6. Regular Meeting May 05, 2026

This episode recaps the May 5th, 2026 regular meeting of the Cambridge School Committee. It includes a discussion on AI in schools, both generally, and specific to the work being done by the CPS AI working group.  

***Just a quick note that I know I said "IA" once instead of "AI" but I'm trusting the listeners to understand. :)

Links

Agenda

Slides (not currently available, but I will link when they are)

Meeting portal

Massachusetts inter-district school choice program

Draft 26/27 Calendar

Current AI Guidance Document (from Sept. 16, 2025)

The website for this podcast is CSC30.com

You can contact the podcast by emailing CambridgeSC30@gmail.com

The School Committee email address is SchoolCom@cpsd.us

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:03

Hello. I'm Jess Gutz. Welcome to School Committee in 30 Minutes or Less, the unofficial recap podcast of the Cambridge School Committee. Today I will be talking about the regular meeting that took place on Tuesday, May 5th. All members were present at different times throughout the meeting. Member Harding wasn't there when the meeting began, and Member DePalo Santos was absent later in the meeting. But otherwise, everyone was in attendance. This was a fairly quick meeting, coming in at two and a half hours. There were three public comments, one presentation, 26 contracts, one award, three recommendations from the superintendent, and two subcommittee reports to approve. Okay, so the meeting started a little after six with the usual pledge of allegiance and roll call vote for attendance. Apparently, the first item on the agenda was a public hearing on the state's school choice system. I say apparently because this did cause some mild confusion, and because a similar situation occurred at the March 17th meeting, I'm going to take a moment to explain. There are specific issues that the school committee is legally required to hold public hearings on. I don't know the complete list, but at the March 17th meeting, it was the budget, and at this meeting it was opting out of the state school choice program. As far as I can tell, Cambridge has never taken part in this program, which is a system for attending public schools outside the district in which you reside. Opting out of it means we don't allow students from other districts to attend Cambridge Public Schools. But here is where I have seen the confusion come in. When the agenda and the chair refer to this part of the meeting as a public hearing, I think that implies that something is going to be presented and explained, or maybe even commented on. But what it really means is that if you want to make a public comment on that issue, you sign up specifically for that first session of public comment. At both this meeting and the March 17th meeting, there were people who signed up for public comment who were confused by this. Anywho, at this meeting, nobody had actually signed up for the so-called public hearing, and so they went on with the regular public comment session. There were three public commenters. Jia Jing Li, a CPS parent and former school committee candidate, voiced a governance concern regarding the lack of ongoing evaluation of decisions made by the district. She cited the many contracts being renewed, asking how vendors are chosen and evaluated, especially since the publicly available recommendation documents are sparse. She also mentioned former Kennedy Longfellow students, asking how or if there is a plan to do any long-term follow-up with these students. John Summers, also a CPS parent, took issue with comments made by member DePalo Santos on a private parent listserv. He found her comments about the superintendent, quote, obnoxious at best and fascistic at worst, and asked the committee if they were going to do something about it. During his comment, there was some disagreement between him and the chair as to whether or not his comments pertained to an agenda item, as is currently required by the school committee rules. On January 20th, the school committee referred motion 2614 to the Governance Subcommittee. This motion proposed changes to the public comment rules, including allowing the public to comment on non-agenda items. But other than being lightly discussed at the February 25th Governance Subcommittee meeting, there has been no action on it. And lastly, Paula Robusco, also a CPS parent, commented on Ahern Field, the green space behind the 158th Spring Street building. She said that families and the local community should be allowed to weigh in on the future of Ahern Field, and she endorsed the use of real grass instead of turf. Then the Student School Committee members reported on various events and happenings at the high school. These included AP test season, a scholarship ceremony, and other senior celebrations. After this update, all the records from previous meetings were approved. There were no reconsiderations, unfinished