TLDR: The South Orange & Maplewood School District (SOMSD) has adopted a new policy, ‘Policy 2365 – Acceptable Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence,’ to regulate student use of AI tools like ChatGPT. The policy aims to ensure responsible integration of AI into the educational experience while upholding academic integrity. It mandates the development of an AI Plan outlining permitted and prohibited uses, including requirements for proper citation and a ban on misrepresentation or harmful content. The district acknowledges AI’s transformative potential and plans to extend guidelines to staff and teachers.
The South Orange & Maplewood School District (SOMSD) has officially adopted a comprehensive new framework to govern student engagement with generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Effective August 18, 2025, ‘Policy 2365 – Acceptable Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence’ was implemented by the Board of Education, recognizing AI’s dual potential to significantly enhance and transform the educational landscape while also posing challenges to academic integrity.
Board President Nubia DuVall Wilson emphasized the necessity of addressing AI’s impact, stating, ‘As we know, the world of artificial intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT, has had a profound impact on education over the last few years, both positive and negative, and it is not an area we can simply ignore.’ The policy does not impose an outright ban on these technologies but rather establishes a structured framework for their responsible integration into student coursework.
Under the new policy, the Superintendent or a designated representative, in collaboration with staff, teachers, leadership, students, and AI Coordinator(s), will develop a detailed district-wide AI Plan. This plan is crucial for outlining specific guidelines, including when and how students may be permitted to use AI tools for assignments that generate new content such as text, images, videos, or music.
Crucially, the policy addresses prohibited uses to safeguard academic honesty and ethical conduct. These include, but are not limited to, using AI to falsely represent an assignment as entirely the student’s own work, purposefully creating misinformation, or misrepresenting others with the intent to harm, bully, or intimidate. The AI Plan will also mandate proper citation and documentation methods for any content supported or generated by an AI tool in student assignments.
To oversee the implementation and ongoing monitoring of AI tools, the Superintendent may designate one or more AI Coordinators. This move underscores the district’s commitment to a thoughtful and managed approach to AI integration.
DuVall Wilson further clarified the policy’s intent: ‘This new policy does not outright prohibit the use of these services, but instead provides a framework for the District to regulate when students may be permitted to use these tools in their classwork.’ She added that the policy ‘requires the District to develop an AI Plan that will provide teachers the tools they need to either restrict or permit responsible use of AI in their class.’
Also Read:
- University Students Grapple with Anxiety and Distrust Over AI Integration in Academia
- Japan Advances Public Sector Efficiency with Generative AI Integration
Looking ahead, the Board anticipates developing similar policy language to regulate the use of AI tools by teachers and staff. This forthcoming guidance will cover areas such as classroom instruction, curriculum development, material creation, and the assessment of student work, ensuring a consistent and comprehensive approach to AI across the entire school district. The policy was recommended by the district’s education policy consultants, Strauss Esmay Associates, and subsequently adapted by the Board in close consultation with Curriculum and Instruction administrators.
