Good evening. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the policy review committee for district 191, Burnsville, Egan, and Savage. Uh the date is June 16th, Tuesday, and the time is 5:00 p.m. Um and uh thank you for everyone uh here
in the room and for anyone watching online. We always appreciate uh everyone's interest. Uh so I would like to uh get started on our uh business for today which starts with new policies and
we have a new policy uh that is being proposed by MSBA. It's policy number 625 responsible use of artificial intelligence. And our speaker is Rachel Gorton, director of technology.
Thank you and welcome. Good evening board members. Um so uh tonight we're bringing to you a modified version of the model policy uh 625 the responsible use of artificial intelligence. Um a couple weeks ago we were able to do a board workshop um and
look at kind of artificial intelligence and have discussion as a whole. Um this model policy was um brought forth by MSBA um in response to the fact that artificial intelligence is here and as uh districts across Minnesota, across the nation and actually across the world
um are adjusting to what that means for our systems. Um actually uh um instructional technology coordinator Katie Salma and I were up at a um AI conference in St. cloud that's a Minnesota based it's uh Mingaya or Minnesota Generative AI Alliance um now
it's called um AI for all or AI for Minnesota um and MSBA was there my last session actually was with them um was with our MSBA um uh colleagues to kind of go over this policy even more um in
depth. So I have um do you have the suggested changes and all of that? Um so as we kind of go through there are some recommendations and as I mentioned a couple weeks ago one of the main things is there are some things like PII
um so uh personally identifiable information that is already defined in other policy and so some of the modifications I'm making are to say um let's use that other those other policies as the um the source of that information and then just reference
them. So I um put that in for both the PII um part of it. Um I also put that in for our equity work. Um we have a really robust and and mature equity work in in ISD 191. And so using that as the um as
the piece um and from there I can open it up for any questions you have or if you want to go section by section um how you want to approach it. >> Great. Uh thank you. I appreciate it. glad that you guys were able to make it to the conference in St. Cloud. That was
fantastic. Um I'm sure it was uh really interesting and you got to talk to a lot of people and >> yes, it was two days of >> all AI AI all AI. >> Um uh definitely uh with the uh number of
changes, you know, you have uh some information on why with some of the changes. Um I'd like to kind of uh be able to discuss those a little bit to kind of understand a little bit more uh between the work session and these uh
some of the the reasons um and and and just kind of get uh some clarity around um some of the changes um you know at least for me I want to to just get this out there and then uh open it up to uh
you know Director Hume and director Anderson that with this policy and uh that um I think our goal definitely my goal is to make it broad enough for you to work with um definitely but also make
sure that it provides the board's expectations and so you're clear anyone reading the policy is clear students parents you know anyone you know is clear on uh just what the boards kind of perspective and and expectations are.
Um, that's definitely uh at least where I'd be coming from with with questions uh proposed uh changes or or going back to um you know perhaps what MSBA had in there. um you know my my kind of reading
of it there's definitely exceptions absolutely that MSBA was providing something that was quite broad um to provide those more of those expectations and so I really look forward to hearing your perspective
uh being in the trenches um about uh why it would uh not fit that broad F kind of definition. Um there was so much information at the work session. So u you know I apologize for for you know I
know I'm going to be asking you to repeat information that you provided in the work session and so I apologize ahead of time. Um but I I think it'll be helpful uh for for the understanding of um of what we end up with from policy. So thank you. Um, so I'd like to open it
up for Director Hume if you have any uh comments to start with or where you think it's good to go next. >> Um, I'll just Yeah, I just I'll just say one thing. I guess I appreciated in the draft policy that was in the board book
materials that the changes that you recommended a lot of them it seemed like were to ensure that this and I think you already kind of said this that this policy aligns with the things either that we're already doing or that we already address in other policies. And I
think that's a really important point that when when MSBA is recommending policies, they don't necessarily know what every what policy every district in in the entire state has. So they make broad recommendations and then leave it up to the school districts to interpret
it and make their recommendation fit to the best of their ability within other policies that already exist within the district. So I'll just say that >> Director Anderson I mean, I don't have any general comments, so okay,
