Skip to main content

Norton Public Schools

Learn. Grow. Achieve.

AI Guidance

 
Developed During the 2025–2026 School Year

AI Guidance

Norton Public Schools  ·  Office of Instructional Technology

Grounded in DESE Guidance (August 2025)  ·  Part of NPS PEA²K, MassCUE & AI Task Force work  ·  Living document, updated regularly

AI and the Lancer Way

Norton's approach to AI is grounded in our Portrait of a Learner. AI should strengthen these habits — not replace them.

LLeadOwn your learning. Use AI as a tool to support your thinking.
AAdaptUse AI for feedback, revision, and improvement.
NNavigateCritically evaluate AI-generated content.
CCommunicateSupport how you express your ideas, don’t replace your thinking. 
EEmpowerUse AI responsibly and ethically.
RReflectConsider how AI contributed to your growth.
Our shared vision

Norton is committed to a human-centered and equitable approach to AI that supports growth and learning, preserves authentic thinking, and protects the privacy, security, and trust of students, staff, and families. We believe technology should serve people and not replace them. As we explore AI thoughtfully, we are dedicated to ensuring equitable access so that every decision centers on learning, well-being, and opportunity for every student. 

Human-Centered

AI supports educators and students. It does not replace relationships, professional judgment, or human expertise at the core of teaching and learning.

Growth & Learning

AI should expand what is possible and not shortcut the  work that makes learning meaningful.

Authentic Thinking

Every student deserves to develop their own voice, reasoning, and skills. AI supports that development; it does not substitute for it.

Privacy & Trust

Protecting personal information of students, families, and staff is a non-negotiable condition for any AI use in Norton.

Why this vision matters to Norton. When our AI Task Force began this work, two things became clear quickly. First, we recognized that the value we most want AI to protect is growth for students and for staff. Second, we recognized that the value we most worry AI could unintentionally erode is authenticity: the genuine development of each student's own thinking, voice, and skills. This tension sits at the heart of every decision in these guidelines. We are not anti-AI. We are pro-learning. Every boundary and expectation exists to keep those two commitments in balance.

AI Assignment scale

An AI Assignment Scale graphic with a traffic light design, showing different stages of AI development.

Guidance on student use of AI 
Default expectation: AI tools are not permitted for student work unless a teacher explicitly authorizes a specific use for a specific purpose. Student AI use is an educator's professional responsibility to define, structure, and supervise.

Norton's Phased Approach to Student AI Use

Norton is building toward student-led AI use deliberately and in sequence. The grade-level framework below reflects where each band currently sits in this progression: not a permanent ceiling but a purposeful starting point.

Phase 1
Guided Exposure
At this level, use is limited to teacher-led demonstrations and collaborative activities to build foundational AI literacy. 
Students practice evaluating AI generated content alongside their teacher. 
Primarily: PreK–Grade 5
Phase 2
Teacher-Directed
Structured, educator-directed use of approved tools may be introduced. AI literacy instruction precedes active student use. The teacher remains in control of the tool and the task.
Primarily: Grades 6–8
Phase 3
Supervised Use
Students use approved tools for specific, defined tasks with clear expectations about attribution, disclosure, and academic integrity. Educators authorize and supervise; students direct.
Primarily: Grades 9–12

Grade-Level Framework

These guidelines apply to general education contexts. Students with IEP or 504 accommodations that specify assistive technology or AI-based supports retain those rights regardless of grade-band guidance. Special education staff should be consulted when applying AI restrictions to students with active IEPs or 504 plans. 

