Malden School Technology Subcommittee Meeting
In attendance:
Chair Keith Bernard
Member Peter Piazza
Member Dawn Macklin
Member Rob McCarthy
Superintendent Timothy Sippel
Guest Mark Racine
Guest Komal Bhasin
AI & Learning Working Group Overview
Dr. Sippel began by giving an overview of the AI working group established in late 2025, comprised of 8-9 educators and 8-9 parents/caregivers, plus Chair Bernard as the liaison to the school committee. The group has met several times since December, facilitated by Mark Racine. In meetings, they have looked at articles and other resources and participated in a series of structured dialogues between educators and participants. As the depth of conversation has grown, the group has focused on the following pillars:
Students:
Critical Thinking & Cognitive Load
Academic Integrity & Responsible Use
Student Digital Literacy
Mental Health & Wellness
Staff:
Educator Preparation & Digital Literacy
Equity, Access & Bias Mitigation
Instructional Quality & Pedagogical Design
Administration:
Implementation Governance & Resource Allocation
Data Privacy, Security & Student Protection
Transparency & Stakeholder Alignment
Administrative & Non-Instructional AI Use
For each pillar, the group is developing value statements. These were drafted by volunteers based on the information shared in the Padlet form by group members, and those drafts were workshopped by the group with comments and revisions. The final value statements will be shared with Dr. Sippel and the school committee to inform new policies or adjustments to new policies.
Member Macklin asked if there would be more meetings and what the intent for direction is for this school year. Dr. Sippel clarified that consensus and final value statements are the goal for this school year.
Member McCarthy asked if the group has found a “happy medium” where everyone is satisfied. Other meeting members agreed that finding middle ground is important. Chair Bernard responded that he believes the majority of the group will be okay with what comes out of it.
Dr. Sippel shared feedback that he has observed from the group:
There is a distinction between LLM chatbots (Gemini, Claude, etc) versus tools that use AI “under the hood.”
In the conversations about LLMs, there was universal agreement that chatbots are not appropriate for elementary and middle schoolers
However, LLMs might be an appropriate tool for high schoolers with appropriate guardrails and well-trained teachers
There is an understanding that LLMs are unreliable and there is a need to be careful
There are questions about how the districts chooses products, ensures that they add value, and makes sure that they are used as intended
Criteria is necessary to ensure products are acceptable with respect to data privacy, pedagogical rationale, and ongoing usefulness
Dr. Sippel said he acknowledged the proliferation of tools during COVID that became part of the schools’ ecosystem out of necessity; some have stayed around even if they aren’t adding value. Some caregivers are very concerned about educational technology and screentime, and so are some educators. Dr. Sippel said he is committed to develop guidance and consistency with less variability among educational technology and screentime, and to engage educators and caregivers as part of the conversation.
Member Piazza asked if the working group’s value statements would include guidelines, such as conditions that would demonstrate that a particular value was met. Chair Bernard responded that some value statements are more well thought out while others are still a work in progress, and that there will need to be understanding of what is within the committee’s purview versus the superintendent’s. Dr. Sippel added some value statements will include working group members’ opinions that they are not on the same page and hold other perspectives that need to be considered.
Dr. Sippel suggested that, not precluding any action that the subcommittee or committee might take, he foresees more coherent and consistent guidance for technology, even outside of AI. Parents/caregivers, educators, students,and community members are all expressing concerns around these issues, including screen time and the approved list of tools. He suggested that (more likely next year) he will engage with teachers about what good effective use of technology entails at each grade span. He also noted that we should be mindful of unsanctioned use of AI and ensuring that students are educated about its dangers.
Member Piazza asked who the point person is at each school. Dr. Sippel responded that the point person is currently the principal, and some have a designated person with more technical expertise. The previous director of educational technology, Natalia Brennan, is now an educator at Salemwood and has been helping on a contract basis.
Member McCarthy asked about the timeline. The meeting participants were unsure and noted that they may need to discuss whether issues fall within the technology subcommittee, policy, teaching/learning, or the school committee as a whole. Dr. Sippel noted that a separate policy may be necessary, but current policies can be tweaked. Chair Bernard added that we won’t have a grasp of everything by June, so it’s likely that there will be additional meetings in the fall, with something presentable by November. Member McCarthy noted that a moderate slow approach is needed. Dr. Sippel added that certain things, such as cyberbullying, academic integrity, and code of conduct, can be addressed faster by revising existing policies.
Chair Bernard noted that the subcommittee would be as agile as it can, but ten years from now, when someone looks back, they should be able to still say it’s a good policy. Part of the job is to be adaptable and as members of the community get alarmed, be able to examine and see if changes are needed. He concluded that he thinks the AI working group will provide good guidelines for a policy and he expects a decent policy to come out of this process.
GoGuardian
Komal Bhasin presented on a 10-day trial of GoGuardian taking place with 24 teachers across three schools in grades 3-8. She is looking into whether the program provides meaningful changes with a 45-minute training for teachers.
Teachers can create an “Allowed Website” list for their class and see students’ screens. They can also freeze students’ screens or redirect them as needed.
Member McCarthy asked for clarification on whether teachers can change the allow list during class (they can); how “freezing” is experienced by the student (the tab closes or won’t open); and how students have responded (not known yet).
Member Macklin asked if the allow list changes by class, and whether that would affect a student finishing homework from one class during another class. Ms. Bhasin clarified that the allowed lists are specific to each class but can be shared among teachers.
Member Piazza asked how we know that GoGuardian would keep student data safe; it was noted that GoGuardian had signed a student data privacy agreement. Member Piazza asked what “meaningful changes” the pilot is examining. Ms. Bhasin responded that they are using teacher observation and perception to judge whether students are more engaged and that she would observe what students are accessing. Member Piazza asked to see a report at the end of the pilot project. Dr. Sippel agreed that a report would be shared with the subcommittee. Mark Racine noted that he expected the pilot to be successful, based on his experience with other districts.