As artificial intelligence (AI) tools spread rapidly through classrooms and student life, Swampscott Public Schools is developing its first comprehensive AI policy, aimed at balancing innovation with academic integrity, student privacy, and classroom equity.

High school digital learning specialist Brandy Wilbur, who trains teachers on emerging technologies, is leading the work this fall. She said the need for a policy became urgent as both staff and students started experimenting with AI tools while the district had little formal guidance in place.

“Everybody wants to use it…We know it’s not going away,” Wilbur said. “We need to make sure people know how to use it appropriately.”

While the district is not banning AI, it is training teachers to understand how AI works, how students use it, and how to adapt assignments so learning can’t be outsourced to algorithms.

“We need teachers to understand how it can be a useful tool and not just say, ‘No AI, this is terrible,’” Wilbur said. “And we need to understand the lure for students, and how to design lessons where it doesn’t matter if they use AI or not. Critical thinking has to come from them.”

This fall, Wilbur has run a districtwide AI professional development series. Some teachers have also enrolled in graduate-level coursework or independent training on AI in education. She expects AI training to become an annual requirement.

After surveying teachers in the first AI workshop, three major themes emerged for the district’s policy, around ethical and responsible use; pedagogy and practice – or how AI fits into instruction without replacing real learning; and access, to ensure all students have fair opportunities and support.

AI can also be used for equity, to ensure students with different learning needs have equal access to AI support especially in mixed-level classrooms. In some courses, students in the same room may span reading levels from fourth grade to tenth grade, and AI can help teachers differentiate materials instantly, Wilbur said.

“You could say, ‘Here’s a paper I want them to read, change the reading level,’” she said. “That’s a game-changer.”

Teachers’ biggest concerns, however, were accuracy, source verification and how AI affects students’ learning skills, Wilbur said. Fine arts teachers also raised questions about creativity and ownership, topics especially relevant in art, music and animation.

Wilbur also raised the concern that “not all open AI sources protect student information.” As a Google for Education district, Swampscott permits only Google-approved AI tools, including Gemini, on the school network. ChatGPT and other open-access platforms are blocked for students because they do not meet the district’s privacy standards.

“If a kid tries to go to ChatGPT, he’s blocked. But they can use Gemini, because Google has signed the student privacy agreement,” she said.

Wilbur emphasized that while Swampscott has not finalized its AI policy, the district is closely studying models used elsewhere, particularly the “red-yellow-green” charts adopted by other schools to clarify when AI is allowed.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if we come up with something like that to be used across the district, teachers really liked the idea,” she said.

These charts typically categorize AI use into three tiers. “Red” is for situations where AI is completely prohibited, such as tests, personal essays, or certain lab work. “Yellow” is for limited use with required documentation, including brainstorming, research assistance or reading support. “Green” is for assignments where AI is encouraged for defined purposes like differentiation, drafting or creative exploration.

“We’re learning not to say no, but to teach when it’s appropriate,” she said. “It’s really about ensuring your work is your own.”

Students may continue using AI tools at home, but the policy aims to teach them ethical, transparent use, such as documenting when AI helped generate ideas, similar to citing any source.

Academic consequences for AI misuse will resemble plagiarism cases.

“If a kid cheated on a paper, they might get zero or disciplinary action,” Wilbur said. “It’s the same idea with AI. It depends on the situation.”

Teacher-related misuse would be handled by administration, Wilbur said.

Swampscott plans to have a draft AI policy ready by the end of January. It will then move through leadership review, superintendent approval, and legal vetting before going to the School Committee.

The goal is to integrate the new rules into the 2025–26 student and teacher handbooks, Wilbur said.

“AI is a scarily powerful tool,” Wilbur said. “You can design a whole lesson plan in minutes, but teachers still need to be the content experts. That part doesn’t change.”