Okay, good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to call this, um, March fifth, twenty twenty-six meeting of the Curriculum and Instruction Committee meeting to order. My name is Dr. Rasheed, and I'm the chair of this committee. Uh, we appreciate your presence here today, and the purpose of today is to go over several agenda items, one being approving the minutes, and the other being a couple of information items, which is Gifted Education Program Evaluation and Recommendations, next steps in, uh, generative AI, digital citizenship, and student use, and the third one would be Department of Academics. We're gonna be talking about the new ADA Title II
accessibility rules. Uh, but before we proceed, we do value public input. If there's anyone from the public who wishes to address the committee, go ahead and fill out a speaker, um, uh, go ahead and fill out a speaker card at the registration table, and I'd like to open the floor to public comments. We'll now open the floor, uh, for that, so if you wish to speak, please, please come forward, state your name, and limit your comments to two minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, hi, my name's Beth Wiesner. I am a parent of d-- uh, elementary school and
middle school kid in the county, and then I've been teaching in the county for ten years, um, at Freedom High School. And I know it's not an action item or a discussion item today, but I'm here r-just referencing Policy fifty thirty, 'cause I know it was a topic last month at the meeting. Um, I sent a very long, uh, communication to a few of you that I knew were part of the committee. Um, I just wanted to voice, like, as a teacher and parent, just opinions that I know discussion is starting to happen about how changes have been going, and you are accepting feedback from the community and
various stakeholders. Um, as a teacher, I am grateful for the changes that have been implemented, and I can see anecdotal positive, uh, behaviors in students and a personal sense of responsibility in students. And I know discussion starts to happen for upcoming school years, and Dr. Rasheed, thank you very much for getting back to that very long email. Um, I don't have concerns that the policy is gonna change this year. I just know that the discussion that starts to take place would be potentially for future years, including next year. And my hope is just to make sure that we are looking at, like,
end-of-year data and data from all stakeholders because I know sometimes the loudest and most persistent voices can be heard, and sometimes other voices can be, uh, diminished a little bit. But I've heard a lot of positive feedback from colleagues, at least at the high school level. Um, so I'm-- I have lots of opinions, too many for two minutes, but I just wanted to express a positive voice in the changes that have been made. So, thank you. Okay. Well, thank you. All right. Okay, your input is really valuable to us, so we'll move on to, uh,
approving the minutes. So has everyone had a chance to review the February ninth, twenty twenty-six minutes? Are there any corrections or additions? No? All right. So I entertain a motion to approve the minutes from February ninth. Uh, I move to approve the minutes from February ninth. Okay. Uh- Second. Thank you. All right. All those in favor say, "Aye." Aye. Okay, great. So the minutes have been approv... We'll move on to the first item, which is Gifted
Ed-Education Program Evaluation and Recommendations. I'll turn it over to Ms. Wendy King, um, Supervisor of Gifted Education. Thank you. All right. Good afternoon. Uh, I'm very pleased to be here today to talk about and to share the findings of our Gifted Program Evaluation and a set of strategic recommendations designed to further enhance our identification process and our gifted services. Our goal is to accurately identify highly capable students from all backgrounds and provide a
consistently challenging environment that fosters intellectual growth, social-emotional development, and the skills to be lifelong learners. Very good. Now, I know whenever people talk about gifted education, they say, "Oh, my gosh, there are so many names, so many programs." So I'm gonna do a quick tutorial here that will help ground us in everything that we talk about today. So, we're gonna start with elementary programs. Of course, we have SEARCH. SEARCH is for K three students.
Uh, there is no identification process. Gifted teachers go into K three classrooms every other week to provide a vi-variety of lessons that really challenge students to think deeply and creatively. And then we have DCI K two, which is a smaller program, but that's a program for K two students who are really performing significantly above grade level in reading and math. And, um, gifted resource teachers just collaborate and work with classroom teachers to provide
differentiated learning experiences for these students. Now, EDGE, I'm sure you've heard about, is a talent development program designed to provide additional rigor and challenges for students who exhibit high academic potential and are from groups historically underrepresented in gifted and other advanced academic programs. Now we get to Fusion. Fusion is... And you may know that as Futura, but it's now Fusion. Um, it is the gifted program for identified gifted learners in fourth and fifth
grade. The program includes interdisciplinary enrichment studies in leadership and innovation, as well as math and language arts enrichment, and that is a school-based program, and it's approximately four hours per week.Now we also have DCI grades four through five, and that's a gifted program for identified gifted learners who demonstrated exceptional, uh, performance in one area of the gifted identification program. So they receive enrichment services one hour a
week in their area of strength, and that's either math or language arts, and that's with the gifted resource teacher. So Spectrum is our program for our middle school identified gifted learners, and then our high school gifted learners self-select advanced academic pathways in high school, including AP and dual enrollment and special programs. All right, now we can move on and talk about our program evaluation. So really just to ensure that our services are meeting the needs of students effectively, the gifted office partnered with
our great, uh, friends in the research office to, uh, can-- I, I shouldn't maybe say that because you're evaluating us, but they worked together with us very well, um, to conduct an evaluation on current programming and practices. And so here are some of the highlights from that evaluation. Um, the evaluation highlighted our progress in refining curriculum for greater, uh, student eng-engagement, as well as our success in bringing recognized experts to LCPS to provide specialized
training for our teachers and for our families. And we're very excited that we have Dr. Sandra Kaplan, who is a leading expert in depth and complexity, and she will come and speak with our teachers on March nineteenth. So we're very excited to work with her. Um, during our review of the program data, we found some positive trends, including the fact that over half of our fourth and fifth grade gifted learners are achieving past advanced scores on reading and math SOLs. And we're also seeing the success continue to our secondary school, uh, to secondary level
