CARLSBAD — The Carlsbad Unified School District is working to address how artificial intelligence should be used in academic settings.
The school board approved a first reading of a proposed board policy on AI at its Jan. 21 meeting. The policy will now be reviewed by various stakeholders before returning for a second reading at a future meeting, potentially with changes based on that feedback.
Bryan Brockett — who holds a doctorate of education and serves as assistant superintendent of instructional services for the Carlsbad Unified School District — said at the Jan. 21 meeting that the policy was intended to “provide broad principles for the district regarding artificial intelligence” in key areas such as academic honesty, ethical use and security, without conflicting with existing board policies.
Brockett said AI policy in general resembles “the wild west right now” and noted that the California School Boards Association has not yet developed administrative regulations around the “hot topic.”
“When I read this policy, what I see are very high-level principles related to artificial intelligence,” he said, adding that more detailed administrative regulations would come at a later date.
The draft policy, listed as Board Policy 0441, outlines broad principles to guide the use of artificial intelligence by students and staff across the district. The policy acknowledges AI’s potential to expand access to information and support teachers, while also recognizing risks to “student achievement, health and well-being.”
Under the proposed policy, AI use would be student-centered, supporting personalized learning, “digital citizenship” and literacy, and staff-centered as “a tool to augment” — not replace — employees in their professional duties. The policy emphasizes ethical and transparent use, including compliance with intellectual property and copyright laws and consideration of potential bias.
The draft also stresses accountability, equity and security, stating that AI should be used responsibly, implemented to ensure equitable access across schools, and adopted with safeguards for data privacy. It calls for ongoing staff training, community engagement on permitted and prohibited uses, and regular evaluation as technology evolves.
The superintendent would be responsible for ensuring that AI use aligns with the district’s existing policies.
Trustee Gretchen Vurbeff said it made sense that the board policy was “so broad and then the AR would give it some teeth.”
Brockett added that a formal policy would also help clarify for the community what the district considers acceptable or recommended uses of AI and what is not appropriate.
“The policy certainly does help provide some clear guidelines about the areas that we need to ensure that we’re addressing as we move forward,” he said.
Trustee Laura Siaosi said she appreciated getting a policy down on paper and supported the broad approach being taken.
“It’s hard to imagine much that we work with in our district that’s changing this rapidly,” Siaosi said. “We don’t know how technology is going to continue to morph what all of our lives will look like. I appreciate that the district is being proactive.”
Trustee Kathy Rallings made a motion to table the discussion until a future meeting to allow the board additional time to gather feedback from parents and other stakeholders.
“I would like to hear from them before I feel comfortable approving some of this language,” Rallings said. “I’m looking at this policy and I’m thinking, wait a minute, why don’t we just take a deep breath. We know it’s moving fast. I’d rather see us get it right the first time instead of having to come back and change it every 3 months or what have you.”
“I think any policy right now in place is better than not having one,” Trustee Alison Emery said.
Emery argued that issues could slip through the cracks if no policy were adopted.
“So I hear what you’re saying and for that exact same reason, I personally feel like we can do both: have this and also address the community and the teachers’ input,” she said.
Rallings’ motion to table the policy failed on a 3-2 vote, with Vurbeff casting the other vote in favor.
A separate motion to approve the first reading and bring the policy back for a second reading passed 4-1, with Rallings casting the dissenting vote.