Grade Band Guidance for Educators
PreK–Grade 2 AI chatbot and generative tools are not appropriate for direct student use. AI use at this level is for staff only: lesson planning, materials preparation, and curriculum design. Students learn about AI through teacher-led demonstrations.
Grades 3–5 AI tools are not recommended for independent student use. Where AI is embedded in approved curriculum platforms, its role should be incidental and under teacher supervision. Curriculum-embedded AI literacy is appropriate and encouraged. Students begin to navigate by identifying when a tool is "helpful" vs. "doing the work for them."
Grades 6–8 Structured, educator-directed use of approved AI tools may be introduced. AI literacy instruction must precede any active student use. Personal accounts on non-approved tools are not permitted. Students communicate by clearly citing where AI assisted their final product.
Grades 9–12 Educators may permit AI use for specific, defined tasks with clear expectations about attribution and academic integrity. District-approved tools only. Students must adapt (use AI feedback to improve drafts) and communicate (clearly cite AI assistance).

Before Students Use Any AI Tool: Educator Checklist

  •   Verify the tool is listed as Approved in the Norton SDPC database.
  •   Provide age-appropriate AI literacy instruction before students actively use the tool.
  •   Communicate explicit AI expectations on each assignment; students should never have to guess.
  •   Review all AI-generated outputs before using or distributing them. You are professionally responsible for everything that reaches students or families under your name.

Academic Integrity in the Age of AI

No Detection Tools as Sole Basis

AI detection tools may only be used as a preliminary data point to initiate a conversation and never as the sole basis for a disciplinary finding. High false positive rates disproportionately affect ELL students, creating significant equity concerns.

Make Thinking Visible

Design assessments so the process of reasoning is evident. When thinking is visible, the role of AI in any final product becomes less determinative. Version history and oral defense are effective verification tools.

Safe Disclosure & Citation

Teach students to acknowledge AI use openly. Any use of Generative AI must be cited using current MLA/APA guidelines, including the prompt used and date of access.

Lancer AI Literacy: The Global Impact

Algorithmic Bias

AI models reflect the biases in their training data. Lancers must critically examine all AI-generated content for stereotypes, cultural insensitivities, or inaccuracies. Human review is never optional.

Environmental Cost

Generating a single AI response requires significantly more electricity and water than a standard search query. Use these tools mindfully — only when they add genuine value to learning.

Media Integrity

As AI-generated media becomes more prevalent, develop skills to verify the authenticity of what you see and hear. Seek primary sources to confirm informati

Transparency with families

Public Tool Database

Norton's Online Resources Database lists all approved tools, DPA status, and restrictions. Families may access this at any time at the Norton SDPC site.

NPS Data Privacy Initiative

Plain-language information about how Norton protects student data is available at the NPS Data Privacy Initiative website.

Educator Disclosure

When educators use AI in ways that directly affect student learning or assessment, they should communicate that to students and, where appropriate, to families.