where our gifted learners are frequently enrolling in advanced coursework and pursue our specialized high school programs. So while these strengths definitely provide a solid foundation for us, the evaluation also helped us pinpoint specific areas where we can refine our approach, um, to better serve our students. So first, as always, we are committed to closing current representation gaps by exploring alternative assessments like the NGAT, and we'll
talk about that in a few minutes. This builds on the work that we've already started, for example, um, implementing at the third grade level a universal evaluation, so all of our third graders are evaluated. Um, we've revised our portfolio tasks to really emphasize creative thinking and problem-solving. Um, and we are using school- school-specific and group norms to find talent in every building. And we also see, um, a major opportunity to expand our talent development
lessons in the K-two SEARCH classes. This will allow us to nurture high-level thinking skills early on so that this helps, uh, potential emerge before students even get to that evaluation phase. And then finally, we want to improve how we welcome new families into the program. By enhancing our onboarding and keeping communication regular, we can build even stronger partnerships between home and school for our gifted learners. So now we're gonna turn these identified opportunities, um, into
action, and our first recommendation focuses on deepening our partnerships with the community to ensure our services remain responsive to those people that we serve. So we proposed a more structured approach to gathering stakeholder feedback, which we just heard earlier about how important that is, ensuring that our program improvements are directly aligned with the values and priorities of our families, students, and staff. And this encour- this, um, includes launching targeted stakeholder surveys and establishing, we're excited
about this, a gifted student advisory committee, giving our learners a formal voice in the evolution of their own program. And then additionally, we are prioritizing a new onboarding process for students entering LCPS gifted services to ensure every family feels welcomed, informed, and supported from day one. All right. So, um, our current identification process, it is comprehensive, but our evaluation does indicate that we're still missing highly capable students from
certain backgrounds, such as our English learners, which is why we are evaluating a more precise tool to help us identify talent that might otherwise be overlooked. So we are planning a pilot of the NGAT. That's the Naglieri General Abilities Test, and that's not to be confused with the NNAT that was, um, a tool that we used to use. This is much more balanced and comprehensive. Um, so it's gonna be a potential assessment to better identify gifted ability in students from underrepresented
populations. And the NGAT is basically, it's a non-verbal measure that removes the language barrier often found in traditional ability tests. And by testing an identification tool designed to recognize potential across all backgrounds, we aim to hopefully remove some of those traditional barriers to our programs. And our plan is to conduct a pilot of the NGAT, providing spec-- provide specialized training for our staff, and carefully analyze the results to
determine its long-term effectiveness. So we're going-- next year, we'll do the NGAT. We'll also conduct the COGAT as usual, and then we'll really do a deep analysis into which one helps us better identify a broad range of students.So building on our goal of identifying potential across all backgrounds, our next recommendation is to expand front-loading strategies through talent development lessons aligned to our portfolio tasks in K2 Search, in the ta-- uh, K2 Search curriculum.
So providing these lessons during Search, prior to our portfolio tasks, we give students the time and space to practice the very skills they will need to demonstrate their strengths during the gifted evaluation process. So front-loading is a research-based instructional best practice where students are exposed to and practice the essential skills that will support their future learning and success. And experts in gifted education talk a lot about front-loading, and they point to it as a specific practice as a promising
strategy for shrinking excellent gaps and developing talent in students who may not have had prior exposure to the types of tasks they'll see during the portfolio. So alongside this K2 work, we also wanna explore expanding formal services, formal gifted services to third grade students, um, who are identified as being in need of gifted instructional support. So as you know, Fusion starts in fourth grade. We'll bring it down, so we'll start earlier in third grade.
So as we introduce these enhancements, our focus is on striving to provide every teacher with the support and resources needed to deliver high-quality instruction consistently across schools. And we are developing a system to help us provide more targeted professional development and learning for, um, and specific resources for schools, ensuring that support is tailored to the unique needs of each building. And we will build support s- toolkits for school leaders to assist them in identifying high-quality gifted instruction and supporting
ongoing growth of their teachers. And our aim is to provide a consistent, cohesive experience for our students working to maintain high standards of gifted services regardless of where students attend school. Okay, so we've talked about what. Now it's time to talk about when and how. So, um, to sure-- to ensure that these recommendations are implemented with precision and care, we have developed a multi-year timeline that prioritizes thoughtful planning and collaboration across departments. So our immediate focus for the upcoming year is
the preparation for a fall 2026 pilot of the NGAP. So that will be our first order of business. We are already beginning conversations with the assessment office to coordinate the logistics and timing, ensuring the new tool integrates seamlessly into our existing testing calendar. And then parallel to our identification efforts, we are planning for a gradual rollout of our enhanced third grade gifted services, and this includes a pilot phase in the 2027-28 school year, allowing us to gather
real-time feedback from our teachers and students before full implementation. And then by phasing our approach this way, we ensure that our staff is fully trained and our resources are aligned, providing a high quality, consistent experience for every student as these new services come together. All right. So as we move forward, our priority is to tr-- uh, transition these recommendations into a collaborative action plan that reflects the needs of our entire community, and we will
begin by sharing these plans with key stakeholders, starting today, um, including GIAC, our school leaders, staff, and families, and gathering feedback, which will be really important to us as we shape these programs and changes. Um, it's gon- will really help it be successful and community aligned. And then simultaneously, we will collaborate with offices of elementary education and assessment to align our scheduling. This coordination ensures that the NGAP pilot and our new third grade services integrate smoothly, um, into the