business, or awaiting reports, and so they moved on to the superintendent's agenda. The superintendent's agenda began with a presentation by two different panels. First, members of the Department of Information, Communication and Technology Systems, and second, the founders of a group called Innovators for Purpose, and two CRLS students who currently take part in the program. In the actual meeting, the ICTS panel presented to the committee, and then the IFP panel presented, and then the ICTS panel came back and answered questions from the members. For the sake of simplicity, I'm just going to report on one panel and then the next. First, the ICTS panel presented on the CPS district-wide AI Working Group. The panel was made up of three CPS employees, Dr. Lee McCann, the Chief Information Officer, Gina Rotten, the Director of Educational Technology, and Matt Landry, the Media Arts Manager. Their presentation summarized the work currently being done by the working group, including professional development for educators and engagement opportunities for students. I have linked to the slides in the show notes, and you can consult them for more detail. The panel mentioned that the working group membership is diverse with the intention of representing the wide range of experiences within CPS, including educators, students, and administrators. They named three next steps. First, figuring out how to get the time to implement media and AI literacy across all schools. They want to both weave media literacy into current curricula and also create additional specific digital literacy courses. Second, distributing the new version of the CPS AI guidance document and continuing to iterate the document on an ongoing basis. Third, family engagement, including resources for families that make clear what CPS believes good media literacy is, especially given that kids only spend 20% of their time in school. Before the panel answered questions, the superintendent spoke about how AI and broad media literacy are intertwined. He mentioned a recent situation in a school where an AI technology had been used in a way that violated the code of conduct, making the point that even though AI is a new thing, misconduct is as old as time, and the values of integrity and humanity need to be centered always. It's just that now this also includes how AI is used in schools. The school committee members then asked the panelists a few questions. The mayor asked about the timeline for next steps, including when the updated IA guidance document will be available. Dr. McCann listed a few next steps that were planned for the summer, including professional development, mapping out what media literacy skills should look like across all grade levels, and how to engage with families. He acknowledged that a specific timeline had not yet been determined. He and the superintendent said the revised guidance document would be available by the end of June. Then Member Hudson asked the panel why students are unclear on the consequences for cheating and or plagiarism, especially as it pertains to AI. She also commented that she found this conversation boring and low energy compared to how important the topic is. She said the work being done around AI is inadequate. Ms. Rotten said that there is an academic dishonesty policy, but there may be the need for more specific language about AI. The superintendent said the energy and enthusiasm for this topic is actually high, and Dr. McCann added that when it comes down to it, the best approach to managing AI in schools is a high quality education. He said that effectively teaching AI literacy might require new modalities, such as project-based learning. Mr. Landry said that several members of the working group want to keep going and so they're going to keep at it. Then Member Jacomar said he wished they had heard from classroom educators to understand their point of view. He appreciated the focus on media literacy and project-based learning. He asked the panel if, for the near future, they are viewing AI literacy as a means to an end or an end within itself. Dr. McCam responded that, especially at the high school, they need to define the skill set that CPS wants kids to graduate with. The challenge is that it will be changing constantly, so it is unclear how to get ahead of that curve. He said he didn't have the exact answer. But that's the situation that everyone is in, and the important thing is to be open to change and nimble in response to the evolution of technologies. Member Harding asked if there was the chance that CPS would eventually need an AI-specific integrity policy, instead of just adding AI to the current academic code of conduct. He also asked if any work was being done to inform families about AI and or AI policies. Dr. McCann said that most school districts are currently just adding AI to their existing policies, but it is entirely possible that AI will require its own policy in the future.

