Madison School District curriculum and instructional-technology staff presented a districtwide AI literacy position statement, teacher and student guidelines, and a five-level task-design scale Thursday, and said they plan to advance the materials to the full school board for adoption.

The presentation, delivered by a cross-discipline team of coordinators and instructional-technology specialists, argued that schools cannot ignore artificial intelligence and should teach students “responsible use” and how to evaluate AI output. A presenter summarized the district’s definition of AI literacy as teaching students that “AI is shaping and will continue to shape the world around them, that it comes with both risks and opportunities,” and that there are times to use AI and times not to, the presenters said.

The district said the package includes (1) a position statement, (2) student and teacher guidelines built on six guiding principles, (3) a district AI task-design scale with five levels, and (4) an AI-literacy guiding document that aligns transfer goals to grade-span expectations. Presenters asked the board to recognize AI literacy as a curricular content area and to adopt the position statement.

Presenters described how the work began over the summer. The team reported that about 50 district staff — administrators, central-office coordinators, math and literacy coaches, library media specialists and instructional-technology staff — met on Aug. 18 to design the materials, and that roughly 20–25 staff completed a micro-credentialing course in AI prior to that meeting. The presenters said that work informed the statement and the guidelines.

Key elements of the package

- Six guiding principles: presenters said the district’s principles require that AI support but not replace human effort; encourage growth and not shortcuts; emphasize ethical literacy and awareness of bias; uphold fairness and equity of access; keep human connection and the teacher–student relationship at the center; and ensure tools meet privacy and data-protection requirements.

- Five-level task-design scale: the district’s “MPS AI task design” ranges from Level 1 (no AI) through Level 5 (AI exploration). Presenters described Level 3 as AI collaboration on a single element of a task and Level 4 as allowing AI to complete any element of the task. They said the scale will be used to set expectations for assignments and assessments and to build exemplars for teachers and students.

- Foundations, applying, stewarding framework: presenters organized instruction in three stages. Foundations teaches how AI systems are built and how to prompt them; applying teaches engagement and creation with AI; stewarding teaches students to manage and design with AI, including how to curate and train models for intended purposes. The team gave an example of an independent-project student who experimented with feeding recent stock data to a model to explore prediction — presented as an example of design-with-AI in a supervised, limited-data setting.

On assessment and classroom practice, presenters emphasized changing task design rather than policing students. In response to a board question about detecting misuse, presenters said the district intends to redesign assessments and use the task-design scale so that some performance tasks explicitly permit AI collaboration while summative assessments expected to measure foundational skills remain durable in the face of AI. “If we do nothing, then we’re sure that they’re not using AI correctly,” one presenter said.

Privacy and equity were repeatedly raised as requirements: presenters said any AI tools used in school must meet the district’s privacy and data-protection policy and that equitable access must be preserved so all students have the same resources.

Next steps and board response

Presenters asked the board to adopt the position statement and recognize AI literacy as a curricular content area so the district can begin systematic design and rollout. At the meeting, staff said they were “planning to advance this to the whole board for adoption”; the presentation did not include a formal vote.

Board members who spoke praised the district’s collaborative process and urged protecting and sustaining the work as it evolves. The presenters closed by inviting questions and saying they had clear next steps for training teachers and developing classroom exemplars.

The district provided multiple draft materials at the presentation: a position statement, student and teacher guidelines, a task-design scale, and a draft AI-literacy guiding document. The board will consider whether to place those documents on a future full-board agenda for formal adoption.