As a parent that attended the symposium, I am left with questions and concerns. The implementation of AI district wide is an endeavor that I don't believe we are ready for. Experts in the field have been very clear about the fact that this technology is moving faster than we can keep up. I don't want to see our students being guinea pigs. This presentation shows areas of implementation at elementary, middle, and high, where it replaces the human element. It has been repeatedly mentioned that would not be the case. There is massive concern amongst elementary parents with adding more technology. Research supports going the opposite direction. I don't oppose technology, rather support the intentional use of it. I want to see the district truly support the parents and community with the use and implementation of these technologies. This has not been made clear to us, which is required per the agreement with the donors!

My name is Dr. Trudy Jermanovich
The DAC’s Elementary committee has put forth an important document which everyone should read and the Board should direct the Superintendent to take their findings and implement as many as feasible. The bottom line for me is for early elementary their should be little or no time wasted on non state mandated testing. I would like to have technology used within classroom centers to be age specific. Example: third grade most students should have the developmental dexterity to begin to use typing and word processing skills. The emphasis in all grades should be focused on students reading actual books and NOT isolated scripted paragraphs to prepare them for a test.
Here’s a quote from the DAC ELEMENTARY COMMITTEE
“As Broward County Public Schools expands its use of educational technology and experiments with AI, it’s critical that decisions remain evidence-based, transparent, and focused on student outcomes. The research raises important questions about academic effectiveness, student development, screen time, data privacy, and fiscal responsibility—especially during a budget crisis.”
Read the white paper here:

https://browarddistrictadvisory.ch2v.com/Content/22_429/Files/DAC%20-%20Elementary%20Subcommittee%20-%20Screen%20Time,%20EdTech,%20and%20AI%20White%20Paper.pdf

There will be some teachers who will quickly adapt to using AI for lesson plans. I do not believe trainings should be within the PLC time except as those are described in the BTU Contract MOU. - Professional Learning Community determines goals BY CONSENSUS of the PLC members and must be within the time limits for the grade level.
I was very unhappy with the lack of timeline within the presentation on the roll-out of AI. I believe that a group of teachers, presently in the classroom, should be paid during the Month of July to develop lesson plans for using AI for students in grades 4-5, 6-8, and subject specific examples from HS. I don’t see how a teacher could manage teaching a class with some students parent’s opting out of the AI lessons.

As the school board considers integrating Artificial Intelligence into our classrooms, we must pause and demand rigorous, institutional clarity before exposing our students to this technology. To date, Broward County Public Schools has failed to establish a transparent implementation plan, define what 'Ethical and Responsible AI' means for our specific community, or provide concrete evidence that these tools actually improve learning outcomes. We must see the full, peer-reviewed data and methodology from BCPS’s own pilot program to understand what variables were controlled, alongside independent, third-party research on platforms like MagicSchool AI and Copilot. Moving forward blindly is an unacceptable risk, especially given the ongoing Florida lawsuit against OpenAI, the very backbone of MagicSchool, which alleges severe psychological and developmental harms to youth, from the erosion of critical thinking to the generation of dangerous, personalized content. Before a single contract is signed, the administration must explicitly state who is monitoring student chats, how BCPS plans to legally and morally protect students from harm, and how a term like '1,000x productivity' aligns with our core educational mission. If we cannot define what education means to BCPS in the age of automation, we should not be outsourcing our students' minds to unproven algorithms.

I am absolutely against the district-wide implementation of AI.

The District’s AI Initiative is simply not safe. Copilot will absolutely jeopardize sensitive, private student and employee personal information. This was admitted at the AI parent symposium. Additionally, Magic School AI failed district safety testing (failing to identify inappropriate chat bots interactions at a 31% rate—slide 48 of presentation). Actual student safety as well as data security are massive known risks that the Board cannot ignore. To do so would amount to negligence or misfeasance.

This presentation fails to provide a public-facing implementation plan, however it does state that AI (including chat bots) will be rolled out to elementary, middle, and high schools.
As a stakeholder and parent, I believe it’s wholly inappropriate for Magic School, any AI, or any additional EdTech to be rolled out to BCPS elementary schools. Elementary should emphasize foundational academic skills, such as fine motor skills, original composition, and critical thinking. I believe 6-8 students should have exposure to current technologies, but there should be an emphasis on computer literacy and internet safety. High school should of course prepare BCPS students for their adult lives, education, and careers.

—When social media was shown to be harmful, SBBC acted. A similar response is absolutely warranted for AI.
—Stakeholders, especially elementary families, are already overwhelmed with and concerned about the level of educational technology for k-5 students.
—Rolling out Magic School AI jeopardizes further loss of enrollment. Families are ready leave for home school and micro schools.
—Additional EdTech burdens teachers who are already overextended and micromanaged
—New state and federal laws will likely ban AI for children and use in schools, thereby wasting massive amounts of donated funds, taxpayer money, and staff/teacher time. The potential for embarrassment is obvious.

The Board must pivot and require that any implementation of Ed Tech (especially AI) first be proven SAFE, EFFECTIVE, and LEGALLY COMPLIANT before it is placed in any BCPS classroom. The current “plan” falls far short of these basic tenets of public education.

