Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The Central Islip Union Free School District recognizes that artificial intelligence (“AI”), including generative artificial intelligence, is rapidly changing teaching, learning, communication, and school operations. NYSED has already identified AI as a significant educational technology topic and has situated responsible AI implementation within broader district work on equity, access, curriculum, instruction, assessment, academic honesty, digital fluency, digital citizenship, and vigilance. (New York State Education Department)

Central Islip, along with school systems throughout the world, is working to leverage the positive aspects of AI while mitigating its dangers, inaccuracies, bias risks, privacy concerns, and malicious side effects through the work of the District’s curriculum and administrative leadership, cybersecurity personnel, and ongoing review of available NYSED and NYSSBA guidance. This policy is intended to provide clear, official, and immediate rules for the responsible use of AI in Central Islip until such time as additional district guidance, regulation, and approved resources are adopted. NYSSBA’s current sample policy likewise treats AI as an evolving area requiring periodic review and local oversight. (nyssba.org)

This policy is a living district document. Because AI systems, embedded AI features, and applicable guidance continue to change rapidly, faculty and staff are expected to revisit district AI resources, policies, support materials, and opportunities for updates on a regular basis. NYSED’s current instructional technology planning guidance also treats AI, digital citizenship, digital equity, digital fluency, cybersecurity, and data privacy as active district planning areas. (New York State Education Department)

The Central Islip Union Free School District remains committed to exploring AI in a thoughtful, secure, educationally sound, and legally compliant manner. The District recognizes both the promise and the risks of AI and will continue to proceed deliberately, protecting students, supporting staff, and preserving professional judgment at all times.

Faculty and staff are encouraged to revisit district AI resources, policies, support materials, and opportunities regularly, as this work will continue to evolve with changes in technology, education, and the law.

II. Authority and Legal Framework

This policy shall be interpreted and implemented consistent with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations, including but not limited to:

• Education Law §2-d and Part 121 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, which govern the privacy and security of student, teacher, and principal personally identifiable information (“PII”), require educational agencies to adopt and publish a data privacy and security policy aligned to the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, require a Data Protection Officer, and require appropriate contractual protections whenever a third-party contractor receives protected data. (New York State Education Department)
• NYSED’s Parents’ Bill of Rights for Data Privacy and Security, which provides that student data may not be sold or used for commercial or marketing purposes and must be protected using high standards and best practices such as encryption, firewalls, and passwords. (New York State Education Department)
• FERPA and related federal privacy laws, which protect student education records and further limit disclosure and use of protected student information. (New York State Education Department)
• The NYS K-12 Computer Science and Digital Fluency Learning Standards, which emphasize digital equity, digital literacy across subject areas, safe and productive use of technology, evaluation of online information, cybersecurity, and understanding bias and unintended consequences in computer systems. (New York State Education Department)

III. Scope

This policy applies to all Board members, administrators, faculty, staff, substitutes, student teachers, contractors, consultants, volunteers, and any other district user acting on behalf of the District when using AI tools or AI-enabled features:

• on district devices,
• through district accounts,
• on district networks,
• in connection with district work or district communications, or
• for any instructional, administrative, operational, or school-related purpose, whether on campus or off campus.

This policy applies not only to stand-alone AI websites and applications, but also to browser extensions, add-ons, plug-ins, embedded AI features, chatbots, bots, APIs, auto-complete tools, and any software product containing AI functionality.

IV. Definition of Artificial Intelligence

For purposes of this policy, “Artificial Intelligence” or “AI” includes machine-based systems that generate, classify, summarize, analyze, recommend, predict, or otherwise produce output based on input data. “Generative AI” includes tools capable of producing text, images, code, audio, video, feedback, analysis, or similar content in response to prompts. NYSED has expressly noted that generative AI is broader than any single public platform and is “not just ChatGPT.” (New York State Board of Regents)

V. District-Approved AI Platforms

Due to data privacy, cybersecurity, contractual compliance, and district policy requirements, the only AI platforms currently approved for use by Central Islip faculty and staff are:

• Microsoft Copilot
• Google Gemini
• DIFFT

For purposes of this policy, approval applies only to the district-authorized, district-managed versions of these services and only when accessed through district-approved credentials, district systems, and district-approved configurations.

