The red flag went up immediately when Charleston County School District Trustee Leah Whatley’s answer to a political question arrived on a school district email. It started:
“Recommended response, assuming you are not seeking one.”
Instantly, it was clear she used artificial intelligence to answer a question about whether she was seeing an endorsement from a right-wing group that backed her campaign four years ago. Her basic answer, “no,” suddenly wasn’t the point.
And so came the follow-up question about whether she should have used an AI-generated response in a modern educational environment in which a student could face an academic-integrity violation for doing a similar thing with a take-home assignment.
Whatley had a snappy comeback with a hard edge: “AI is an amazing tool when used correctly. I am an adult and not a child who is developing. I have been learning to use AI for a while now and even attended the Cognia training in January.”
Fair point, but using AI tools to generate text, images, videos or other content contradicts the very policy that the school board passed in January — and which anybody, including school board members — is to follow if using district resources like email. The district’s new “acceptable use of technology” specifically prohibits “using generative AI to develop content and presenting it as if it is original to the user without proper disclosure.”
AI technologies are moving so fast these days that it’s hard to keep up. School districts struggle between acceptable, flexible uses that embrace its research power with darker uses that border on cheating or plagiarism.
CCSD’s seven-page acceptable use of technology policy seems to be pretty good at establishing a structure for using technology tools, including AI. The overall policy, in fact, has 12 mentions of “generative AI.” But the policy is laden with bureaucratic language and lacks clear instructions and guidelines for how to use AI in everyday school life. It would be nice, for example, if there were a Ten Commandments for AI Use that included simple statements like, “Thou shalt not use AI to cheat because if you’re caught, you could face big consequences.”
It’s good the school district is defining how to use AI because fewer than half of principals nationally report having AI policies, according to a story on Mashable. Writer Chris DiBenedetto reported April 27 on how public school systems in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago deal with AI. Of particular note was this paragraph, which highlighted policies and expectations in clear language:
“NYC schools can’t use AI to make decisions regarding class placement, graduation, eligibility or discipline, for example. AI cannot be used to create individualized education plans, prohibit a student from choosing a specific path or coursework or confer grades. AI cannot be used to provide emotional or therapeutic counsel to students and AI-powered surveillance is prohibited. The use of student data for AI training is banned.”
The city’s schools can, however, use AI for tasks like scheduling, boosting accessibility of materials and refining communication, the story said.
Bottom line: Our school district should continue to refine its AI policies to make them flexible and usable, but with clear language and guidelines for students and educators. And school board members? They shouldn’t use AI to answer political or policy questions. Rather, employ critical thinking — just like you want students to.
That would be our, umm, recommended response.
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.