existing school day. So now we're getting to the important part. Most importantly, we will work to update our staffing standards. Um, to deliver these enhanced services, we must ensure our gifted resource teachers have the necessary capacity. Aligning our staffing model to these new requirements is the foundation that makes this entire plan sustainable. And these recommendations represent our commitment to an inclusive, high-quality program that identifies and develops talent earlier. And we appreciate your
partnership as we align our resources and staffing to make this vision possible. And so now I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you so much, Ms. King. I mean, that was quite elaborative, and it was-- it's, it's a lot. And I look forward to seeing the results as they roll out, especially after, you know, the pilot rolls out. Um, I just had one question before I turn it over to my colleagues. Um, I was wondering if, uh, if we will seek feedback or if MSAC or SEAC weighed in, um, in regards to students, um, maybe that have any
hindrances. Absolutely. I think that's an incredible idea. We do have, um, many members of SEAC and MSAC who attend GIAC. So that's one way certainly we can get the message out. We always send invitations, but they commonly invite us to talk about changes that are coming up, so we would be more than happy to do that. Awesome. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Um, I will now turn it over to my colleagues if-- to see if you have any questions or comments. If any... Oh, Mr. Ross Svenson
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thank you very much for the presentation. Um, so I, for expanding to third grade, I think it's awesome to have that, uh, increased exposure for the younger grades. Uh, one thing I was at-going to ask about the current program, and it would probably take on added import-importance if we're expanding further down, what are the opportunities for students if they're not placed in fusion in third grade? Um, if they, if their teacher recognizes them as maybe that would be beneficial for them, what are the opportunities for students kind of in later grades to jump into the
gifted program? Well, a couple of things I wanna talk about there. Um, first of all, s- we have an evaluation process every year, and we know that students show us their strengths on their own timeline. So you could have a student identified in third grade, but you could also have a student identified in seventh grade. So there's always the opportunity to go through the process again. But also, with, um, fusion, we do have opps-opportunities for some flexible grouping. So if a student is really showing mastery in math in a particular
unit, that student could be invited to sit in on the DCI lesson for that week. So there is some opportunity for flexible grouping. And, um, there's also Edge, and Edge is that opportunity to nurture talent. So if we're not quite seeing enough, um, of the strengths for identification for gifted services, this might be that opportunity to nurture those strengths so that maybe fut- in the future, they would be identified. Thank you. That's very helpful. Um, on the staffing, um, I have chatted with a few folks. It sounds like...
I was about to say Futura, but Fusion is different than when I was in the program, Futura, um, and we would travel to another school. My understanding now is that Fusion's at your home school- Mm-hmm ...um, and that the sta- I would imagine the staffing for the gifted programs is based on the number of Fusion-eligible students in that respective school. Is that correct? Like, not, not every school would have the same number of, um, staff for the gifted program. That's true. Right now, the staffing standard is based on total school enrollment. Okay. Based on total school enrollment. Yeah. Okay. And so, if- So there are some schools... You know, obviously, our bigger schools have
two gifted resource teachers, or they might have one gifted teacher full-time and itinerant coming in at different times during the week. So are there some schools where they, you know, school maybe has more eligible students and they use like their, um, flexible spending to add staff? And I guess I was wondering how prevalent that might be. Like, I, I guess how... Like, is there a, a desire from, from particular schools to add staff but kinda don't match their overall capacity for enrollment? We do have the-- We have the staffing that's provided in a staffing
standard, and then we also have some discretionary staffing, so we work with schools. Um, and then we do work with schools to make, um, flexible staffing, uh, requests as well. And I would just add, um, the gifted staffing standard is something we've been looking at over the past few budget years. And, um, there are times where, uh, with Miss King and the, and the gifted office may ask for flexible staffing based on needs that they identify. Um, part of what's important here is that prior-- part of why it hasn't been included in previous budgets
is knowing this program evaluation is happening, getting kind of a vision for where we wanna go, getting community stakeholders so that we- when we do ask in a budget, it's tied to what are the strategic goals around the gifted program. And so I say that to say flexible staffing has helped us a lot, whether it's from those principal request or from the office's request. Thank you. That's really helpful. Looking forward to working with you all on the, the staffing standard. Okay. Uh, any other questions, comments? Yes, Ms. Sharno. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, it's great to see you as
always. I think this program evaluation is the right step for us. I'm grateful to see the reflectiveness that you have-- your department has taken on. Um, I will sort of piggyback off of Mr. Svenson's question. Certainly, when I go out, I mean, I just had the benefit of seeing Miss Waterfall at, um, ugh, the school's eluding me, Waterford- Mm-hmm ...um, to the project that they were doing with sustainability. And certainly, you know, the, the work is so incredible, but a lot of them are itinerant. And so it's because of the
population and wha-what it's built on, it's not necessarily built on the need. So I'm very anxious to hear that conversation. I think it's great that we're having it now. Budget conversations are certainly starting already for next year. We had some yesterday in SPC too. So, um, I think the sooner the better, and, you know, it's definitely been a commitment of this committee, I think, to, to sort of hone in on how we can support that work. Um, can you elaborate a little bit more on the format of the two different tests, the NNAT and the CogAT? Is-- Are either of them one-to-one testing, or is it all
sit and you take it? Uh, they're both group testing. They're both group testing. Yes. Okay. Um, and you anticipate they'll be close together in timeframe, or... I know you said fit it into the testing calendar. I think what we're looking at right now is possibly, we wanna make sure that, uh, we wanna, uh, conduct the NNAT in the fall. We wanna make sure we do it after MAP. Yeah. So we're thinking maybe October-ish, mid to late October. Okay. But then CogAT is going to be in February. Yeah. CogAT. Yeah. That's what I was wondering, if it would be...