The District states that it maintains applicable service agreements and Data Privacy Agreements with Microsoft and Google for Copilot and Gemini, and with DIFFT, and that these approved services have undergone district review for use within the Central Islip environment.

VI. Non-Approved AI Platforms and Services

At this time, no other AI sites, programs, apps, extensions, bots, or services are permitted for district use by faculty or staff.

This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, public or consumer versions of, or district use of, the following examples:

• ChatGPT
• Claude
• Grammarly
• Jasper
• Grok
• Perplexity
• Botpress

and any other AI service not expressly approved in writing by the District.

No faculty or staff member may use a non-approved AI tool for lesson design, student support, grading assistance, drafting district materials, clerical work, parent communication, data analysis, or any other district purpose, regardless of whether the tool is free, popular, personally purchased, temporarily available, embedded in another service, or claimed by a vendor to be “safe” or “education-friendly.”

VII. Required Privacy and Approval Conditions

No AI program, website, application, platform, extension, or service may be used for district purposes unless it has been formally reviewed and approved by the District in advance.

This requirement applies to all programs, including AI programs, and is especially strict whenever student, teacher, or principal PII may be disclosed, uploaded, entered, processed, stored, or made available to a third party. Under Education Law §2-d and Part 121, contracts or other written agreements with third-party contractors must include required privacy and security protections, and Part 121 expressly recognizes that such agreements can include electronic or click-wrap agreements. (New York State Education Department)

Accordingly, no employee may independently accept terms of service, click “I agree,” start a free trial, create a pilot account, install an extension, connect a classroom app, or otherwise use any AI system for district purposes unless district approval has first been granted and all required privacy, cybersecurity, procurement, and contractual reviews have been completed.

Any site, platform, or service that requires a login, account creation, email address, student work upload, student roster, or any student-related data element must be treated as requiring review under district privacy procedures. NYSSBA’s current AI sample policy likewise warns districts to evaluate whether AI tools require account creation, whether PII may be disclosed, and whether staff should consult the district’s Data Protection Officer for compliance with Education Law §2-d.

VIII. Personally Identifiable Information and Confidential Data

Under no circumstances shall faculty or staff enter, upload, paste, attach, dictate, or otherwise disclose student PII into any AI tool except as specifically authorized by the District within an approved service and for an approved educational purpose.

Examples of prohibited student PII include, but are not limited to:

• student names,
• student ID numbers,
• home addresses,
• email addresses,
• telephone numbers,
• dates of birth,
• discipline information,
• attendance information,
• grades not otherwise authorized for disclosure,
• IEP or 504 information,
• health or counseling information,
• parent or guardian information, and
• any other information that is linked or linkable to a specific student.

NYSED’s privacy guidance makes clear that Education Law §2-d applies to information that identifies a student directly or that is linked or linkable to a student with reasonable certainty. NYSED also distinguishes true de-identified, aggregated, or anonymized data from protected PII. (New York State Education Department)

Faculty and staff shall likewise not input confidential district information, copyrighted materials beyond permissible educational use, attorney-client communications, personnel information, security procedures, protected special education records, or other proprietary or sensitive district information into AI systems. NYSSBA’s current sample policy similarly advises against entering sensitive, copyrighted, proprietary, or confidential information into generative AI tools.

IX. Approved Educational and Professional Uses

When using an approved district AI platform, faculty and staff may use AI only as a support tool to complement professional judgment, not replace it.

Permissible examples may include:

• brainstorming lesson ideas,
• generating exemplars or non-confidential drafts,
• creating low-stakes practice materials,
• developing sample explanations or analogies,
• drafting non-final outlines,
• assisting with translation review,
• supporting accessibility and readability, and
• helping staff organize non-confidential information.

These examples are consistent with the kinds of instructional support uses NYSED highlighted in its March 2024 Regents presentation, such as generating examples, providing varied explanations, producing low-stakes assessments, and helping identify knowledge gaps to guide next steps. (New York State Board of Regents)

All AI output must be reviewed, revised, and owned by the staff member using it. NYSSBA’s sample AI policy likewise provides that employees remain responsible for all work they produce and must always review work generated by generative AI.

