Sarasota School Board approves new AI guidelines, advances curriculum directives
With the impacts of a new public comment policy beginning to take shape, the Sarasota School Board swiftly handled its business at a Tuesday meeting — taking steps to approve new policies regarding artificial intelligence and curriculum guidelines.
The meeting lasted about an hour and a half with less than 10 public commenters: a stark departure from previous meetings that saw public comment alone span hours. Board Chair Karen Rose was not in attendance yet again, as she hasn’t been physically present since losing the race to retain her District 2 seat to challenger Liz Barker.
Sarasota School Board OKs AI guidelines, set to approve curriculum directives on 'controversial' topics
The district’s new artificial intelligence guidelines, which the board passed unanimously, “emphasize the role of AI as a tool to support learning while ensuring the platforms aren’t used as a replacement for student or employee work.” The guidelines allow for the use of AI with teacher approval but stipulate that programs may not be used as “a substitute for human creativity, judgement and creation” and caution that AI can present incorrect information.
Though admittedly irritated with the topic, Bridget Ziegler acknowledged that the board has to reckon with AI as it becomes a major factor in education.
“I begrudgingly hate that we have this conversation, just because I foresee an incredible amount of challenges that lay before us,” Ziegler said. “But, at the same time, it’s better than us putting our head in the sand and pretending it’s not here.”
The board also took steps to approve new curriculum guidelines that, among other provisions, instruct teachers on approaching “controversial” topics in the classroom. Though part of the consent agenda, the item was pulled for discussion due to several public commenters raising concerns about the language in the guidelines.
The policy recognizes “the responsibility and right of an instructional staff member to present information of a controversial nature” but prohibits teachers from presenting “controversial material or issues which are not directly related to the subject area.” It also instructs teachers to “present all sides of the question without bias or prejudice.”
Zander Moricz, Pine View School alumnus and founder of the SEE Alliance, said the definition of “controversial” in the policy was too vague, which could inadvertently censor teachers and students.
“If we don’t do the work of demanding our policy-makers demand what ‘controversial’ means right now, then we’re going to be doing the work of deciding what ‘controversial’ means in hundreds of little disputes between teachers and parents and students,” Moricz said.
In a discussion about the policy, Connor explained that “controversial” in the framework of the policy referred to topics that incite distinct and opposing opinions. The district encourages classroom discussions about those topics, Connor said, and the policy seeks to prevent undue instructor influence or bias while still allowing those learning opportunities to flourish.
Ziegler agreed, noting that classroom debates on such topics were key to a productive learning environment.
“If we have a student leaving class and going home and talking about a vibrant discussion that took place in school, we’re doing our job,” Ziegler said. “It really comes down to our educators not holding a position.”