I, I like the idea of spacing them out. Obviously, the testing calendar is hard to compete with. I know. It's pretty full. Yeah. Um, but I, I feel like this is supportive, especially if it's gonna give more access to our, to our kiddos and, and get our eyes on them. So, um, just appreciative always of the work that you do, and thank you for sharing. Thank you. Thank you, Miss King. All right. All right, so we will move on to our next agenda item, 4.02, next steps in generative AI, digital citizenship and student use. And just as a reminder to board members, we do have a hard stop at
5:00. Uh, for another meeting, I-I believe. So I will now turn it over to Mr. Slevin. Thank you, Dr. Rashid. Thank you. Uh, we are appreciative of having the ability to, uh, bring an update to the board around our support for AI literacy and digital citizenship, and all things generative AI. I also appreciate Aaron Smith being here, our chief technology officer. This is, uh, definitely a partnership between the Department of Teaching, Learning, and Academics, and Digital Innovation. Uh, we're joined by Miss Alyss, Alyss Moritz, our library supervisor, and Mike
Henriksen, our instructional technology supervisor, and also Nicole Lagoni, our director of Professional Growth and Innovation, all very much tied to this work. Um, so we recognize that generative AI is a reality in our classrooms, and we also wanna lean in on our students are already being exposed to generative AI, and we want to make sure we're teaching them appropriate use, um, and, um, appropriate thinking around how it'll impact their learning, um, and also how it, how it can help them. And we also wanna make sure our teachers are
supported in integrating these tools seamlessly, um, into their instruction. And this requires a real thoughtful approach about our digital citizenship planning, our professional learning for teachers, and that's really what, um, at the heart of this presentation our conversation is about as we think about expanding access to these tools. So I really appreciate the team that is joining us today to give us an update, and I believe we are starting with Melissa. Thank you, Mr. Slevin. Congress enacted the Children's Internet Protection Act in two thousand and updated the qu-requirements in two thousand and eleven.
In order to qualify for E-Rate funding, one part of the act states that schools must provide for educating minors about appropriate online behavior, including interacting with individuals on social networking websites and in chat rooms, and cyberbullying, and awareness and response. Since two thousand and sixteen, Loudoun County Public Schools has partnered with Common Sense Media to meet these requirements. This curriculum is the standard for teaching students how to navigate the digital world safely, responsibly, and ethically, and is used by many
school districts across the country. There are three specific criteria schools must meet to earn, uh, Common Sense Media recognition. First is regarding instruction. Schools have to teach a set number of lessons, and have a-- and they have a flexible path to do so-- to do this work. Second, they have to provide professional learning for their staff so that teachers who are also working with students on digital citizensh-ship understand
what needs to be done. And finally, there's a family component where schools share information, and tips, and activities to ensure that the conversations about digital citizenship occur-- continue at home from the school. The current application process is an honor system. When a school applies, they're not required to provide student artifacts, lesson dates, uh, or evidence of instruction. They simply provide a short narrative on why digital citizenship matters.
Currently, schools plan their path to certification at the beginning of the school year by selecting lessons and scheduling instruction. This results in a significant lack of divisional consistency. A student's digital citizenship experience can vary drastically from one school to another. Secondary scheduling constraints often regulate-- relegate, excuse me, lessons to advisory blocks where they are frequently delivered in isolation. Without a collaborative or cross-curricular approach,
this delivery model risks low student engagement and may result in the content being treated as logistical checkbox rather than core competency. We gathered feedback from our schools this year with the part of an independent-- with the help of an independent group partnership, and we created focus groups that covered all grade levels, large schools, small schools, north, south, east, and west, and we got some takeaways
from the, the feedback. Some of the things is-- Some of the feedback that we received is that secondary school structures make implementation a challenge. Curriculum sometimes feels disconnected from the classroom instruction, and the varied approach leads to inconsistent implementation. We also received some recommendations on what we might do to make our process better. One of the recommendations was to formalize school-level champions, establish a unified scope and sequence, and curate
supplemental content. Based on extensive feedback from our school-based focus groups, we're introducing several key enhancements for the twenty-twenty six/twenty-twenty seven school year to solve these consistency issues. We have drafted a suggested scope and sequence aligned with state and national standards. This framework ensures that every student, regardless of which LCPS school they attend, receives the same high-quality baseline of instruction. We will publish the scope
and sequence directly in PowerSchool curriculum and instruction. This moves digital citizenship from a standalone task to a to-core component of our instructional planning. Generati-generative AI is a new literacy that we have included in our digital citizenship curriculum for the coming school year. AI literacy is integrated into our scope and sequence. The skills are taught devel-- in a developmentally appropriate way beginning in kindergarten.And they're