Frequently asked questions
Tool Approval & the Core Privacy Rule
Drafting a generic lesson plan, brainstorming ideas, writing a rubric, or summarizing a professional article is generally fine as long as personal information is not used. The moment you include a student's name, describe a specific student's situation, or reference IEP/504 information, you need a signed data privacy agreement with the vendor/tool being used. When in doubt, anonymize before you type. Always use school accounts with school-approved tools — not personal accounts.
No. Grade level, subject area, school building, and general instructional context are not PII. PII is information that identifies or could reasonably identify a specific individual — names, ID numbers, dates of birth, grades on specific assignments, assessment scores, disciplinary records, IEP/504 content, health information, attendance records, behavioral data, and family contact information. A useful test: if someone could read what you typed and identify a specific student, it is PII.
No. "FERPA compliant" is a claim a vendor makes about their own practices — it is not a legally binding agreement with Norton. A signed DPA with Norton specifically establishes district ownership of student data, prohibits advertising use, requires breach notification within a defined timeframe, and gives Norton audit rights. If a vendor declines to sign a DPA, that is a significant red flag. Norton has documented exactly this situation with several well-known vendors.
You may use it for your own professional tasks as long as you do not enter student or staff PII. You may not use it with students or any student data until it has been approved. Submit your request to the tech office as soon as possible — the process can take weeks to months. Planning ahead for next school year is strongly encouraged.
Stop using the tool immediately and contact the Instructional Technology Office as soon as you realize what happened. Do not wait. This is a privacy and compliance issue that needs to be assessed quickly. Depending on what was entered, there may be steps needed to request data deletion from the vendor, document the incident, or notify the appropriate people. The earlier you report it, the more options the district has.
Specific Use Cases
Using AI to generate sample IEP goal language based on a disability category or grade level — without entering any specific student information — is permissible and a useful starting point. What you may not do: enter a student's name, diagnosis, assessment scores, or any identifying information into an AI tool without a signed DPA. IEP content is among the most sensitive student data that exists and is protected under FERPA and IDEA.
Only if the AI tool has a signed DPA with Norton. What many teachers do successfully: use AI to generate template language or sentence starters for common progress report situations, then personalize those templates themselves without entering student-specific data into the AI tool.
No, not with student-specific information, unless the tool has an approved DPA covering behavioral and disciplinary data. Disciplinary records are explicitly protected under FERPA. You can use AI to help think through how to describe a type of behavior in general terms, then write the student-specific documentation yourself.
Only if the tool has a signed DPA. Family communication about a specific student is student record information under FERPA. A practical workaround: draft the email yourself first, then use an approved tool (or an unapproved tool with all student-specific information removed) to refine language and tone. Then reinsert the student-specific content manually.
Embedded AI in Tools You Already Use
Yes. Google Workspace for Education is an approved platform, and Gemini features are covered under Norton's signed DPA with Google. You may use Gemini in Gmail, Docs, Classroom, and other Workspace applications with student data consistent with how you use those tools generally.
Norton has an approved DPA with Canva for Education, but with one important restriction: only SSO-enabled accounts are covered. Make sure you are logging in through Norton's Single Sign-On, not a personal Canva account. Before using a specific new AI feature in Canva with student data, check with Instructional Technology.
Academic Integrity & Student Use
Start with a conversation, not an accusation. Ask the student to walk you through their thinking and process — how they approached the assignment, what decisions they made, what they would change. Genuine understanding of one's own work is hard to fake. This conversation is usually more revealing than any detection tool. Use the NPS AI Assessment Scale going forward to set clear expectations.
No. Norton's guidelines explicitly prohibit using AI detection tools as the basis for academic integrity findings. These tools have unacceptably high error rates and disproportionately flag the writing of English language learners and students who write in non-standard registers — creating significant equity concerns. A detection result is not evidence; it is a probability estimate. Rely instead on assessments that make thinking visible and honest conversations about authorship.
Using AI for Productivity & Professional Work
Quite a lot. Any task that does not involve student or staff PII is fair game using an approved tool. Examples: generating first drafts of rubrics, brainstorming differentiated activity ideas, creating reading passages at different Lexile levels, drafting parent newsletter content, summarizing a professional article, generating sample test questions aligned to a standard, explaining a concept in simpler language, and drafting meeting agendas or professional development materials. The common thread: you are using AI as a thinking partner — not as a processor of student information.
 

Guiding Principles

Drawn from DESE AI Guidance for K–12 Education (August 2025). Return to these when a situation is not explicitly addressed.

  • AI use must comply with FERPA, COPPA, 603 CMR 23.00, and Norton's Acceptable Use Policy. Only tools vetted through Norton's formal DPA process may be used with student or staff PII. This is our most immediate and non-negotiable obligation.

  • Educators, students, and families deserve to know when AI plays a role in learning, communications, or decisions. Educators are accountable for every output they use, regardless of whether AI helped generate it.

  • AI tools reflect biases in their training data. Staff must critically examine AI-generated content for bias, stereotyping, or inaccuracy before use. Human review is not optional.

  • AI supports educators; it does not replace them. No AI tool may serve as the sole basis for any high-stakes decision about a student including grades, discipline, special education eligibility, or referral. Educators are always in the loop.

  • Students need to develop their own thinking, reasoning, and skills. Unless a teacher explicitly authorizes AI use for a specific purpose, students should not use AI to generate or substantially alter their academic work. Staff should communicate AI expectations clearly on every assignment.