unknown 10:03

Ms.

SPEAKER_00 10:03

Rotten noted that it is important to keep the conversation grounded in academic integrity because that's a clear way for students to connect with it. She mentioned that the working group had been thinking about an AI acknowledgement policy for any time students or teachers use AI to complete their work. She also said that AI was included in a Caregiver Academy presentation for upper schools and the high school, but she recognized that the family engagement piece needs to be expanded. Member Harding said he was pleased to see the work being done and suggested the working group link up with the city's after-school programs. Next, Vice Chair Duby thanked the panelists and asked what they needed from the school committee to continue their work. She also made the point that barriers to engagement in schoolwork might increase the unthoughtful use of AI and asked how to get to the root causes of how and why students might end up depending on AI for quick answers. The superintendent responded by saying that what the district really needs now is to spread awareness and build capacity among educators. And Dr. McCann said that education is complex and figuring out those root causes is a job for everyone. Ms. Rotten mentioned a project at the high school where students compare the experiences of working on a project with and without AI. And Mr. Landry noted that this is not just a CPS issue. The entire city and almost every professional field is grappling with it. Lastly, Chair Weinstein asked how to make sure that all voices, including students and caregivers, are included in this conversation. And Dr. McCann said that each of the panelists had been in classrooms and they've had students at the working group meetings, but that the community work has not started and that is the next step. After this, the founders of Innovators for Purpose, Michael and Donna Dawson, joined the meeting with two CRLS sophomores who work with the program. IFP is a design and innovation studio that aims to energize and engage young people around design, science, and technology. It was originally started at the Fletcher Maynard Academy and is now based at the Cambridge Public Library. Currently, they are working with 125 students and focusing on AI, specifically asking the question, who gets to shape the future of AI? The Dawsons had four comments on the state of AI at CPS as presented by the ICTS panel. One, they affirmed the need for investing in professional development, saying that educators need to be comfortable with AI. Two, they thought the moves towards educating students about AI were good, but perhaps not enough. They believe that while it is important to train students in becoming informed users of AI, there is more value in teaching kids to create and shape the future of AI. 3. They agreed that the guidance from the district will need to be ongoing and iterative, and four, they strongly endorsed family engagement efforts. Then the two students spoke about their work with AI. They focused on engaging with AI technologies in the most productive ways, that is, using it as a tool to enhance learning, not for cheating or replacing their learning. They suggested that AI literacy be included in school curricula and especially into the health curriculum at CRLS. The school committee members then had the chance to ask some questions. Vice Chair Duby asked the students what experiences they have had in CPS that have helped prepare them for this work and also how other students could benefit from the lessons they have learned working with IFP. They said they used research skills that were learned throughout their education in CPS, but were missing explicit lessons on how to use AI effectively and not fall back on it for cheating. They said they had gained that particular knowledge from working with IFP and felt that their peers would benefit from it. The superintendent thanked the students for being there and said he had been struck by the idea of thinking of this as a health and wellness challenge. Then Member Harding said he really appreciated the work of IFP and asked if they were connected with any of the youth centers around town. Mr. Dawson said there are a lot of opportunities to engage with IFP, and also that they are currently talking with local youth programs. Member Jacomar also appreciated the work of IFP and asked if they had ideas for promoting substantive AI literacy in students. Mr. Dawson said the key is to move beyond passive learning to active. He endorsed giving students the opportunity to internalize their research through projects. And the student panelists agreed, emphasizing a need for their peers to not only understand how to use AI tools, but also how these tools actually work. Member Hudson asked the students what they understood the current CRLS policy on AI to be, and what the consequences for getting caught using AI on schoolwork are, saying she was trying to get to whether or not there is a broad understanding among students about the AI policies at the high school. She also asked the students if they felt like they could build AI tools and if their elementary and upper school education helped them gain this knowledge. The students basically said that obviously you are not supposed to use AI to replace your work or thinking, but that most teachers are fine with using it for tedious tasks like formatting references. They said they understood there to be serious consequences for plagiarism. They also both felt that they had the skills to build AI technologies, but those skills did not come from their time in CPS. Lastly, student committee member Jama asked if there are currently AI courses at the high school and which other courses could incorporate lessons about using AI. The student panelists mentioned AP computer science principles as having a teacher who had talked to them specifically about AI and also ways to use it effectively. They suggested that teachers of the more challenging AP courses make a point of talking about AI at the beginning of the class so that expectations are clear. They noted that there was one class that covers AI specifically, but said it was more of a senior class and again suggested that AI literacy be included in the health curriculum so that students get to it sooner in their time at the high school. After the presentation, the superintendent went on with the rest of his agenda, which included four quick points. First, he recommended the committee vote to opt out of the state school choice program that I discussed earlier. And just in case there was any confusion, Chair Weinstein jumped in to clarify that this vote was not about controlled choice, the Cambridge specific way of assigning school enrollment, but rather the state's interdistrict program. Second, the superintendent said that although it was on the agenda, he had not anticipated the committee voting on the new academic year calendar until the next meeting. He noted that members have the most up-to-date version now, but there are some things to discuss about the calendar going forward, so he asked them to consider moving the vote to the next regular meeting on May 19th. Third, he mentioned that many, many listening and community engagement sessions have taken place over the last few weeks. The sessions took a variety of formats and covered several key topics. He said attendance had been fluctuating and promotion had been plentiful, and he encouraged folks to attend. I'll just note that the final such session is taking place tomorrow, Thursday, May 14th, at 6 p.m. at the King