X. Prohibited Uses

The following uses are prohibited unless expressly authorized in writing by the Superintendent or designee and reviewed through district legal, privacy, and technology procedures:

• Use of any non-approved AI platform for district business.
• Use of AI in a way that violates district policy, law, regulation, academic integrity rules, or student privacy obligations. NYSSBA’s sample policy states that all existing district policies and regulations continue to apply and may not be circumvented through AI use.
• Entering student, staff, or family PII into non-approved AI tools.
• Allowing AI to independently determine grades, disciplinary outcomes, employee evaluations, legal conclusions, or other high-stakes decisions.
• Using AI to generate final recommendations for CSE, 504, counseling, psychological, social-emotional, nursing, or other health or clinical matters.
• Using AI to write, send, or reply to parent emails, staff emails, official notices, recommendations, reports, or other direct communications without full human proofreading, fact-checking, and final approval by the staff member responsible for the communication.
• Using AI output as a substitute for professional judgment, curriculum planning standards, or supervisory review.
• Using AI to create misleading, defamatory, biased, harassing, discriminatory, or deceptive content.
• Using AI to impersonate another person or to create false records.
• Uploading copyrighted or confidential materials into AI tools in a way that exceeds lawful and district-permitted use.

XI. Health, Clinical, Counseling, and Other High-Stakes Uses

AI shall not be used for diagnosis, treatment recommendations, counseling determinations, mental health assessments, nursing decisions, crisis evaluations, threat assessments, special education eligibility determinations, clinical documentation, or any other health or clinical purpose.

AI may not be relied upon for any matter in which a student’s safety, health, disability status, mental health status, legal rights, or educational placement may be affected.

In such matters, only qualified professionals using approved district procedures may exercise judgment. AI output, even in approved systems, may be incomplete, inaccurate, biased, or contextually inappropriate. NYSSBA’s sample policy expressly notes that generative AI can produce incorrect answers, and NYS standards also direct attention to bias and unintended consequences in computer systems.

XII. Email, Communication, and Public-Facing Content

AI may assist with early drafting only within an approved district platform and only where no prohibited data is entered.

No faculty or staff member shall send any AI-generated email, parent message, public notice, recommendation, report comment, or official communication without carefully proofreading it in full, confirming every fact, checking tone and context, and ensuring the final communication accurately reflects district expectations and human judgment.

The employee sending the communication remains fully responsible for its accuracy, tone, legality, and appropriateness.

XIII. Student Work, Academic Integrity, and Originality Review

Teachers shall continue to set classroom expectations for originality, citation, responsible technology use, and academic honesty.

Students may not be required to create accounts on non-approved external AI tools for schoolwork.

Student use of AI for school purposes shall occur only when expressly authorized by the District or the classroom teacher through approved district systems and under teacher direction.

Teachers should not rely on any single automated tool as conclusive proof of misconduct. NYSSBA’s sample AI policy notes that reliable and fair detection of AI use may be limited, may become obsolete quickly, and may present equity concerns.

Teachers may use Google’s originality/plagiarism tools, including Originality Reports, as one review tool when examining concerns about originality, citation, and authenticity. Google describes Originality Reports as a plagiarism and source-matching tool that compares work against web pages, books, and, where enabled, a school-owned repository; it is designed to help students integrate sources properly and help instructors assess authenticity. It should therefore be used as a screening and instructional support tool, not as the sole basis for an allegation that a student improperly used AI. Faculty and staff should review the “Plagiarism & Originality Checker” section on the Staff Support page for district information on this tool. (Google for Education)

Legal and Guidance References

Education Law §2-d and Part 121 of the Commissioner’s Regulations; NYSED Data Privacy and Security Policy requirements; NYSED Parents’ Bill of Rights for Data Privacy and Security; FERPA; NYS K-12 Computer Science and Digital Fluency Learning Standards; NYSED 2026–2029 Instructional Technology Plan guidance; NYSED Regents March 2024 AI presentation; and NYSSBA Sample Policy 8636 on Artificial Intelligence. (New York State Education Department)

Next step could be a BoardDocs-style version with formal policy numbering, cross-references, and a matching one-page staff administrative regulation.