>> once we get to it. >> That's terrific. Um, so I guess, you know, maybe at at first I was going to, you know, kind of well, let's talk about some things broadly. Um, but, um, I think maybe let's just kind of start kind of going through would would be good. >> Given the length of the policy, I would
definitely recommend maybe one section at a time, >> right? Yes. Oh, absolutely. There's like, oh, here's some broad comments. Yes. But then getting to Yes. some >> uh it is both a 14 page policy which is kind of unprecedented. Uh the other thing is that MSBA is anticipating that it's going to change about every 6
months. >> So usually like a year is kind of that minimum cadence. Um but because AI is changing so much. So as we kind of go through the sections I'm going to reference sometimes that our 191 AI and 191 guide and when we think about like governance and the policy sitting in
governance and then we think about the procedures, right? That's what that AI AI and 191 guide that's the procedural manual. So that one would be the one that has some flexibility as things change and kind of in a rapid um if you want to start just with like the purpose
section um I'm not making any recommendations to make any changes into that section. I think that the overview the purpose of the policy um and everything is um is fine as it is. Mhm. Yep. >> Um when we move into the general statements, um I just thought because of
the general statements of policy, I did think in um I um that we should add in a reference um uh sorry in H um where it says the last sentence it says students and I added in
and staff AI use must be consistent with school district policies. I just thought because it was a general um statement, I thought that that seemed reasonable to to include kind of our the totality of uh who would be using AI in our district.
>> Um if I can uh just ask a question um real quick since we are on general statements of policy. Um in in that uh article um in um item in section B it uh
mentions the H AIH um kind of u protocols and I know later on in the policy we were looking to take out that reference to H AIH um and so I'm wondering
what uh maybe it what we could replace it with because I kind of um one thing that I have a point with about having that in here is nowhere in the policy does it really define that I saw what H AIH actually is. And so that's something
that's kind of missing from the policy. So, uh, you know, I'm thinking, you know, there's there's it's not only going to be school staff and, you know, board members, the teachers that are going to be looking at this, you know, potentially. And so, what is that? And
so, if there's another term about, you know, human dis, you know, not leaving out human decision making and and a human um review at the beginning and end. I mean,
you know, what HI is getting at. >> Yeah. >> Um, you know, as something to substitute in there. >> It is in the definition section. >> It is in the definition section. Did I miss that? Okay. >> It's letter H under in 625-3.
>> It is. Yeah, >> never mind. Huh. Okay. I completely missed that. >> I'm so focusing on the red. Yeah. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Yeah, I think the concept of of h aih which is that human initiates AI processes
>> right >> and human evaluates right is is very critical with AI that is a critical component I think that like the definition like we've used in the past this human in the loop >> and and I I like that term as well I
think that the H AIH framework um is a little bit more explicit and I think is actually a valuable thing to have in policy with the idea that right is that nothing nothing particularly on the evaluation side comes out of an AI
generation without a human reviewing it is that that we are responsible as professionals as students um as teachers to evaluate the output of that AI. So I think that that concept is important um but I agree that it's used as this
acronym really early in the policy. Yeah. >> My thought about it is um the first time you use an acronym in a document, you should >> say what it is. So like if we could say what it stands for and then
>> because I haven't gotten to the definitions yet when I'm reading that line. >> Um it might be helpful. So for section B, uh would you like the like a revision to actually have it just like written out
exactly what that like? >> Yeah, I think that AI to human. Yeah, >> I think that would be good. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> You don't think we need to also point people at the definitions later on for more? Is that going to add too much? >> I don't want to over >> Yeah. Do our other policies um I can't
remember off the top of my head. Do our other policies have the definitions at the end like that? Well, it's only on page three out of 14, so let's do it towards the beginning, but you know, right? >> Um, like not first. >> Correct. Yes. A lot of them are Yeah. definitions are in kind of the middle in
the mix. >> Towards the beginning usually, but it's not necessarily because I think usually you'd have like the broad >> what are we talking about here? Kind of get into definitions. I think the the format is probably pretty consistent. >> Yeah. So then just it's an acronym. You
explain it the first time you do it and then >> you see the definition. see the definition eventually. >> So, so basically later on where um HI is not in um it wasn't the terminology specifically, it was just kind of where
