Why School Districts Need a Centralized AI Policy: A Look at St Vrain Valley School District's Failure to Support Students in an AI-Driven World

This is a personal opinion piece on why school districts should have a centralized AI policy. This is merely a look at the technological side of St Vrain and is not in any way shape or form saying that St Vrain is a bad school district.

  Background and Context

In November 2022, OpenAI released ChatGPT, a Large Language Model (LLM) AI chatbot to the public for general, everyday usage, which has resulted in AI seeing major developments in various fields, such as healthcare and education, where AI has quickly ingrained itself into the curriculum, with both students and teachers using it (Lo). Three years later in 2025, a myriad of schools, ranging from small-town, relatively unknown elementary schools to world-class, highly prestigious universities created regulations that range from no restrictions to a complete and total ban on AI. In response to the rise of AI, the College Board, which runs the Advanced Placement (AP) program, which is designed to help students prepare for post-secondary education while simultaneously being able to gain college credit, created an AI policy for its courses, however, it can be very vague at times, especially in AP Capstone section of the AI policy, where it states, “Generative AI tools must be used ethically, responsibly, and intentionally to support student learning, not to bypass it” (“Benefits of AP”, “2024-25 Guidance for Artificial Intelligence Tools and Other Services”). However, the St Vrain Valley School District has not created any policy surrounding AI in any sense, resulting in countless different AI policies as different teachers have different policies, creating confusion and stress as students are forced to remember which class has which policy on AI, which can result in overwhelmed students that eventually crash out and burn, which results in lower grades, lower student performance and therefore lower student academic success and achievement, especially in AP courses, where there is already an AI policy that can be vague and ambiguous at times from the College Board as previously mentioned (“2024-25 Guidance for Artificial Intelligence Tools and Other Services”). In fact, according to Kathryn Hulick, who wrote the article, “How ChatGPT and Similar AI Will Disrupt Education”, “at many schools and universities, educators are struggling with how to handle ChatGPT and other AI tools” (Hulick). Thus, creating a clear and detailed, universal district-wide AI policy that aligns with the AP AI policy from the College Board will help relieve stress on students, teachers, and administrators at both the school and district levels when it comes to AI, allowing said students, teachers, and administrators to focus on improving academic success and striving toward a better, 21st Century education.

III Proposal and Actionable Steps

To prevent student burnout, cheating, and undue stress on both the teachers and students dealing with a myriad of AI policies, the district should create a universal, district-wide AI policy with AP classes in mind as a baseline AI policy for the individual teachers and schools to go off of to relieve stress and pressure on students. A total AI ban is not feasible nor is it wise, as John Villasenor, a teacher at UCLA, states that he allows his students to use AI because they will need, “To remain competitive throughout their careers, students need to learn how to prompt an AI writing tool to elicit worthwhile output and know how to evaluate its quality, accuracy and originality” (Villansenor). Banning AI will just make students find another way to use it, whether it be on their phones or their personal computers at home. AI is also becoming increasingly central and important for everyday life, work, and education, so learning how to properly use it in school will give students a better understanding of how, when, and why to use AI, as they transition into college and the workforce in a new, AI-driven world, where they will need to know how to succeed, something that AP Coordinators strive to see students do. This AI policy should be formulated by AP Coordinators at the district level and individual schools, as well as AP teachers alongside non-AP teachers, with input from students to ensure that the policy is not one-sided in favor of either the teachers or the students. Implementation of this policy should be done in phases, with a trial phase at certain schools with a large enough population of students enrolled in both AP and non-AP classes to see how the policy works, and then is slowly rolled out to more schools, focusing on high schools and then moving down the chain to middle schools and elementary schools.

IV Essential Considerations and CounterArguments

While this universal, district-wide AI policy is key to helping students succeed, it must be considered that each class is different, and it is a valid and key point that deserves both attention and consideration. A policy on how generative AI is to be used based on AP-level standards will restrict the usage in the more low-stakes environment of non-AP classes, which is why the policy should be formulated with both AP and non-AP teachers, to ensure it takes into account both the classes rigor, expectation, and purpose. St Vrain already works to ensure that AI is not a threat to students’ safety, as Peggy Graham of the Left Hand Valley Courier found out when she interviewed Michelle Bourgeois of St Vrain Valley School District to find out how the district was dealing with AI stating, “Michelle Bourgeois, the chief technology officer for St. Vrain Valley School District (SVVSD), remarked, ‘We go slow to go big’” (Graham). This is why the slow rollout of the policy is central and a critical step of the process. This same argument can be used to reason why a universal AI policy is actually inhibiting student growth, as each class has different needs, and therefore a single policy will not work. For example, an AP policy written in mind for an AP-level math class won’t fit a regular English class. This argument can be dismantled with the key step discussed above, that being that policy having AP Coordinators at both the district and school levels, alongside AP and non-AP teachers with students as well, which helps ensure a fair and equitable balance between teachers and students individual viewpoints. John Villasenor understands that teachers have different views on AI than students, as well as different views in each group, which can be classified as techno-optimists and techno-pessimists, when he states, “Rather than banning students from using labor-saving and time-saving AI writing tools, we should teach students to use them ethically and productively (Villasenor). Villasenor provides a very clear and simple explanation to why an AI ban is not a favorable idea, as it prevents students from developing critical skills with AI, which sets those students back several decades, which is something no teacher wants for their students. This provides a counterpoint to the argument brought forth by Chung Kawn Lo, who argues that while AI can be helpful, teachers and students lack the key and specific training and ability to use them properly and effectively (Lo). Villasenor argues that the students need to be taught, and who else to teach them but the teachers themselves, and both the students and the teachers can work together to learn and understand more about AI as they learn how to use the AI properly and effectively. This AI Policy is not meant to be a one-size-fits-all policy, but a baseline for teachers to go off of and adapt to meet the needs of their classroom.

V Impact

Therefore, by creating a versatile and adaptive AI policy that is district-wide, students can be relieved of undue and unnecessary stress and pressure to remember numerous different AI policies that have little to not similarities with each other and instead have to remember a single AI policy, which will result in better and higher academic success and achievement, less student burnout, and teachers learning to be more techno-optimistic, all while simultaneously preparing students for postsecondary success in a new, AI-driven college environment and workforce. Considering the values of AP Coordinators, those being student success and development through struggle and hardship, supporting said students on their academic journey, this new AI policy will help students adapt to AI in ways that they had not previously considered.