strategically introduced to spiral on previous learning. AI skills will help s-prepare students for using the student-facing AI tools that they will encounter in the course of their education. All schools will develop an implemen-implementation team, which will include the librarian, the instructional technology facilitator, and other staff, to create a school-based plan using the division-recommended scope and sequence. Schools w- at the end, for monitoring and support, schools will be asked to share
their plan and will receive support through quarterly meetings to ensure the work is being completed, and help will be given when struggles arise. Schools will complete a survey about their digital citizenship work for the year. This data will be used to complete their application for the Common Sense Media Digital Citizenship recognition. And now I'm gonna turn it over to Mr. Henrickson to speak about AI literacy. Thanks, Alyssa. Uh, so as
Alyssa shared, uh, as we are looking at our digital citizenship curriculum and, uh, looking at how we might enhance and improve, uh, our practices and support our schools, uh, we're thinking strategically about how generative AI and AI literacy fits into that plan. Uh, it's important that we're having, uh, regular, uh, conversations with our students to help them develop AI literacy skills, uh, and, uh, help prepare them for encountering these tools, uh, in, in the wild. Whether or not, whether or not they're encountering them in school, they're
encountering them in other places, and, uh, these are important conversations to have with our students. So, uh, as our students are encountering these tools, they need opportunities to learn how to use AI, and then also to learn A-how to use AI to learn. They need to learn how to use it as an effective tool to support their learning, uh, and not to circumvent the learning process. So, uh, really, uh, the conversations with our students around AI focuses on, on four areas: what is AI, how does it work, what's the technology behind
it, you know, it's, it's not magic, it's, it's, it's technology, and, and, uh, having an understanding of that. Uh, h-how do you stay safe when using AI? Uh, how do you recognize and mitigate I-AI bias? And how do you use eth-AI ethically and responsibly? So these are the skills that will spiral through that digital citizenship curriculum in, in, in a developmentally appropriate way. So, uh, the data tells us what we already know, in that our students are encountering and using generative AI, uh, on their own. So this-- I know
the, the, the, the chart is small, um, but this is showing some data from College Board. Uh, they have done some regular surveys asking students about how they are using generative AI. Uh, and the important takeaway from this chart is that the percentage of students who are saying they're using generative AI is significant and growing. So, uh, it is not something that we can pretend doesn't exist for too much longer. We need to make sure we're actively teaching our students how to use these tools safely and effectively.
So, uh, what we're starting to see is generative AI, uh, like in, um, uh, in consumer online services that may-- you may u-be using, generative AI is starting to pop up in lots of different ways inside of instructional tools, uh inside of consumer tools. Uh, and so, uh, as a school division, we are, uh, trying to make sure we understand how to-- We, we know how to respond to that, uh, we know how to evaluate that, and we know how to proceed and make, uh, informed decisions, uh, as we're thinking about how we integrate some of these new features into the tools
that, uh, that our, uh, providers are, are adding into their, their, uh, software. So, um, uh, for the most part, uh, what we're starting to see from our partners is AI that is, uh, you know, designed for education, uh, and usually has significant guardrails and controls. Either they, you know, these education vendors will develop a feature and give us options for what we turn on and to whom, um, uh, what features we will allow and which features we won't allow.
So there are significant controls in place. Uh, and we've, uh, developed a risk matrix to help us evaluate these tools and make some determinations about whether we should be using these tools with students. So, um, we do have some examples of places where, uh, we have AI-powered features that are available to s-to some of our students in some of these in-instructional applications that they're using in their classrooms, and we're gonna talk about some examples, uh, of that. Uh, when these features become available, we evaluate them
to, uh, to, to, to see how they're gonna respond, to use them, to try to use them in ways that we think students might try to use them, and to see what kind of responses we get. Uh, and, uh, so tools that are low risk or medium risk that pass this testing that we, uh, that, that we, we conduct, uh, we have, uh, decided in some places to turn these features on. So, uh, let's see. Some current examples where, uh, we-- Th-this isn't
inclusive, this, uh, all-inclusive. This is just a, a, an exam-a few examples of places where our students are encountering AI tools. In most cases, these are, um, heavily guardrailed, uh, or, um, veryKind of narrow in what the, what the AI is designed to do. So examples might include, uh, a, a feature in Magma Math called Lava AI. This is a non-interactive feature where the AI can see what the students are doing as they're completing math, and
then it will give them feedback. If they're off track, it'll give them some hints and suggestions, but the students can't then engage in a conversation with that chatbot, so it's, it's not interactive. Uh, we have some places where, uh, students have access to, uh, image generation, for example. And in places where image generation is in place, uh, the vendors have significant guardrails and controls, uh, to help make sure that the, uh, outputs of those, uh, tools are a-appropriate for, for, for school and for students.