it happened to be that didn't fit with what the goal was for the uh the article where it's removed later on in the policy that it wasn't itself. later on I recommend actually taking it out and putting in the concept of the the framework
>> as a broader kind of context. is like H AIH or human in the loop is like one element of our larger framework and because we've established that framework is that kind of understand right like that whole um if you remember that kind of cycle of like we're going to
understand why we're using hi or uh AI right evaluate our use should we even be using it is it appropriate for the work or the learning that is occurring in that moment um is the value of AI right like we were talking earlier in the work um in the the workshop is that if you're
looking for a simple image, just Google it. You don't need to use AI for that, right? Like like use AI where it is the best tool, but then don't use it when it's not an appropriate tool. Um, so that framework is I kind of took out the H AIH as a singleton piece of that
framework and put the framework in as a suggestion. >> Sure. Sure. Thank you. Yes, that will that will help when we get to that point to kind of provide that context. Appreciate it. Um yeah and definitely agree with your your point your comment about in section H in about adding staff
like yeah definitely having that in there. Um and um I guess just wondering in um section
I um as far as the if maybe or or to get director Hume, director Anderson's kind of input as far as having some type of guidelines kind of again that the the expectations um you know if we need to change the
wording maybe make them a little bit more broad. I mean, it just it seems to me like having some sort of statement in the policy that yes, we're going we we have different expectations around
um the different grade levels and um that that it will be kind of progressive kind of use and and you know, we're not going to just hand a kindergartener everything, but we are going to provide
uh our 9th to 12th 12th graders something more um just I don't know if we feel that would be helpful in policy >> I don't think we need it in policy if it's in the guidelines I think >> I agree >> you're referencing C guidelines that
that's enough >> okay >> I will just note the and I'm sure you've already thought of this the MSBA recommendation says K through 5 and 6 through 8 and 9 through 12 are we going to have anything in the polic procedures guide around prek also
>> around what what >> prek >> prek um that's interesting like there is nothing in the MSBA right now on prek right >> and that may be something that >> maybe the recommendation is there shouldn't be and that's but >> yeah no screen time >> we have I mean we have we have a pretty
robust prek program in the district so I don't want to forget them >> yeah my kids were definitely using AI when they were three they were I no they it didn't exist. >> Didn't exist. >> Funny. >> Yeah. All right. Also is also agreeing
that guiding principles formatting things not important. Sorry. Oh, okay. Yes. >> And I it says in in red will establish age appropriate use guidelines in the AI and 191 procedures guide. Will it establish age appropriate use guidelines? >> Is that just me reading it funny or is
>> No, that just needs to be cleaned up. That was Yeah, that was a a duplicate on that. Yeah, >> that's Yeah, >> great. >> Ready to move on? >> Yep. Yep. We can go to the definitions. >> Yeah. For the definitions in general,
um, for A through H, um, I think it's fine to leave as is. I'm not making any recommendations to change those. Um for I this is where we start to they they redefine PII and of course anytime that you have two sources
of information and policy then it can get offset right if you change our five 515 policy we we would need to make sure it matches and so I'm just saying why don't we just reference um instead of defining it there we would just PII is
defined in policy 515 is where now I do think that PII we should replicate that in our guide again just to remind people what PII is and what you know we get a lot of questions around what is directory information what can I share
you know there there are a lot of um procedural questions that come around uh student and staff data and so I think it is important to kind of include that >> that you know in the procedural guide um but I don't think um my recommendation is that we don't duplicate that in
policy >> agreed Um okay. Um because one thing is just um around as they mentioned keeping in mind the users as far as you know it's not just our staff people. It's not just people
within 191 that would be looking at this policy and would be trying to find things. Um you know a student a parent might you know search for AI or something and then they don't know how to find the 515. It says to find a policy 55. There's a search bar where
you could say policy 515. >> Yes. In other policies, we have a lot of duplication and it has a cross reference. Um >> cuz it's not defining it in general.
>> It's what we're including in that. >> Do you know what I mean? Like that. I guess that's what I was thinking is better because that's the part that changes what the definition of PII is there. What we the specific things that we're including in in PII have changed.
