that sets guiding principles, an "AI scale" by grade band, a small set of approved tools and an August 25 staff development day; the board flagged privacy and detector limitations and asked for continued vetting before adoption.
Superintendent Dr. Siegel and the district’s technology team presented a recommended artificial intelligence policy to the Mountain Lakes Board of Education on June 1, laying out how teachers and students may use AI tools in classrooms and how the district will vet and monitor those tools.
The presentation, led by IT director Mr. Santos with research support from Dennis Posner, proposed a grade-band "AI scale" (K–3, 4–5, 6–8, 9–12) to clarify when and how AI is permitted, listed three primary approved tools for near-term use (Brisk Teaching, Google Gemini and NotebookLM) and emphasized privacy protections, a review process for data security and academic-integrity measures. The district announced an all-day professional development session for staff on Aug. 25 focused on AI implementation.
"Teaching and learning are fundamentally a human endeavor," Dr. Siegel said during the presentation, arguing the policy is meant to keep human judgment central while allowing technology to support instruction. Mr. Santos told the board the plan aims "not to adopt AI tools, but to ensure their use aligns with our district values and educational mission." He added candidly that some plan materials were produced with Google Gemini to create presentation graphics and examples.
Board members praised the committee’s work but raised practical concerns. Several trustees warned against relying on automated "AI detectors," citing high error rates and risks of wrongly accusing students. "Spell check is actually AI," one board member observed, arguing for careful definition of what constitutes acceptable assistance. Mr. Santos agreed and said the district is not adopting an AI detection product solely for enforcement; instead, the policy emphasizes teacher-led judgment, assignment-level disclosure and a variety of evidence forms (citations, reflection prompts, brief conferences) to document student work.
The plan envisions a living document: administrators said they will pilot the guidance over the coming school year, collect teacher and student feedback, monitor tool usage and bring revisions back to the board. The policy as presented does not yet represent final board adoption; further vetting and a public rollout to families and teachers are planned this summer.
What’s next: teachers will receive the grade-band frameworks and examples in August professional development sessions, the administration will vet third-party tools over the summer for data-security compliance and the board will consider a final adoption or modification after that review.
