School District Weighs New Policy on Generative AI Tools

The Basics

A new policy proposal was made public at a recent Mount Greylock Regional School District Policy & Governance Subcommittee Meeting, titled simply the "Use of Artificial Intelligence" policy. The policy, as currently written, includes key measures that limit students' use of generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini).

Notably, the Mount Greylock Handbook already lists the "use of AI generated work" as a violation of the academic honesty policy. Punitive measures for a violation include "parental notification; reduced grade on assignment; referral to school counselors; disqualification from the National Honor Society." Given the relatively new nature of the technology, it is difficult to determine the exact prevalence of its use (and misuse) at Greylock. However, I'm sure the vast majority of academic dishonesty involving artificial intelligence goes unnoticed. Still, any policy enacted remains relevant when more flagrant violations are found.

The policy contains some ostensibly contradictory elements: while the committee's stated goal is to "(foster) digital fluency, critical thinking, and responsible innovation," some may find this at odds with a blanket ban on using such tools without "explicit" authorization. Many students at Greylock will soon graduate and attend a college or university, where about 90% of students report using AI to help with schoolwork. Yet, only about 60% of college students report feeling they've received enough education on the tool. This extends beyond just higher education; today, about one-third of US employees report that their company is implementing AI into its business practices.

Language and Implementation

The key components listed in the policy are as follows:

• "The use of any AI tool by students in connection with schoolwork, assessments, or activities is prohibited unless explicitly authorized..."
• "The Committee directs the Administration to..."
  • Evaluate "AI tools and instructional practices, including an ongoing process to assess the potential benefits (e.g., personalized learning, increased efficiency) and drawbacks (e.g., bias, equity concerns, pedagogical risks) of incorporating them into the curriculum."
  • Develop "educational opportunities for students focused on the ethical, effective, and critical use of AI."
  • Provide "professional development to staff on the ethical, effective, and instructional implications of AI."

Authorization to use AI tools could take many forms: a syllabus may include a teacher's policy on the tool; departments (English, Math, etc.) may create more general guidelines; or specific instructions may be provided on an assignment-level basis. For reference, I have never received an assignment that instructed or permitted students to use AI.

My Take, and Getting Involved

I feel compelled to disclose that I did make a public comment at the meeting expressing concern about the policy. My apprehensions primarily stem from a lack of confidence that the policy will lead to the implementation of comprehensive strategies to educate students on the use of AI. Most of the policy implementation is left to the administration, and I'm concerned that developing a strong curriculum concerning AI use could be set aside in favor of other priorities.

Being a senior at Greylock, I've seen this pattern in the past. When we passed a ban on phones at school, there seemed to be a temporary push to also educate students on the harms of social media and overall screen addiction, but it quickly died out. I worry here that the results could be similar: the "ban" on AI use would stay, but the education students receive about the tool would quickly dissipate.

The committee continues to refine its policy proposal and plans to create working groups comprising students, faculty, and parents, as well as to bring in outside expertise. They encourage feedback submitted either via email at schoolcommittee@mgrhs.org or by attending their meeting on Thursday at 6 PM, where public comment will be taken. As of writing, the policy is not scheduled for a vote, but is currently on track to be passed at the committee's February meeting; however, there's often a greater willingness to adjust policy language earlier on.