We've changed those I think this year. >> So like keeping that to one thing because if it's different in this one because we didn't change it at the same time. It wasn't up for review at the same time as >> right. >> Do you know what I mean? So, like always referencing for specifics. If you want
more information on this definition, you go to 515, >> but like cuz it still tells you what is. Yeah. >> Um I mean now Director Hume, you've been um on the board longer than uh Director Anderson and myself as far as I mean I
my assumption was that when policy 515 changes, MSBA is aware of what other policies include that and would also bring that forth. As far as a notice that that it would change, >> I wouldn't assume that necessarily. we
do have cross references in many of our policies um that would reference you know other policies that that are part of that and are reflective of that. So I would think that's kind of what this is in this situation as well that >> so you we don't we don't want to create
as she said we don't want to have this def a different def a definition of personally identifiable information in the AI policy that you know three four five years down the road suddenly looks very different from the other policy because some the future board forgot to update one when one changed.
>> Mhm. So it's easier and less risky I think to just refer to the policy and then if that policy changes then that automatically updates the AI policy as well. >> Sure. Um my my assumption was that since
MSBA would know that um they would then put forth that this also changed but okay. Um, >> one one additional piece on like how PII and policy 515 kind of align to this is that 515 is going to go into the details
around what is directory information and what is not directory information. So if you look at like in the in this um draft policy right in number two the name of a student's parent or other family members. So that that is defined as not
directory information now in our policy. And so it's important that those things are that we're not contradictory contradicting that. Um and this you know a PII is defined as these things but it doesn't talk at all about what's directory information and what's not. So I think that that just has a much deeper
understanding of like what is data and what are what are those data fields? The same with I would say the student's name. the student's name. Is that first name? Is that first name and last name? Is that last name? Is it a first name that is unique because it's in a certain student or um class? Like because that's
identifiable. If there's only one Rachel in the class and you know the class then you know so there's like some nuance to this that I think you know leaving that within the context of policy 515 which is umbrella for all of our work allows us to lean on that in ways that are I
think are much uh like there just it's a deeper understanding of what that data is. Mhm. >> Sure. Oh, and yeah, that's why the cross reference is there, too. Um, to help with that. All right.
Um, >> okay. And ready for so K school district approved AI tools. Uh this is a really interesting one is that um I'm making a recommendation
um that we utilize an our existing digital resource evaluation process and don't call that out specifically for AI tools. So there's a couple situation or a couple spaces here in the model policy that I've made that recommendation. Um
the the AI model policy really calls out this anytime an AI tool is going to be used, it goes through a process. It even brings it in when we get to the committee conversation. And what I'm recommending is that uh we leave that as its own evaluation process that we have
for digital resources as a whole and AI tools are part of that. And part of that is because there really is no digital resource anymore that doesn't have AI component in there. So it it's very difficult to like remove these, but this
policy doesn't address uh digital resources as a whole. So um so that's my recommendation for adjusting that. And then on that note, um in K um it does reference again this artificial intelligence committee. We're
going to get to that in the next section here. that's a big or in a future section. Um but again I think uh we have spent a lot of time which with our teaching and learning department with our principles with our finance department um to make sure that our digital resource evaluation process is
robust and it really gets at that concept of like first of all should we just should we be using it? Does it meet objective goal our district's goals? Does it align to our values? Like all of those you know our core values, our priorities, all of those things. Um, and then it goes through a process of the
legal requirements, right? And so that process, I do think we can make some adjustments to ensure that all of these AI components are a part of that, but I think we need to do that anyway because um, again, every every tool that we have now has an AI component. Um, and so
they're kind of one and the same. So that's that's why my recommendation for K is uh is again to kind of change the language and then lean on that existing process. I'm not sure how in policy that is referenced because it's not a it's it would be more of a procedural piece, not
a policy. So, um how you want that kind of represented in here. My I mean my only comment was um that you know perhaps we don't explicitly state the digital resource evaluation process in case kind of the name
changes. I mean, you know, and make it more broad in just um like uh replacing it with um let's see where do I have uh the wording um that just making it the required evaluation process.
I mean potentially I don't know you can provide some guidance on if you know digital resource evaluation process if that may change you know potentially in in the future. Um just again making it
something that's actually more broad >> if you don't capitalize it. >> If you don't capitalize the word then it's just describing it >> exactly >> just make it the required evaluation process >> a minute ago. You can just not capitalize those four words.
