At the May 21 School Committee (Committee, School Committee) meeting, Acton-Boxborough Regional School District’s Director of Education Technology, Amy Bisiewicz, and Assistant Superintendent for Teaching and Learning, Gabby Abrams, announced the roll out of a multi-year, district-wide phase-in of generative AI (Artificial Intelligence) for teaching and learning.
Phase 1
Bisiewicz and Abrams explained that during phase one, which was completed this year, the district formed a multistakeholder AI Working Group, which identified community priorities and expectations around the use of artificial intelligence, assessed the current state of K-12 digital literacy in Acton-Boxborough, completed a comprehensive AI readiness tool to help the district assess their readiness to effectively integrate AI technology into teaching and learning, and developed a guidebook that lays out a framework for implementation.
Phase 2
Beginning the 2026-27 school year, students at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School will be permitted limited, targeted use of the generative AI tool, Google Gemini, at their teachers’ discretion, to complete assignments. Staff at the junior high and high schools will participate in professional learning and pilot AI tools that educators can use for instructional planning and to increase workflow efficiency. Phase 2 will also begin the work of identifying developmentally appropriate AI literacy subskills across grade levels and curriculum areas.
Phase 3
Phase 3, scheduled to begin in 2027 with no definitive end date, will continue the expansion of the work across all grades and content areas.
Adopting generative AI technology is not compulsory in Massachusetts. For those districts that choose to move forward with it, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has published guidance but encourages districts to develop their own framework that aligns with their locally developed long-range strategic plan, mission, and vision.
According to a 2026 survey by the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) a professional association for school system technology leaders, 85 percent of teachers and 86 percent of students reportedly already use AI, and more and more districts are establishing guidelines for its use. CoSN, which annually surveys Ed Tech leaders nationally, reported that the number of districts with AI frameworks in place jumped from 57 percent in 2025 to 79 percent in 2026.
A recently published 2026 report by CoSN identifying “hurdles, accelerators, tech enablers for tech innovation” noted that implementing this quickly-evolving technology is not a one-and-done, but requires an ongoing, coordinated approach and holistic view that recognizes the value, challenges, and risks of integrating artificial intelligence technology into the domain of teaching and learning at scale and puts into place guardrails that allow stakeholders to leverage new tools responsibly without replacing critical thinking.
Districts must also ensure data privacy and security when vetting contracts, to comply with federal and state laws, and promote a shared sense of custodianship around responsible use. To complicate matters, nearly two-thirds of districts reported that their communities have expressed moderate to high levels of concern about technology use for teaching and learning, a finding that “underscores the importance of clear communication, thoughtful implementation, and ongoing professional support to ensure technology continues to advance teaching and learning goals”.
Acton-Boxborough’s AI Framework
Acton-Boxborough’s framework, which was shared with the School Committee on May 21, lays out five principles that should be front-of-mind when educators and students reach for a generative AI tool.
1. Humans first speaks to the intentional centering of humans first as agents of their own learning, with AI playing a supportive role in assisting, enhancing, and/or scaffolding human effort.
2. Adaptive literacy includes the idea that AI learning is introduced incrementally throughout a student’s school experience with more freedom given only after foundational reading, writing, and critical thinking skills are developed. Abrams explained that appropriate use will differ across grade levels and content areas. Many districts have adopted a traffic light visual for educators to graphically show their students when and to what extent AI is permitted.
3. Responsible stewardship addresses transparency around citing AI use in written assignments and awareness of the environmental impact of data centers. It also speaks to general knowledge-building about how AI is trained on human-created content and the awareness that AI can produce content that is biased.
4. Rigorous governance speaks to the district’s commitment to data privacy, security, and ethical use of AI. For example, district-approved AI tools may not be used to train commercially available large language models and must comply with state and federal privacy laws and regulations and be accessed through district-managed accounts and permissions to ensure age-appropriate use.
5. Intentional use ensures a commitment to providing access to high quality AI tools for all students and staff, to verifying accuracy, and identifying bias, when using AI.
Committee members had lots of comments and questions.
Among Committee members’ chief concerns was students’ use of generative AI to complete assignments outside of the classroom. Abrams noted the urgency around ensuring that prior to using AI, Acton-Boxborough students have first developed core academic skillsets like critical thinking and the ability to synthesize and expand on ideas, navigate obstacles, use resources ethically, and practice academic integrity in alignment with the district’s adopted vision of a graduate. “Educators are thinking deeply about this. Many are moving to more in-class, written work.” For work done outside of class, Abrams noted that educators can review students’ editing histories on Google docs but are discouraged from using AI detection systems which are unreliable as stand-alone proof of AI use.
When asked when and how AI will be introduced in the lower grades, Abrams noted, “We want younger students to have structured opportunities to engage as part of a digital learning experience, but not use the actual tech outside of that.” Abrams referred members to the District’s guiding document (page 7) which includes introducing AI literacy across grade levels in ways that are developmentally appropriate and that progressively increase in depth as students build foundational competencies. Abrams emphasized that in the next few years the focus will be on getting educators up to speed on uses of AI to support instructional practices.
When asked about how the district will ensure the safety and privacy of student data and records, Bisiewicz responded that the Gemini module sits within Google’s core service of data privacy. “It is just as private as email or Google docs and is the only district-approved tool that we are saying district staff and, next year, students at the high school can use.”
Superintendent Peter Light added that the district is a member of the Massachusetts Student Data Privacy Alliance, a network that helps districts vet data privacy agreements. “We have a “walled garden” with Gemini, and we issued guidance to our staff that anything related to student work must take place within the Gemini ecosphere. Staff are not to use any language models outside of that for student-level data.”
In tech parlance, a “walled garden” refers to a secure, digital ecosystem where a single company controls hardware, software, content, and access.
Several Committee members discussed the speed at which new AI tools are being developed and integrated into existing products and the need for ongoing vigilance. One member commented: “How do we make sure we’re looking at this not only in fear but also with an understanding of the opportunities it can lead to that can help us enable our Vision of a Graduate and support our students who are outside the mainstream. Let’s keep our eyes open for these opportunities.”
Policy Implications
The Massachusetts Association of School Committees has advised school committees against creating a single stand-alone AI policy, as applications of AI are relevant to a broad swath of policies in several areas under the purview of school committees.
The CoSN 2026 survey documents a rise in the number of school committees addressing AI in the following policy areas:
- Academic integrity policies (increased from 32 percent in 2025 to 46 percent in 2026).
- Data privacy policies (increased from 18 percent in 2025 to 34 percent in 2026).
- Acceptable use policies (increased from 38 percent in 2025 to 56 percent in 2026).
- New policy specific to AI (doubled from 19 percent in 2025 to 38 percent in 2026).
- Instructional materials/technology adoption policies (rose from 12 percent in 2025 to 19 percent in 2026).
Diane Baum is the Acton Exchanges School Committee beat reporter.
Editors’ Note: See also the Letter to the Exchange {LINK} on this same topic.