Uh, w- another example is, uh, Ask Britannica, which is a chatbot that our students can interact with that's available, I, I believe through, uh, K through twelve students, and, uh, uh, is that h-high school only? High school. Oh, sorry, that's an error. That's high school only. And, uh, the, the... That particular tool is scoped so that it will only answer students' questions about content in the encyclopedia. So it's narrowly scoped. If students ask a question that the, uh, the chatbot is not designed to answer, it will redirect, tell them, "Sorry, we can't answer that, but,
but we can answer these things for you." So, um, just some examples of ways that our students are already beginning to encounter, uh, generative AI features instructionally, uh, inside of LCPS tools. So, uh, some next steps for, for us as a school division, uh, we're, we're gonna continue to evaluate and, uh, deploy some of these features as they appear in, uh, instructional applications. Uh, we are working on professional learning resources for
teachers, uh, so that they can begin to have conversations with students about AI and AI literacy. As the students are encountering these tools, we want the teachers to be prepared to have supportive conversations with the students about how to use these tools safely and effectively. And, uh, we are also looking at how we can begin to do some longer term planning for how we introduce tools that perhaps have fewer guardrails and support, so students have a little bit more, uh, autonomy and ownership of how they're using the tools, but they're also in a safe,
uh, and protected environment. So, uh, we do have some neighboring school divisions or divisions across the Commonwealth who are beginning to, uh, pilot or, uh, enable certain tools for a, uh, students in certain age groups. Uh, most of our, uh, examples here are high school examples, but Pr- Prince William County, they have enabled Copilot access for their students. Henrico, uh, has enabled NotebookLM for their st- uh, high school students. Virginia Beach has provided access to
Gemini for their high school students, and they allow that during school hours only. So they use their internet filter to make it available during the school day and then turn off access after the school day. So we're thinking about how we, uh, set ourselves up for some, for success as we introduce these, uh, more open tools for our students or consider how we might introduce more open tools for our students. So up on the, on the screen here is, is one potential option for what something like this might look like. So, uh, the tool, tool, two tools
represented here are Google's NotebookLM and Google's Gemini tools. Uh, the, the tools aren't really the important part here because these, this is changing very frequently. But I think the important part to know is, uh, that NotebookLM is, is a little bit more guardrailed. It's this, it's an AI-powered study tool where students can upload content, or teachers can upload content, and then they can interact with that content to help prepare for tests and to study and to get deeper understanding of, of the content. And then, uh, Gemini is a more open la-large language model AI chatbot. Uh, it's still guardrailed for education in the version that we might deploy to
students, but it's a little bit more open, uh, so it's, uh, would provide a little bit more autonomy, a little less direct teacher oversight for a tool like that. So this is across, potentially, uh, looking across two school years, what a rollout might look like. So maybe we start with, uh, deploying something like NotebookLM to our high school students and then expand that to our middle school students. And then as we are establishing NotebookLM as a tool, and students are gaining experience, uh, and our, our teachers are gaining experience and working with students in these, in using these AI tools, that we then,
uh, open access for our high school students to a more, uh, open tool like Gemini. So, uh, these are challenges I think that, that, that we may have already, uh, touched on. Uh, we know that our students are using these tools, uh, on their own. If they're not experiencing them in school, they're experiencing them elsewhere. Uh, and, uh, we know that the tools that they're using, they lack protections and guardrails. So the kinds of things that are in place to help keep kids safe in a tool designed for K-twelve education don't exist in a tool they might find on an application on
their phone. So, uh, we also know that, uh, you know... We know from t- actually talking to some students that we, we have a wide range of, uh, opinions from our students. Some are using them very strategically in very positive ways. Some are using them as maybe not as positive ways. Uh, some are choosing not to use them at all because, uh, for a variety of reasons. Some, they're, they just, they, they don't want to feel like they're be- going to be accused of cheating, or they have, um, concerns about
environmental impact or, or, or other, oth-other issues. Um, and so this, this creates a-An environment where we have this wide range of student experiences and, and, uh, how do we kind of unify that and provide a baseline set of learning for, for a, a broader base of our students. So this is, this is a, a-- this is a real tension that we have to figure out how to balance. This idea that our students are entering an AI-powered world, uh, and it's increasingly AI-powered every day. Uh, and
but how do we, how do we acknowledge that while also understanding that students have to learn how to use these tools in an effective way, not as a shortcut for learning? Uh, we want to ensure that we're setting our students up to be thoughtful and reflective about how they're using generative AI, uh, and we're helping them be a little metacognitive about what they're doing and how they're doing it and understanding whether that the way they're choosing to use AI is supporting their learning or circumventing their learning. Uh, and the, the, the analogy here is we don't want our students to bring a
forklift to the gym, right? When they're coming to school, they're coming to school to exercise their brain, and we wanna make sure they're, you know, using the tools to help make sure they're accomplishing those goals. So we're looking at feedback pathways as we're considering these plans for expanding access to these more open tools. Uh, and through these feedback pathways, we wanna make sure we're asking, uh, stakeholders to provide access on or provide us feedback on what are the right levels of access and at what age, uh, do our students need these a- this access, uh, what do students need to know
before we start providing more access, what do teachers and staff need to know, what supports do we need to have in place, and, and how do we best support and communicate with families. And some of the ways we're gonna try to gather some of this feedback are thr- are through classroom teachers, through parent and community advisory groups, through potentially, uh, community thought exchanges or stakeholder thought exchanges, and student focus groups. And with that, I think we're ready for some questions. Thank you so much for once again an, an elaborative, uh, presentation. Um, I know AI has been on the minds of many of
us parents, educators, school board, everywhere. Um, I like your metaphor of forklift to the gym, you know, that, that explains it all. Um, I do wish it was-- it would be more than one lesson as was explained for the students. That would be helpful. But I understand, baby steps, we have to incorporate that into curriculum. Um, you know, as a college professor, uh, when I get my students, they're, they're kinda just thrown in there, and students have to kind of venture out on their own to seek resources as to how to help them
maneuver AI or use AI to their benefit, but without, I guess, plagiarizing or using it word for word. This I know will be very helpful, um, having them start out at an earlier age with, um, such sessions like that. Um, uh, I, I know we're pressed for time, but I wanted to turn it over to my colleagues if they had any comments or questions. Oh, oh, yes, yes, Mr. Swenson. Um, I'd-- I just wanna say thank you for the presentation. I appreciate this is really, really important work, um, so looking forward to collaborating with you, all of you.