>> Yeah. And then um that that Yeah. the the teacher or staff member can submit the request. Yeah. >> So I have a question about this. Do we currently have a digital resource evaluation process?
>> Yes. >> Okay. I thought so because it says in the comments we have a digital resource evaluation process. But the comment below that is why I'm asking >> deduction. >> While we identified district approved AI tools,
we do not say you can't use other tools very often. So I guess are the AI tools that staff are using now not going through that evaluation process or is it different for those tools currently? Um, so for AI tools specifically, we have
what we call them the big three that are district approved that have gone through a full evaluation process and we have asked folks not to use other tools. Now the question is always what do you do right and so this is kind of the same
with AI tools as it is with other digital resources >> is that I will say the trend is definitely moving because of increased student data privacy because of increased cyber security um and I would say even like trends that we're seeing with like intellectual intellectual
property for school districts we're seeing a definite trend that um digital resources and tools are being it tightened. I like to call it like kind of squeezing the co bloat >> is that in co things just got very like
we were grabbing anything that worked >> and coming out of co we really started understanding so Minnesota the data privacy changes for for students for student data as it pertains to like uh digital resources changed in in 2022. um
that was the new statute that went into effect with the Minnesota um Student Data Privacy Act. So in 2022 that changed and since then what we're seeing right is that is that boards and districts are wrestling with do we allow
other tools at all or do we block them? Right? Because when we think about that whole we can say these are the district approved tools AI or otherwise but then we can go all the way to we're going to block them on our firewall we're going to block them at different levels in
accounts all of those pieces and so that is that's a conversation that is definitely happening across the board. Um and you know we discourage um other AI tools or other use um but we haven't gone so far as to well what what would
be the consequences if we say you can't um and do we do a technical solution to say you know you can't log in with your account or you can't log in with a district account or you know like there's a there's some >> there's a spectrum there that that has
to be kind of determined where we want to go with that >> and there's a lot of variation. Because you know there are companies that whose primary product is AI but then as you mentioned a little while ago virtually every website and app now has an AI component. So
>> that's where it becomes like whack-a-ole I think. >> Yum. Yeah. And it's becoming I mean AI does definitely add a very interesting layer. Um so just this was this is an example is that uh we have we're a Google
workspace um for education district right. So we have Google in our we have licenses when I log in as a district employee um to my my Google account. My Chrome browser is managed at a district level. So we have polic we have things
in place technical policies not board policy but technical like settings in place to uh to ensure that we're meeting um our requirements for for legal as well as just security. Um, if I take that now and I go on a personal device
and I log in and I'm on a non-managed browser, well, now what's happening is that AI has the ability to do kind of swipes on that on that screen in a way that wasn't possible even up to like a year ago, right? And so now we're in a
whole new environment of like, you know, there's a risk with that obviously. And so how do we navigate that? Um so this concept of right um there's there are website or there are AI um tools that staff may be using that
we haven't vetted at all and so what we've said is absolutely no student or staff data but it's very hard to police that and to understand if that's um happening. So >> and then obviously like what what the consequences might be with that is like
another layer. Yeah. Um so I just want to mention as far as uh interest of time kind of what we just um and because I think one of the uh big um conversations maybe first since it's just coming up in terminology it shows
up later as in one of the um articles is talking about the AI committee and AI coordinator and um I think you know personally I don't see or or what we want is around an AI committee
um because in your work session you had talked about the cohorts. So I really think it would be great um at the next session when we discuss this to talk about the cohorts and how that and and what that process has been as very
possibly our replacement for an AI committee and how we would that bring that in um or you know that that we've we're obviously already getting feedback from somebody from from people other
than just one person you know and and how we can incorporate that in here versus what this suggests for an AI committee. Um I think we're obviously already doing something else that's very robust. And so being able to have that
suggestion around um re redoing the AI committee suggestion here would be great because again it seems like we're already doing something really great. So yeah. Do you want to dive into that AI cohort today or do you want to wait for the >> I think we'll be doing that waiting uh
in the interest of time we can always see what we do with the amount of time for the policy review committee when we meet in August versus uh versus today. So um I think at this point since we're done with this article would be a good stopping point for this if everyone is
in agreement or do we keep going? >> I I' I'd like to keep going a little bit more. >> Keep going a little bit more. Okay. Whatever. Okay. All right. So, um yes, we'll I think the AI committee is going to be a much bigger broader kind of conversation. So,
we can tackle that probably in in August and just kind of keep going with what we've got right here with um the equitable access. >> Okay. >> All right. So, if you'd like to Yes. um talking about I I think we're continuing on with talking about equitable access
the consensus is we're going to keep going. >> Okay. >> Um in section four which is equitable access to AI tech uh technology. Um this one I did I am recommending that we take a lot of that context out. Um and again
the work that we do around uh instructional and operational technology is fully aligned with our education or our um equity initiatives in the in the um district and I I think that's a more an appropriate place. I actually I
really enjoy or like the fact that they put that into the model policy so that it did bring the conversation into place to make sure that it was addressed because when we talk about equity of access and equity right there's there's equity in a couple different places within AI. one is access to the tools
and resources um and the other one is bias within AI and both of those are really critical and important um u and I I think that they sit better in our procedural manual than in the in the policy. >> Yeah, I agree.
