Kenai Peninsula school board members got their first look Monday at slew of districtwide policy proposals pertaining to the use of artificial intelligence. The policies address everything from academic honesty to student data privacy.
The proposed policies were crafted by members of an AI-specific committee established by the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District last year. The move came after the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development published its own AI policy guidelines for school districts.
Amanda Adams said in an interview with KDLL those state guidelines served as the committee’s starting point. She’s the district’s virtual learning coordinator and is facilitating the committee.
“One of the first things that that group did last fall was take a look at the framework, the AI framework that the state put out, and compare that with the training and decisions, and basic, basically overall philosophy and approach, and everything KPBSD had that was AI-related,” she said.
The state published model policies for school districts interested in putting something similar together. But the local committee is proposing to mostly fold language about AI into the district’s existing policies.
One addressing student records, for example, would change to bar teachers from feeding student data into AI platforms not approved by the district. Another, pertaining to electronic communications, subjects AI use to the same use guidelines as social media platforms. For example, district policies require staff to use good judgement and act professionally when communicating by electronic media.
The biggest proposed change addresses academic honesty for students. Among other things, the policy defines academic honesty, outlines how AI tools can be used responsibly and sets consequences for inappropriate use of AI, like plagiarism.
Not all board members agree the proposed changes are adequate. Mica VanBuskirk represents the eastern peninsula. She said during a board policy committee meeting Monday the academic honesty proposal doesn’t provide enough specificity to teachers or students about what level of AI use is acceptable.
“I think it's really important that we let teachers say, ‘This is acceptable in this situation,’ ‘It’s not acceptable in this situation,’” VanBuskirk said.
But Assistant Superintendent Kari Dendurent says AI is a moving target, and that the technology is evolving faster than the board can implement policies.
“If you are putting such strict parameters, it may really limit where we're going to be continuously changing the language,” she said.
In an email, Dendurent said district staff already have access to generative AI tools like MagicSchool and Google Gemini, as well as to training on how to use those tools. She says the district doesn’t track AI subscriptions or tools that employees use or pay for independent of what the district provides.
MagicSchool is an education-specific AI platform that allows teachers and school administrators to easily monitor the program's use and to implement safeguards. The software can write and customize lesson plans and track student progress data, for example. Adams, the AI committee head, has long touted task automation as a key way AI can work for educators.
Dendurent said the district has spent $8,300 to date on a three-year MagicSchool subscription for students and staff.
School board member Kelley Cizek says district staff are not the only ones who could benefit from a sort-of AI 101.
“I would like training as well, or just to see how this is being rolled out, how it operates, and what those boundaries and things are that are going to be in place,” she said. “I know personally, there's many times where my, you know, my daughters are like, ‘Mom, that's AI.’”
Nationwide surveys suggest student AI use is increasingly common.
Data published by College Board last October found a majority of surveyed high school students reported using generative AI for homework. The College Board, which administers standardized tests like the SAT, surveyed more than 6,000 education stakeholders on AI use, including students, teachers, parents and principals.
VanBuskirk requested the AI policy on academic honesty to undergo further review by the full board. She says the wording is at odds with what she wants the district’s AI philosophy to be.
“AI is here,” she said. “We're not going to – can't fight it, but I think it's really, really important right now that we carefully examine how we use it, and that our students aren't using it to bypass the learning process.”
All policy changes are subject to approval by the full board. The district’s proposed AI policies are available on the district’s new meeting website. District administrators hope to implement new AI policies by the beginning of the new school year.
