# data[].attributes.body
I think specific classrooms should be able to explain how specific assignments can have AI use included. As an example, students should know how essay AI use differs from using AI to finish a worksheet.

# data[].attributes.body
I would include how the school's resources contribute to the use of AI (for example, in a school where students don't receive DPDs, then AI would not be as necessary to include guidelines on - they may be more structured towards citing AI on projects instead of how to research on a laptop provided by the district).

# data[].attributes.body
I would include when students can utilize AI and when they cannot, with general guidelines that work for the district level in specific, and provide instructions and room for developments from specific schools, departments, and classrooms.

# data[].attributes.body
I would add guidelines for how students can use AI in research and assignments.

# data[].attributes.body
I would make sure to include more information about how to respond to student misuse of AI.

# data[].attributes.body
that imbedded, district-provided AI must not be able to access anything that is not district-approved.

# data[].attributes.body
Goes along with digital citizenship

# data[].attributes.body
Set expectations with teachers for teaching students about appropriate and beneficial use of AI

# data[].attributes.body
Like other subjects, define what is/isn't acceptable use of AI - for example, to support writing code.

# data[].attributes.body
Sites need to be very specific when defining "cheating" or "plagiarism" etc.

# data[].attributes.headline
Consistency with room for site differences

# data[].attributes.subject
Consistency with room for site differences

# data[].attributes.body
Keep as much consistent as possible among our schools, but we need to allow for differences among our sites (ex. elementary vs. middle vs. high and traditional schools vs online or hybrid schools)

# data[].attributes.body
within a grade level or department, the expectations should be consistent - PLCs should discuss and come to agreement on what these are.

# data[].attributes.headline
Broaden the scope and language to cover foreseeable and experienced use-cases. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Broaden the scope and language to cover foreseeable and experienced use-cases. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Boot camps for training staff and administrators. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Boot camps for training staff and administrators. 

# data[].attributes.body
Schools should be clear in what is expected of students when they use AI for assignments (citing sources, only when teacher specifically allows it, how much is OK, etc.), and be clear about the range of possible consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
In my English department, we defined plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) according to the MLA definitions. We also included this statement: "Use of AI to generate a response that you submit as your 'own' work is plagiarism and will be handled as such."

This kind of unethical use of AI is pretty clear (though sometimes hard to prove). Where departments need more guidance and input (probably even collaboration across schools with similar departments) is how to define the "gray areas" and outline times when AI is, could be, and is not appropriate within that course.

# data[].attributes.body
Sub section about "No expectation of privacy" needs to be modified, since All material and infmration accessed/received through the District Network shall remain the property of the Academy District 20. Some data accessible on non-district 20 storage will have different copyright of proprietary data through enterprise licensed software.

# data[].attributes.headline
training for teachers and administrators. 

# data[].attributes.subject
training for teachers and administrators. 

# data[].attributes.headline
emphasis on privacy, bias, and off-the-rails activity. 

# data[].attributes.subject
emphasis on privacy, bias, and off-the-rails activity. 

# data[].attributes.headline
I believe all schools should fall under the same policies. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I believe all schools should fall under the same policies. 

# data[].attributes.body
It could be confusing for parents, students and teachers if different schools have different practices on the use of AI. Consider having several students at different schools all providing different acceptable use of AI in their schools.

# data[].attributes.headline
Update unauthorized and unacceptable uses section

# data[].attributes.subject
Update unauthorized and unacceptable uses section

# data[].attributes.body
Students need to properly cite AI as how to a source

# data[].attributes.body
I would suggest continuing the practice of focusing on principles in JS and JICDA, not specific tools, but I would recommend adding "generative AI tools" to both policies.

# data[].attributes.body
22. "Engaging in scholastic dishonesty which included but is not limited to cheating on a test, plagiarism or unauthorized collaboration with another person in preparing written work."

This current statement allows a loophole that parents and students are trying to (sometimes successfully) exploit because "plagiarism" is not clearly defined in any of our policies and "unauthorized collaboration with another person" allows parents and students to argue that AI is not a person and therefore is not in violation of this policy.

# data[].attributes.body
I would consider adding a section to the Student use of the internet and electronic communications.

Proper use of AI

Student will site the use of AI when used in the creation of work.

# data[].attributes.body
The policy currently states that "no student shall... create... material ... that plagiarizes the work of another." We really should have a clear definition of what constitutes plagiarism, perhaps based on MLA or APA or other style manuals. This would need to be updated to include how AI falls within the realm of plagiarism.