>> Okay. Um my one thing is the fact that our um policy 105 does not address staff. It is strictly only students. >> Okay. >> Um and so that would be um
one reason why with the equitable access here it is very AI specific. Mhm. >> Um whereas policy 105 is relatively broad and it and it is strictly student focused. Whereas this also does address the idea of equitable
access for um staff, you know, teachers for for everyone that would be interacting with the district that way. Um, and so, uh, that would be my my one comment here in keeping or revising some
of this is just because it does address AI specifically and is a little bit broader in in who it applies to. >> Okay. Um, so you know whether it's just adding like one section or or something here, but that we do, you know, and and
as you mentioned, equity is such a focus and uh for the district um that uh that having something just a little bit broader in here would be good. But otherwise, yeah. um uh in F I do recommend that actually
I'm not I I I was really struggling with why it was sitting in this section. I think it belongs and is also in in the in the review section of the policy as a whole. Um so I didn't see a reason that it would be sitting right in this area. Um so my recommendation is to remove F.
>> Does seem like a weird place to put it like >> it should be about the last sentence of the policy, right? >> Yeah. No, definitely agree. Last the the curriculum in integration one before
>> right before we hit the AI committee. We'll >> definitely or or or we do we do article five and if anything we skip article six and move on. We'll kind of see where we are with time. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Um my recommendation on this one is um
in a is to adjust that again. Um, it's it's focused on the H AIH model. Um, and I'd like to propose that we actually are focusing more on our district curriculum and instructional objectives as a whole. And if AI uh fits into those and it's
the appropriate tool and and activity, um, then it aligns. If not, like like I think the the H AIH is just too too focused in there. Um and then as it goes down into the kind of the examples the identify teacher AI used to assess um student work. I think those are really
again in procedural of like how we work with teachers and and how it fits into um the learning environment for students. Um so again my recommendation is that that gets removed from the policy um and is put into our procedural
manual. things like require transparency when AI use is part of the decision- making about a student. There are some areas here if you feel like you really want those in policy. I think that they could stay there without like there's not significant consequences to leave them in. Um I just think they get very
very detailed in a procedural piece and >> what would be in in policy. So um that whole a adjusting it from that uh criteria consistent with we would put in district curriculum and instructional objectives um and then remove the whole
um uh examples within that and that is the only suggestion I have for um the curriculum and integration and AI letter C piece. >> I agree with that one. think it aligns with, you know, board and policy around
governance and that's really what policy should be about. And then, yeah, the the other bullet points almost are too into the weeds of >> and I think that you're right, that's where that your policy manual or whatever you refer to it as is comes into play, >> policy procedures manual.
