A move by the Haverford Township School District to buy artificial intelligence tools for students and teachers has been met with protest from parents who fear the technology will erode learning.
At a meeting last week, the Haverford school board voted 5-3 to approve contracts with School AI, which features AI “tutors,” and Brisk, which automates tasks for teachers, like developing quizzes and giving students feedback.
While administrators said the tools wouldn’t supplant teaching and learning, critics said it was inevitable that AI would be used inappropriately — making it easier for kids to avoid work.
“The idea of putting chatbots on computers — I don’t even care what age. I’m pretty disgusted by that,” said Christine Seewagen, a district parent of rising 12th and 7th graders.
The district already struggles to manage technology in the classroom, said Seewagen, who said her older child has observed students run math questions through an AI tool on their phones. Her younger child, meanwhile, had a teacher who directed students to upload essays to an AI tool to get feedback, Seewagen said.
“They’re just using AI, and not really being instructed on how to do it,” Seewagen said in an interview.
Administrators said they were recommending buying AI tools in part because teachers are already using freely available versions, and they want to “eliminate free roaming around platforms,” Robert Anderson, the district’s technology director, said at the June 18 board meeting.
Haverford’s superintendent, Matthew Hayes, said the School AI contract would “allow us to have a resource so that as we go through the process of the strategic plan and looking at all the implications down the line,” the district could begin teaching AI “thoughtfully, responsibly, ethically.”
He added: “And also reducing screen time,” without providing further details.
The controversy around AI in Haverford is the latest example of area parents pushing back on what they see as excessive and unchecked technology use in schools.
In Lower Merion, parents have pushed to opt their kids out of district-assigned laptops or tablets; the district is planning changes to reduce usage for younger students, but has told parents they cannot opt out entirely. Parents in other districts are also raising concerns about too much Chromebook use.
In Haverford, some parents said they were caught off guard by the proposal to adopt technology they felt posed risks to their kids.
Patrick Burland, the parent of an incoming 10th grader and 6th grader, noted he’d had to sign numerous permission slips for his younger child to participate in end-of-year celebrations.
“Apparently, sugar requires a signature, but cognitively rewiring her brain does not,” Burland told the board.
Anderson said Haverford had been considering how to incorporate AI for years. He said the district sought feedback from teachers, including through an AI working group, before proposing the contracts.
Board members who voted for the AI tools, meanwhile, said kids needed to learn how to use the technology responsibly.
“Not acknowledging that it’s here … we don’t gain anything, right? We actually lose and we put ourselves farther behind because it’s not going anywhere,” said board member LaTonia Lee.
But some raised questions about what the district was planning to do with the tools.
Dave Schwartz, another board member, said he would support teaching kids about AI. But the district hasn’t said how it plans to do that, he said.
“We’ve been talking very much in vague terms, and I can’t vote for something that I don’t understand,” Schwartz said.
A district spokesperson did not respond to a question this week about examples of how School AI might be used.
Board member Chris Shelton asked Anderson about criticism that the tool’s “historical figure” chatbots were giving students inaccurate information. (Last year, School AI acknowledged that responses from an Anne Frank character “didn’t provide critical historical details about the Nazis’ role in the Holocaust.”)
Anderson called it “unfortunate” that the company had promoted the historical figures feature, but said the district “would have the option to potentially not use something like that.”
John Flagler, a board member and English teacher, said he understood the burdens placed on teachers, “but I also believe there are lines that should not be crossed.”
The suggestion that grading papers is a “menial task” that could be offloaded to AI “is an insult to both the teacher and the student,” Flagler said, calling grading essential to teachers learning about students.
Administrators said Brisk wouldn’t be used for grading, but would provide “first-level feedback” — informing students they’re missing a topic sentence, for instance, said Meridith Herne, the district’s technology integration coordinator.
“We insist that our teachers read it over and modify it so it’s in their own voice,” Herne said of Brisk’s feedback. Hayes said that 97 district teachers already use a free version of the tool.
He said the tool was not meant to replace teachers.
“That’s not my intent at all,” Hayes said, describing Brisk as “an option for individuals who want exposure to it.”
He noted that the contracts with Brisk, for $22,260, and School AI, for $12,999, were each limited to one year.
Teachers will be trained on the School AI platform, Anderson said; it will be up to them to decide whether they want to use it. He said the district envisions the platform being used in high school and “potentially” middle school, but isn’t planning for it to be used in elementary schools.
Parents like Burland and Seewagen, who said like-minded parents have been organizing on social media, weren’t persuaded.
“It does not feel like to me they have put any guardrails on,” Burland said in an interview. He questioned whether the district would have considered turning off School AI chatbots, for instance, had it not been asked at the board meeting.
Seewagen said many parents who have learned about the AI plans aren’t happy.
“It did not go under the radar,” she said.