Um, yeah, that-- this is, I think, really critical to our students and our educators and their success. So, um, thank you. Yeah. Yes, Ms. Shurnoff. Just one question in term-- and thank you so much. I know we've been on a AI journey for a while, um, and I echo my-- the sentiments of Dr. Rashid. I-- we struggle with this in our house too, but some of the math stuff is really cool for our struggling math kids. Yeah. Um, so my question is about the feedback. Is the plan-- So I see the rollout plan.
I actually feel like that's a little slow on the rollout 'cause I think, like, it's moving fast, and I feel like we have the right guardrails in place. That's my two cents. Um, but I appreciate the caution 'cause I do think it will be a sensitive issue. Is the feedback more like how should we proceed and how quickly, or is it more about the exact tools? Is it how comfortable they feel with the tools? Is it all of the above? Like, what are, what are we looking to-- I mean, I want to gain feedback from sort of what angle are you looking to pursue? I could start- Okay.
and then see if the team wants to add. I, I think this is a perfect example of two-way feedback, meaning, um, we want to make sure the message to our community is we're being thoughtful about this, and we know students need support navigating this new tool that's entering their lives. Because I think if there are some emotional reactions to generative AI amongst our teachers, amongst our families and our parents, and so it's communicating our intention as much as it is, is about getting feedback. Like, how do we engage in a dialogue? So going out to the classrooms, talking to teachers, talking to parents, going to
MSAC, going to SEAC. Um, but then specifically, we do wanna get some feedback on how are students using it, what is the right tool, what guardrails are important, what information do we wanna make sure is available. We also need to be paying attention at the state level. There are many conversations happening in the general assembly about expectations for divisions, so we're gonna be responsive to that. Um, and part of that is that family engagement, uh, in terms of being transparent about how we're using it. Um, so I'm not sure if, um, Alyssa or Mike would add anything, but it's, it's, it's a dialogue as much as it is, as it's feedback,
if that makes sense. All right. All right, we're moving on to item 4.03, Department of Academics, new ADA Title II, accessibility rules. I'll turn it over to... Me. Yes, Dr. Ellis. Thank you. Thanks. I will kick us off, and Mr. Henrickson is going to, um, help me out over here with this presentation. So we will try to be brief, recognizing that you have a hard stop, but this is, uh-Relatively timely and, uh, really important for you all to be aware of the
significant, um, changes that we are being required to implement regarding the new ADA Title II accessibility rules. So we have put together a work group. Uh, we are managing this big project like a, like a project, so we have a project manager who is guiding us through, um, the steps that we need to take in order to communicate everything that needs to be done to meet these guidelines. And I'll just start by saying that we today are focusing on, um, the work that schools will be doing with support of
central office, but this really is a division-wide change, um, and impacts all offices across the county. So with, with that in mind, um, Mr. Henrickson is gonna talk a little bit about accessibility in general, and then I'll dive into the new rule. Thanks, Dr. Ellis. So, uh, just wanted to set the stage here a little bit, just talking, make, uh, make sure we are, uh, building some common vocabulary. So when we're talking about accessibility, uh, we're thinking about the degree to which a product, device, service, or environment is a, as a, is available to as
many people as possible. So we're trying to make sure that, uh, a, a platform, a service, a tool can be used, uh, by the, the widest range of users possible through the design of that tool. So when we're thinking about web accessibility specifically, uh, we're thinking in terms of, uh, technical access. Can it be navigated with a keyboard? Can it be read and interpreted by screen readers? Are we not relying on color or one method of conveying information? Are we including captions and transcripts when
needed, using clear structures so assistive technologies can interpret? Uh, and, uh, so a, a key takeaway here is, uh, accessibility is, is really based on how it technically-- how the content technically functions, not how it looks visually necessarily. So it's important also to s- to, to start with saying that accessibility, uh, is something that ensures that all students and families have access to resources and instructional materials. If, uh, you are a student or a family member or a community member who has, uh, some sort of
barrier that prevents you from accessing content, uh, that is, that, that is a door that you cannot walk through. So accessible content then opens that door and allows all of our students, all of our families to engage with the materials that they need to help support their learning. So specifically, the-- there are new accessibility requirements under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. There is a link to the full rule if you need a little light reading, perhaps before bedtime. Um, it is very, very detailed and
complex, and I don't understand many of the words. Um, generally speaking, the rule did not create new obligations, but it did clearly clarify accessibility requirements and then specific deadlines for compliance. Um, for school divisions and government organizations that serve communities over fifty thousand, which is us, um, we have a deadline of April twenty-fourth, twenty twenty-sixth, which is quite daunting, um, and we have a plan to move toward, um, that deadline. On the next
slide, I'll talk a little bit about what, what the new rule really means for us. So Mr. Henrickson explained the sort of the what and the why behind accessibility, and I will say that LCPS has always been very aware of and, uh, attuned to providing accessible resources when needed. The difference is that in, in short, materials should now be accessible by default rather than upon request. Okay, so we have an amazing
assistive technology team. They provide assistive technology resources. They support teachers in making sure their materials are accessible when students need it. The difference is that now has to be default. That's a big change. So that means that all websites, mobile apps, online resources, materials in Schoology, materials sent to families all need to be accessible. So not to scare you, but it is a little daunting. Um, going to the next
slide. I will say LCPS, I think, is far along compared to many organizations. Um, our community engagement office has spent a, a lot of time and resources investing in our website content and community-facing materials, so videos that we publish, things on the website. Um, most of our digital assets are already designed with accessibility in mind. Uh, we have an accessibility webpage link there for staff and community members. Uh, we work really closely