>> Yes. Um, yeah, my my one comment was uh definitely along the lines of yes, this was getting too detailed. Um but just a a comment around the fact that we will be transparent when AI is being used in student decisions um or or in decisions
affecting students that something along those lines in you know that is the expectation that we will be transparent in those situations that we will um >> make clear like a statement make sure that we >> that that's um correct like um in here
it was um you know kind of along that idea you know, requiring transparency when AI use is, you know, part of a decision about a student, you know, that that kind of concept. >> Uh whether or not we want to keep that exact wording or something uh a little
bit else, but uh something a little bit more broad um for a variety of situations, but just yes, that we're transparent when AI is being used in a situation that affects a student. you
know, you know, it's not a specific situation to put here, but you know, if AI is being used to determine whether or not a student used AI on a project and did so fraudulently, you know, and um is something that would be against policy,
you know, that if we were using AI in that situation, you know, I want I would think something in policy to just say yes, we would be having the expectation that that would in the guides that you've talked about
and that we have more detailed uh guidance around that. Yeah. >> And I think in that framework that last section was credit and that was kind of getting to that transparency piece. I think that as we continue to develop that like that credit piece, we will use
like the words transparency a little bit more um it'll be a little bit more prominent. Um because that's what we were really getting at is like let's be let's be open and transparent about when AI is being used across our system. So >> all right. Um
so I guess uh what would people kind of just opening it up again and kind of what everyone's expectation is expectations are around time. um that I'm thinking, you know, potentially with the AI committee that could be I I don't know, a little bit of a discussion if we
handle that now and then move on or uh to the other items on the agenda or um if we stop here. I'm kind of wanting people's inputs as far as uh availability
and um I mean there's we're not going to get through all the pages. >> No. >> So yeah, I mean and we're technically already over time. So I think stopping
and go moving on this one. >> Sounds good. Um so we'll definitely look forward to AI committee kind of discussions and cohorts and things next. >> Okay. And >> next time. >> So for August, right? >> Right. >> Yes. Um would you like possible >> some of the changes that you've
requested like a new copy with those changes up to um this for next time or would you like to kind of keep it as it is right now and just continue working forward? >> Um I don't want to go over the changes
again next time. >> Does that make sense? Like I don't want to waste the time going over what we've already talked about. >> So maybe we keep it >> Yeah. this version for the August meeting and all the changes at once because I'd be worried about us doing that also. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> No. So, yes. Thank you. >> All right. Look forward to talking to you in August. >> Yeah. Thank you very much. Thanks. >> Yeah. This is like a like it needs a whole retreat night. But yes, we will definitely >> once we get through the committee,
>> yes, we will definitely be doing a whole thing where okay, our meeting is going to go from 5 to 6. We're going to schedule that for uh August. We'll definitely set forth that expectation that this will not be a 5 to 5:30 in in August.
>> Uh so uh next we'll be moving to policies with changes and uh that will be policy uh 202 school board officers. Um and I am uh presenting the change uh
to this policy. Uh the only change here is that uh we are adding um an item under treasurer so that the treasurer can perform the duties of the chair in the event that the chair, vice chair,
and clerk um are temporarily absent. Uh it would still you know have we would still have a forum for a schoolboard meeting and the treasurer would be able to lead the school meeting. >> Well that would never happen.
>> What are the odds of that happening again? >> Yes. Exactly. This definitely is prompted by a situation where this exact thing happened. >> The Anderson Mickelson rule. >> Yes. Um, and so, uh, I am putting forth the
update to policy 202. Any comments other than nicknaming this the Mickelson Anderson Anderson Mickelson official recommendation. We're not going to do that. >> All for it. >> Nope. I think it makes it makes total sense.
>> It'll never happen again, but it's good to have it in here in here. It won't happen. It'll never happen again. But all right. I think we can do that on consent. There's no problem. Thank you.
All right. And so uh next we have um the agenda our consent agenda uh for our policy with no changes. And although committee actions required, it's generally unnecessary to hold discussion uh on these items since no changes were recommended. Uh in the event a committee
member uh wishes to discuss a policy that policy will be uh removed uh for separate consideration. Um any committee member wish to discuss any of the policies with no changes. >> All right. Um hearing no requests for separate consideration. I recommend that
all policies with no changes be brought forth on the consent agenda at our next uh regular uh meeting of the board of education. Um, and just to list those policies, it's 901 community education, 801 equal access to school facilities,
904 distribution of materials on school district property by non-school persons, 7:15 purchasing and bid requirements. Uh, 203.2 order of the regular school board meeting and 208 development adoption
implementation of policies. All right. So that is the list. Uh Sarah, any comments or the summary? >> Uh return for new policy in August for the AI and then the rest on consent for
the June June 2015 meeting. >> That's perfect. All right. The time is 5:46 and I call our policy review committee meeting adjourned. Thank you.