School Committee member LaTonia Monroe Naylor addresses a question about instruction using artificial intelligence.
Photo credit: Focus Springfield
SPRINGFIELD — Educators and parents had a chance to directly ask the Springfield School Committee about the issues that were important to them during a town hall on Oct. 22. Top of mind for many of the roughly 60 attendees was the role of artificial intelligence instruction.
Questions about the use of AI instruction mainly stemmed from a pilot that was scheduled to be used this year in a classroom at Kiley Prep, a middle school that is part of the Springfield Empowerment Zone Partnership. The SEZP is a structure created in 2014 to avoid receivership of underperforming schools. The SEZP has greater flexibility and can pivot curriculum more quickly than schools under the School Committee’s process.
The pilot would have used portions of Alpha School, a program which claims to complete all academic instruction in two hours per day by using AI tutors and individualized lessons. While the pilot was put on hold in September and is not expected to be implemented this school year, the educators’ union, Springfield Education Association, has sounded the alarm, raising concerns that educators’ jobs are at risk.
About a dozen questions were submitted ahead of the event. John Scibelli read his question, asking if the School Committee would support a law protecting Springfield teachers and educators. Committee member Rosa Valentin clarified that the School Committee can pass policy but has no influence over state laws or city ordinances.
“We are not looking to have AI instruct our students,” School Committee member LaTonia Monroe Naylor said. “It is a supplementary tool and that is how it is going to stay.” Valentin shared the sentiment and School Committee member Ayanna Crawford commented, “It is critically important that there are teachers in front of our students.” Mayor Domenic Sarno, who serves as the School Committee chair, agreed, saying, “It should not supplant teachers.”
Dean Robinson asked if the School Committee would support a moratorium on new AI use until the technology is evaluated and vetted.
Sarno shared his opinion that AI has its uses, including as a tool to automatically send notifications to parents when their student is absent. He said, “That was a home run.” That aside, he said he was “not a big fan” AI and that “guardrails” must be used.
Christine Tetreault commented, “It sounds like the empowerment zone kind of does its own thing.” She asked what guardrails the School Committee would implement to prevent the SEZP from using AI instruction.
School Committee member Denise Hurst said the School Committee’s purview is policy in the Springfield Public Schools. The body does not have authority over the operation of, or curriculum used in, the SEZP. Attorney Ian Keefe, who represents the School Committee explained that the structure of the SEZP gives its co-executive directors and board of directors authority over curriculum. Sarno, Superintendent Sonia Dinnall and Monroe Naylor serve on the board of directors.
Elicia Geurink asked why “corporate interests” being allowed to make decisions affecting public school students’ academic outcomes without corporate oversight. Sarno took a firm stance, saying, “There are no corporate interests making decisions for our Springfield Public Schools.” He explained that the School Committee sets the policies and Dinnall oversees the day-to-day operations.
Monroe Naylor urged people with concerns or questions about the SEZP to attend one of its quarterly board meetings, which includes a public speak out portion.
Dinnall later told Reminder Publishing that the School Department regularly reviews the memorandum of understanding that delineates the governance of the SEZP versus the School Committee. She said the SEZP have been “good partners” and have improved the achievement of several schools, including eight that were returned to the oversight of Springfield Public Schools and the School Committee. She also said she would “try to collaborate a bit more” with the SEZP co-executive directors.
Other topics of discussion included the use of school facilities by nonprofits, bullying, transportation contracts and uniforms.