The Core Privacy Rule

Non-Negotiable Legal Requirement

Do not enter student or staff personally identifiable information (PII) into any AI tool that does not have a signed Data Privacy Agreement on file with Norton Public Schools. This is a legal obligation under FERPA, COPPA, and 603 CMR 23.00 and not a preference.

PII includes: Student names, ID numbers, dates of birth, grades, assessment scores, disciplinary records, IEP/504 information, health data, attendance, behavioral data, family contact info, and any combination that could identify a specific individual. Staff evaluation data, personnel records, and salary information carry the same protection. Popularity is not a substitute for a signed data privacy agreement (DPA).

Tool Approval Status

Check the Norton SDPC Online Resources Database before using any AI tool with student or staff data. 
Approved student AI tools

Google Gemini and Canva for Education (SSO-only) are the district-wide approved AI tools for student use.

Signed DPA exists. You may use with student PII consistent with noted restrictions and approved educational purpose.

A DPA exists with specific conditions. Read those conditions carefully. Do not use outside the stated restrictions.

Agreement expiring; renewal in progress. You may continue use while active. Monitor the expiration date.

No DPA exists. Do not use with student or staff PII. Submit a request to Instructional Technology if you believe this tool has genuine educational value.

Vendor refused to sign a DPA. Do not use with student or staff PII. Reason is documented in the database.

  • Signed DPA exists. You may use with student PII consistent with noted restrictions and approved educational purpose.

  • A DPA exists with specific conditions. Read those conditions carefully. Do not use outside the stated restrictions.

  • Agreement expiring; renewal in progress. You may continue use while active. Monitor the expiration date.

  • No DPA exists. Do not use with student or staff PII. Submit a request to Instructional Technology if you believe this tool has genuine educational value.

  • Vendor refused to sign a DPA. Do not use with student or staff PII. Reason is documented in the database.

Role-Specific Responsibilities

Responsible AI use is a shared responsibility across all roles.

    • Check the SDPC database before using any AI tool with PII
    • Never enter PII into Not Approved or Declined tools
    • Critically review all AI-generated content before use or distribution
    • Maintain professional accountability for all outputs
    • Contact Instructional Technology with questions

    • Model appropriate AI use and reinforce guidelines with building staff
    • Ensure no AI tool is deployed school-wide without prior review by Instructional Technology
    • Do not use AI to make or substantially inform personnel decisions or evaluations
    • Surface staff questions and concerns to Instructional Technology

    • Do not enter confidential district data into AI tools without a signed DPA
    • Apply district procurement principles when evaluating new tools: privacy compliance, accessibility, and bias mitigation must be evaluated before adoption
    • Ensure AI-assisted community communications are reviewed for accuracy, bias, and appropriateness

    • Communicate explicit AI expectations on each assignment using the NPS AI Assessment Scale
    • Provide AI literacy instruction before students use any approved AI tool
    • Design assessments that make student thinking visible
    • Do not use AI to independently grade student work or make high-stakes decisions
    • Do not enter student names into AI tools to generate feedback without a signed DPA

    • Do not enter mental health info, counseling notes, or sensitive records into any AI tool without a signed data privacy agreement.
    • Do not use AI to make or substantially inform referrals, eligibility determinations, or student recommendations. 
    • Do not use AI to generate or finalize high-stakes decisions including RTI/IMTSS determinations, or course placements.

    • Includes providers delivering services to NPS students under an IEP or 504 from outside agencies including but not limited to Teachers of the Deaf, Vision and Mobility Specialists, Adaptive PE Teachers, and Collateral Contacts
    • Norton's data privacy standards apply to all individuals accessing NPS student information, regardless of employing agency: you are bound by the same FERPA and IDEA protections as district staff.
    • Do not enter NPS student data into any AI tool without first confirming that a signed data privacy agreement exists covering your specific use.
    • Your agency's own AI policies do not supersede Norton's requirements when working with NPS students.

