{"resourceId":"cherry-hill-nj-five-level-ai-use-policy-schoolai-no-opt-out-20261023","versions":[{"version":"external-8da829c3d11dcd3155381c8e49847bcf8540dad6c677e7edd96baf2bb34f092a","resource":{"id":"cherry-hill-nj-five-level-ai-use-policy-schoolai-no-opt-out-20261023","title":"Cherry Hill (NJ) approves five-level AI use policy: default Level 0, SchoolAI as sole approved platform, parent opt-out dropped over equity concerns","organization":"Cherry Hill Public Schools (reported by Cherry Hill Courier)","sector":"K-12 district AI use policy and approved platform","geography":"Cherry Hill, New Jersey, United States","publishedAt":"October 23, 2026 (Cherry Hill Courier); board approval October 13","publicationDate":"2026-10-23","eventDate":"2026-10-13","sourceName":"Cherry Hill Courier","sourceLabel":"Local news report","sourceUrl":"https://cherryhillcourier.com/articles/cherry-hill-board-approves-five-level-ai-use-policy-mvjcpdjd","evidenceClass":"independent-reporting","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["governance-procurement","operating-model","data-security"],"finding":"Cherry Hill's school board approved a policy on October 13 for the district's 10,919 students that assigns every assignment an AI use level from 0 to 4; teachers must state the level in writing, and the default is Level 0. Level 4 allows AI throughout an assignment if students document prompts and show their thinking. Pre-K and kindergarten students may not use AI independently, second graders may do whole-class activities under supervision, grades 4-5 may use AI on specific assignments but not to generate original work, and high schoolers can use all levels at a teacher's direction. High-stakes tests default to no AI. SchoolAI is the approved platform; the superintendent said its closed system lets teachers monitor interactions in real time. The board dropped a parent opt-out after equity concerns, with officials saying monitoring addresses safety; a parent called the policy half-baked. An AI coordinator maintains the approved list and leads an annual review by April 1.","sledRelevance":"An adopted, grade-banded policy that relies on one monitored platform instead of parent opt-out, a contrast with opt-in models elsewhere and with neighboring Haddonfield's elementary ban.","evidence":"Local news report citing The Philadelphia Inquirer and district statements; no usage or outcome data.","architectureImplications":"Single closed platform with real-time teacher monitoring of student interactions. Interpretation: monitoring capacity becomes the main safety control.","governanceImplications":"Board policy, AI coordinator, annual review by April 1, approved platform list; policy applies on personal devices off campus when students do district work.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Parents asked for stronger privacy guardrails; the article does not describe data terms with SchoolAI.","caveats":"Secondary report of an October 13 approval first reported by the Inquirer (not opened); earlier Cherry Hill community-session coverage is archived, but this is the adopted policy. Superintendent's safety claim about monitoring is untested.","streamIds":["k12"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: Cherry Hill adopted a five-level AI rule set and chose one monitored platform, dropping parent opt-out. That signals demand for tools that support per-assignment AI levels and teacher monitoring. A bounded offer is help configuring levels and review routines. Do not claim monitoring makes student AI safe or that the levels improve learning; no results are reported.","engineering":"Engineering framing: the policy needs per-assignment AI levels, grade-band restrictions, prompt documentation at Level 4 and real-time teacher monitoring in a closed platform. Pre-sales should ask whether levels can be enforced in the tool or only stated, and what data SchoolAI retains. Proof of value is a configuration that blocks AI at Level 0 and captures prompts at Level 4.","delivery":"Delivery framing: teachers must label every assignment, the AI coordinator maintains the platform list and runs an annual review, and staff need training on ethics and SchoolAI. Ownership sits with curriculum and instruction plus the AI coordinator. Acceptance means levels appear on assignments and the April review happens. Risks are unlabeled work defaulting inconsistently, monitoring load on teachers and parent pushback without opt-out."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"A district with a level-based AI policy needs tools and routines that make the levels and monitoring work in classrooms.","stakeholders":["Superintendent","Director of curriculum and instruction","AI coordinator","Teachers","Parents"],"discoveryQuestions":["Can AI levels be enforced in the platform?","How much monitoring time do teachers have?","What data does the approved platform retain?","How will the April review be measured?"],"valueHypothesis":"Tool support for assignment levels could make policy compliance easier; not measured here.","potentialEngagement":"Configure assignment-level AI settings and an annual review rubric.","unsupportedClaims":["No evidence monitoring ensures safety.","No learning outcome data.","No usage figures."]},"engineering":{"fit":"Fits closed AI platforms with teacher dashboards and assignment-level controls.","architectureIntegration":"Map Levels 0-4 to platform settings by assignment and grade band; capture prompts for documentation.","prerequisites":["Approved platform contract","Grade-band rostering","Teacher training"],"constraints":["Policy applies on personal devices for district work","Pre-K and K no independent use","High-stakes tests default to no AI"],"security":"Clarify retention and access for monitored student interactions.","proofOfValue":["Level 0 blocks AI","Level 4 captures prompts","Teacher dashboard shows interactions"]},"delivery":{"work":"Roll out assignment-level AI labeling, platform training and annual review.","dependencies":["Teacher adoption","Platform configuration","AI coordinator capacity"],"ownership":"Department of curriculum and instruction with the district AI coordinator.","skillsAdoption":"Staff training on ethical AI use and the SchoolAI platform.","governanceCheckpoints":["Approved platform list maintained","Annual review by April 1","Parent question process"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: every assignment states an AI level","Proposed: annual review published by April 1","Proposed: parent questions answered within a set time"],"risks":["Teacher monitoring load","Inconsistent labeling","Parent pushback without opt-out"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-10-23T22:09:21-05:00","enrichedAt":"2026-10-23T22:12:24-05:00","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Teacher training on ethics and platform; teachers carry labeling and monitoring work.","procurementImplications":"One approved platform (SchoolAI) maintained by an AI coordinator.","operatingModelImplications":"Teacher-set levels per assignment with a district default of no AI.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://cherryhillcourier.com/articles/cherry-hill-board-approves-five-level-ai-use-policy-mvjcpdjd","referenceExcerpt":"If a teacher does not state a level, the default is Level 0.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}