From the K–12 edition of October 23, 2026
Cherry Hill (NJ) approves five-level AI use policy: default Level 0, SchoolAI as sole approved platform, parent opt-out dropped over equity concerns
Cherry Hill Public Schools (reported by Cherry Hill Courier) · K-12 district AI use policy and approved platform · Cherry Hill, New Jersey, United States
- Publisher
- Cherry Hill Courier
- Original publication
- October 23, 2026 (Cherry Hill Courier); board approval October 13
- Source retrieved
- 2026-10-24
- Event date
- 2026-10-13
What happened
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.
Why it matters
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 and measured results
Local news report citing The Philadelphia Inquirer and district statements; no usage or outcome data.
Limitations and uncertainty
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.
Put this evidence to work
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation, grounded in this source. Enriched 2026-10-23; this does not change the original publication date. Each role follows the same checklist so takeaways compare across sources.
Sales
Role takeaway
- Customer problem
- 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
- Discovery questions
- 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?
- Value hypothesis
- Tool support for assignment levels could make policy compliance easier; not measured here.
- Potential engagement
- Configure assignment-level AI settings and an annual review rubric.
- Unsupported claims
- No evidence monitoring ensures safety.
- No learning outcome data.
- No usage figures.
Pre-sales engineering
Role takeaway
- Fit
- Fits closed AI platforms with teacher dashboards and assignment-level controls.
- Architecture and integration
- 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.
- Proof of value
- Level 0 blocks AI
- Level 4 captures prompts
- Teacher dashboard shows interactions
Delivery
Role takeaway
- 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.
- Skills and adoption
- Staff training on ethical AI use and the SchoolAI platform.
- Governance checkpoints
- Approved platform list maintained
- Annual review by April 1
- Parent question process
- Acceptance criteria
- 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
Implementation considerations
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation across the operating dimensions a public-sector buyer must settle before this evidence becomes a design. Each note answers the question under its heading for this specific source.
Architecture and integration
What must connect, and where does the AI sit in the workflow?
Single closed platform with real-time teacher monitoring of student interactions. Interpretation: monitoring capacity becomes the main safety control.
Governance
Who approves, reviews and stays accountable for outcomes?
Board policy, AI coordinator, annual review by April 1, approved platform list; policy applies on personal devices off campus when students do district work.
Security and privacy
What data, permissions and controls need testing?
Parents asked for stronger privacy guardrails; the article does not describe data terms with SchoolAI.
Accessibility and workforce
Who is affected, and what skills or accommodations follow?
Teacher training on ethics and platform; teachers carry labeling and monitoring work.
Procurement
What should contracts, pricing and exit terms secure?
One approved platform (SchoolAI) maintained by an AI coordinator.
Operating model
Which teams own the service once it runs?
Teacher-set levels per assignment with a district default of no AI.
Publication history
- 2026-10-23K–12 · Issue 475 resources
Stable resource ID: cherry-hill-nj-five-level-ai-use-policy-schoolai-no-opt-out-20261023