As a parent to a new middle schooler and elementary student and a former educator, I find this whole initiative deeply concerning. As the other comments have stated, there have been many studies that show the negative impacts of tech on our children. School is a place where they should be learning to think critically, problem solve, and become life long learners through exploring topics of interest. Instead BCPS keeps shoving more tech down their throats, giving them WAY too much access to things that aren’t age appropriate. It feels like the public schools are become more and more unsafe bc there is no possible way for these poor teachers to monitor all the tech. My kids have more unrestricted access to tech in their classroom than they do at home, and this infuriates me as a parent who is trying to teach them safe practices and limit their access due to what I believe is appropriate for their growing brains. It’s too much! The district should instead be investing in our teachers, giving them a reason to stay and incentive to continue to our their hearts into our students. Give the kids more recess. More outlets to be creative and explore! Stop giving them access to things that take away their creative thinking and also their innocence. Stop stifling the creative learning process. Please listen to the research. Listen to the parents. Listen to the teachers!! Stop ignoring the facts! We don’t want AI in the classroom!

While employees are expected to review AI-generated content, verify accuracy, monitor student use, and exercise professional judgment, formal AI training is not required for BCPS employees. Without comprehensive and mandatory training, how can we reasonably expect implementation to be ethical, safe, effective, or even consistent across classrooms and schools?

Screen time is not a hypothetical concern. Decades of research have documented its impact on cognitive development, physical health, attention, and social-emotional well-being. Pediatricians and child development experts continue to recommend minimizing unnecessary screen exposure whenever possible. To dismiss these well-founded concerns as merely "fear of the unknown" is both inaccurate and dismissive.

Unfortunately, this process feels less like community engagement and more like a decision that has already been made. Stakeholders are being asked for feedback, but there is little evidence that concerns raised by parents, teachers, and community members will meaningfully influence the outcome.

It is also important to acknowledge that BCPS classrooms already utilize adaptive educational technology platforms. Despite years of implementation, these tools have not produced the transformational academic gains that were promised. In many cases, they have become substitutes for direct instruction and human interaction rather than enhancements to learning. What evidence suggests that AI will produce a different result?

At its core, education is a human endeavor. Teachers do far more than deliver content—they build relationships, provide mentorship, inspire curiosity, and understand the unique needs of their students. Expanding the role of AI risks further widening the gap between teachers and students while reducing opportunities for meaningful human connection. At a time when young people are experiencing increasing social isolation and mental health challenges, we should be investing in stronger human relationships, not replacing them with technology.

Sadly, our district continues to make decisions that raise serious concerns about priorities, transparency, and the impact on our classrooms.

First, this rollout represents another significant expenditure at a time when the district is facing a major budget deficit. Taxpayer dollars should be focused on proven needs before investing in district-wide AI initiatives. Even with a grant to fund this initiative, energy spent on getting grants for other educational needs such as additional teachers, social workers, nurses, etc.

Second, moving forward with such a large-scale implementation without meaningful discussion and collaboration with all stakeholders is troubling. The AI task force appears to have been assembled without including teachers and parents who have legitimate concerns about AI in education. Diverse perspectives—including opposing viewpoints—are essential to shaping responsible policies and implementation plans.

Third, while AI tools may help reduce some administrative tasks for teachers, introducing AI into student learning creates additional responsibilities. Teachers will be expected to teach appropriate AI use, monitor student activity, address academic integrity concerns, and manage new classroom safety and privacy challenges. This adds another layer of complexity to an already demanding profession.

Finally, this rollout seems to ignore the growing body of research and recommendations from technology experts, educators, behavioral specialists, and psychologists who are increasingly calling for less—not more—educational technology in classrooms. Many experts are raising concerns about screen time, student attention, critical thinking skills, social development, and overall well-being.

Before committing to a district-wide AI rollout, the district should slow down, engage in meaningful community dialogue, and carefully evaluate whether this investment truly aligns with the best interests of students, teachers, and taxpayers.

As a current middle school classroom teacher, I can tell you my students do not need access to more AI. They already have it built into their browsers on the school computers and their phones. They have not been using it ethically for the past three years and I don’t think that is going to start now. I have watched students use AI to complete their work for all of their classes. They don’t even look at the output to see if it is correct. In my English class, after teaching them AI literacy, I still had students copy and pasting incorrect AI answers all year. Those students are the ones who did not make gains on the FAST because they learned nothing but how to copy and paste all year long. Students tried to hide their phones to use AI to answer the FAST questions all around the district, as evidenced by many, many TicTok and Reels postings.

Students need to taught how to think critically for themselves. Maybe in High School AI use can be a thing, but in Middle and lower they are using it as an easy way to get work done, which defeats the point of even getting an education.

Yes, AI is here and is not going anywhere, but we are the ones who decide how it will be used moving forward. Do we want to create a generation that heavily relies on artificial intelligence and has no skills or do we want to create a generation that knows how to think critically? I also would be remiss if I failed to mention the environmental ramifications of AI usage. Ethical AI use is also understanding just how a person is affecting the world around them by using these tools.

Instead of having students use AI, maybe we should be teaching them how to spot AI use. Media literacy is a much more important skill and it goes hand in hand with being able to think critically, especially in this age where fake photos and videos are everywhere.