with our friends in DDI and procurement to review new instructional materials to make sure they are accessible. We're also looking at our, um, existing RFPs to make sure they are compliant as well. We do have accessibility checkers. We've had them since COVID, and honestly, most people have not used them since COVID. Uh, so it's a l- it's a matter of dusting them off, reminding teachers, training new staff how to use those tools to make sure their tools are-- their, uh, materials are
compliant. Um, so it is a heavy lift. I don't think it's impossible, but w- it will take us time to become fully compliant. Um, Mr. Henrickson's gonna talk a little bit about some specific s- tools. Again, we're focusing right now on instructional tools for, for classroom and, and school-based, but just keep in mind that it is really involving all of our departments and all materials we produce So many of the places where our teachers and our staff are doing their work every day already have accessibility checkers and resources to help
support designing accessible resour- uh, materials. So, uh, inside of Google Docs, we have, uh, an add-on called Grackle, and that will analyze Google Docs and give, uh, the, the creator feedback on how to make that document more accessible. The same types of features exist natively in Office 365 and Adobe Acrobat, which are tools where a lot of our, our teachers and students are doing... or teachers and staff are doing their work. We're looking at what additional tools would be supportive here. So we're looking at things like, um, tools that we could plug into Schoology that will give teachers a little bit of a flag
of whether something is accessible or not when they upload it and then give them suggestions for how to, uh, how to remediate it if it's not accessible. Uh, we're looking at, um, additional tools perhaps to do some perhaps bulk remediation or, uh, sort of individual file, kind of drag and drop remediation. Uh, the challenge there is they're not, they're not perfect, so it, it still require-- It's, it's a good starting point, but it may still require some tweaks and adjustments. But we're looking at those tools to see what o-other things our teachers might need.
So we're also taking a look, uh, with this, with the work group that Dr. Ellis mentioned, we're taking a look at ways that we can strengthen our practices here and, and, and just get better at, uh, providing accessible content. We're looking at our procurement team is ex-examining what contract language we might need to include and tightening our procurement practices. And, uh, we're looking at, you know, what other tools might be out there to help support designing accessible materials. Uh, we're designing professional learning that we can offer to staff on how to
design accessible materials, and we're training, uh, our instructional technology facilitators and our specialized instructional facilitators for assistive technology, uh, to be just-in-time supports for our teachers in the schools. All right. So actually, I think Mr. Hendrickson hit on most of these things. And so instead of reiterating, I will just say that we are, we are really trying to strike a balance between a sense of urgency in getting this complete and being fully compliant with the reality of the size of our
division, the vast, uh, vastness of all of the materials that we produce on any given day, let alone over the course of a year. Um, and so that is a balance. There's a tension there that we're trying to manage, um, setting realistic expectations while also, um, m-making sure that it is urgent and top of mind for people to, um, to meet the, the requirements of accessibility. That's it. Again, once again, thank you so much for this overwhelming information. Um
But it's also overwhelming for the educators, for staff, everyone, everyone that has to do that. Um, on the college level, again, we also have to get this done, us, uh, professors have to get this done by the end of April. And I have to go through approximately five hundred slides to make sure that I have that hundred percent from the little man, we call it a little man icon. Uh, over here you had A-Adobe Acrobat and you had Office 365. And if you don't hit that hundred percent, you have to go through the whole thing all over again. Even a video, you have to explain person, um, you
know, explaining this, or person is seen picking up this or that, and that will make the hundred percent from the little man that gives you that little pass. But very-- It, it's a lot. It, it is quite a lot for every slide. But lo and behold, and we put pictures and we put those videos to make it more interesting for students, but it's a, it's a little bit... it, it kinda is unmotivating for a teacher because you, you wind up saying, "I don't wanna put that in there because I want my hundred percent" from the little man or whatever, uh, source you're using. But lo and behold. Okay, so I will turn it over to my colleagues.
Um, do you guys have any questions or comments? Yes, Ms. Chernov. Thank you. I agree this is overwhelming, um, from a profession that really is always feeling like it's one more thing, and they're so burdened and begging for the division to create content and to create slide decks and new curriculum and all the things. I mean, this feels stressful to me. Um, a, a positive maybe that I can think about, and I know Mr. Slevin knows where I'm going with this, but I, I personally believe we are way
too reliant on slide decks, especially in the primary grades. And my hope is that we can maybe be reflective and strategize around some more developmentally appropriate ways to teach the kids that are right in front of us and get away from that over-reliance on the technology. I know it's just become my marching orders, but I'm gonna keep saying it, and I think this is an opportunity to really look at that and say, "Is that really moving the needle for our kids?" Um, especially in our younger grades. And then, you know, I think moving forward, we can obviously handle this. We, we can create content that aligns with the little man.
Um, but I do not foresee that this is a light lift with all the content that I know exists in the Schoology world, which honestly, it's making me sweat. So I know we have a tight end, so I will leave it at that, but I, I'm sure the team will be, be thoughtful on those things, and I will look forward to hearing about the progress, and I wish you well in your endeavor. All right. Thank you, Ms. Chernov. All right. I think, uh, we're ready to move on if there's no other comments. Um, so our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, April sixth, that's a Monday, guys, uh, at
four PM. Uh, mark your calendars. So if there's no further business, I entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. A motion, please. You can just adjourn. Yes. Yeah, but my style is I always ask for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Yes, Mr. Svendsen. I move to adjourn the meeting. Thank you, Mr. Svendsen. Do I- Second. Thank you, Ms. Chernov. All right. So this meeting has been adjourned. Thank you. Have a great day, guys.