    • Includes but is not limited to: Speech-Language Pathologists, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists, ELL Educators, Reading Specialists, School Psychologists, Team Chairpersons, and School Nurses
    • Your roles involve uniquely sensitive student data: clinical notes, evaluation records, health information, and eligibility determinations carry the strongest FERPA and IDEA protections and must never be entered into an unapproved AI tool.
    • Do not use AI to make or substantially inform eligibility determinations, therapeutic recommendations, or evaluation conclusions. Do not use AI to generate or finalize high-stakes decisions including RTI/IMTSS determinations, or course placements.
    • AI may be used to generate draft IEP goal language as long as it is based on general disability categories or grade levels and never uses student-identifying information. Always ensure that AI-generated drafts are customized to meet the unique, individual needs of the student rather than relying on generic output. in the final IEP document.

    • Always follow a student’s IEP or 504 plan. Individualized accommodations and assistive technology supersede any classroom AI stage designation.
    • If a teacher’s AI rules appear to conflict with a student’s required supports, consult a Special Education teacher or Administrator before limiting the student's access.
    • Apply strict privacy standards by never entering personally identifiable information (PII) or specific student disability details into any AI tool. If uncertain, ask before proceeding  or contact your supervisor, administrator, or the Instructional Technology Office.

    • Verify that any AI tool used to support IEP or 504 development is on the district's approved list before use with student data
    • Do not enter student names, disability categories, assessment scores, or IEP/504 content into any AI tool without a signed DPA — IEP data is among the most sensitive protected under FERPA and IDEA
    • AI may be used to generate draft IEP goal language as long as it is based on general disability categories or grade levels and never uses student-identifying information. Always ensure that AI-generated drafts are customized to meet the unique, individual needs of the student rather than relying on generic output. in the final IEP document.
    • All AI-generated content related to student programming must be reviewed and approved by the qualified professional responsible for that student's plan.
    • AI must support, not replace, the individualized planning process; final decisions about placement, services, and accommodations rest with the IEP team.
 
resources & review

Google Resources

Training & Professional Learning

NPS Data Privacy

Review Cycle

  • Annual review at the start of each school year
  • Mid-year updates communicated to all staff as needed
  • Feedback always welcome. Please contact the Instructional Technology Office

AI Task Force & PEAK Members

Suhaib Abdullahi, Student
Brian Ackerman, Asst. Superintendent
Suzanne Adams, Parent
Aisha Alchaar, Parent
Lori Andrade, LGN STEAM Teacher
Jennifer Attubato, Parent
Paul Barrette, JCS Principal
Kim Birkett, NHS English Teacher
Susie Cashton, LGN & HAY STEAM Teacher
Chris Cummings, NMS Grade 6 Teacher
Julie Durmis, Elementary Library Media Specialist
Kim Dwyer, NMS Grade 8 Teacher
TJ Flanagan, NHS Principal
Patrick Garber, Parent
Skylar Garber, Student
Vincent Hayward, NMS Principal
Jess Holicker, NMS Grade 6 Teacher
Kara Husselbee, LGN Kindergarten Teacher
Stephanie Lerner, NMS Special Education Teacher
Melanie Mathews, Parent
Kerri Murphy, NHS Computer Science Teacher
Liz Norcliffe, JCS Speech & Language
Rachel Pilotte, NHS Business & Technology
Bobby Portway, NHS Business & Technology Teacher
Jennifer Skowronek, NHS Business & Technology Teacher
Joe Spremulli, NMS Grade 8 Teacher
Robert Werner, Parent
Karen Winsper, Director of Instructional Technology
Jennifer Young, NHS Library Media Specialist
Kim Zajac, NMS Speech & Language
This guidance document was developed with the assistance of Generative AI tools and reviewed and approved by Norton Public Schools staff.

Norton Public Schools  ·  AI Guidance for Staff  ·  2025–2026 School Year

Issued by the Office of Instructional Technology  ·  Questions? Contact Karen Winsper, Director of Instructional Technology

This is a living document. Reviewed annually and updated mid-year as needed.