Open Cambridge Street Upper School Campus, and the topics on the schedule are the district plan and the future of 158 Spring Street. Lastly, he said that the searches to fill open leadership positions throughout the district are moving along well and should be completed soon. He anticipates making recommendations this month. As far as I can tell, the major open positions are principals at CRLS and the Fletcher Maynard Academy, as well as the Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Education and the Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools. After these announcements, the chair asked the committee if they had any questions, and there were none. The chair praised the many listening sessions, saying he was grateful for them and suggesting they become a more regular thing, and the superintendent said that was exactly what he was planning to do. Next up was the consent agenda. The consent agenda is made up of recommendations that the school committee votes on for which there is no expectation they will not be approved. The chair asked the committee if anybody wanted to pull anything from the consent agenda for discussion. Member Harding pulled item 2667 regarding the academic calendar for next year, as the superintendent had previously requested. No other items were pulled, and so they voted unanimously to approve the balance of the consent agenda. I think there is value in noting that although this portion of the meeting went by very quickly, this vote to pass the rest of the consent agenda included a lot of decisions. They opted out of the state school choice program, which we always do, and they approved transferring funds between statutory budget categories to respond to increased transportation costs for students experiencing homelessness. In addition, they approved just over $3 million in contracts, mostly for computer software and special education services. The vote was followed by a few thoughts on the calendar from the superintendent. He noted that the current draft for next year's calendar is consistent with current practices and that school starts earlier than usual given when the Labor Day holiday falls this year. That is, the school year starts before Labor Day when it usually begins after Labor Day. He also said they had made some strategic decisions around professional development scheduling. Lastly, he said he wanted to call attention to the fact that because of the many school closures for various religious holidays, the Cambridge school year ends later than it does in most neighboring districts. Next year, the currently planned last day of school is June 22nd. He sees this as a potential problem to be solved, especially since, as he said, we cannot control the weather and snow days may push the last day back even further. All of that to say that there are things to think about at the next meeting before they vote on the calendar. Member Harding made a motion to postpone the item to the next meeting, and everyone agreed. Then there was the Super Quick School Committee agenda that involved approving two subcommittee reports. These reports from the Communications and Community Relations Subcommittee and the Special Education and Student Supports Subcommittee should be available through the School Committee meeting portal soon. They ended the meeting with a few quick announcements. Vice Chair Duby acknowledged that it was Teacher and Nurse Appreciation Week and thanked the teachers and nurses of Cambridge Public Schools. She also said that April break had been Executive Assistant Appreciation Week, so she took the opportunity to thank the school committee secretaries, and the committee had flowers and cards for. Them. The superintendent also thanked educators as well as the various community groups at schools that organized Acts of Kindness for Appreciation Week. Chair Weinstein mentioned that with the end of the year there is a lot going on with the visual and performing arts, and the mayor said she would be planting trees with students for Arbor Week and invited the community to attend. She also mentioned that the City Council will be holding a public hearing on the budget the next day, May 6th. And that's all folks. A fairly quick meeting with minimal work from the school committee. I especially appreciated the presentation because I am a bit of a knee-jerk AI skeptic, and I really appreciated the knowledge and perspective I gained from it. The next regular meeting is Tuesday, May 19th, and before then, remember there is a community listening session tomorrow, Thursday the 14th, and the 15th is the day the superintendent is supposed to have his final list of options for the Spring Street building, though I don't know if that will be public. Okay, I'm dragging out the old soapbox now, so if you only came for the report, thanks for listening, and I hope to have you next time. If you want to hear what it sounds like when I dominate dinner table discussion in my house, stay tuned. Okay, in order of appearance, here are some thoughts on this meeting. First, this issue with public hearings at the beginning of regular meetings. It's so simple, and yet the presentation of it is confusing, which is emblematic of so many little things about how the school committee works. My goodness people, just explain to the public what is going on and define it in the call to meeting and agenda. A simple statement like at the start of this meeting, the school committee will hear public comment pertaining to such and such before proceeding with general public comment. Simple. Next, I want to uphold Jia Jing Li's public comment. I think she asked excellent questions and I also wonder where the evidence and evaluation is on many of the contracts paid out and decisions made by the district. She is correct that the recommendation documents are woefully short on detail, and I have to say that watching this committee give no questions asked approval to three plus million dollars of spending sure does seem like rubber stamping. In all fairness, it is possible that the members have interrogated these items more fully with the superintendent before voting, and that the district leadership has an evaluation system in place. But there is no way for the public to be assured that someone somewhere is checking that each contract is going to the best vendor and that the services rendered are being evaluated before renewal. And now the listserv. Lisai. If you are unfamiliar with this message board, it is called Cambridge Public School Parents and it is moderated by a former Cambridge Port School Parent. This group was originally started in 2011 during the tumult of the innovation agenda days when concerned families wanted a way to connect with other families from across the district. The Listserve is a space for public school stakeholders to converse with and learn from each other. But, like almost every other online space, I'm thinking of Reddit and Nextdoor, for example, it has a tendency towards histrionics, half-truths, and just general ug. The Listserv is not CPS official or public. It has no oversight by or connection with the city government, the school committee, or the school district administration. It is not hard to join the Listserv as long as you are somehow connected with Cambridge Public Schools, but you do have to ask to join and membership is approved by a private citizen, which is why I say it is not public. For what it's worth, I've learned some valuable things from the Listserv over the years, but not enough to want to pay full attention or get regular email alerts. Just as a quick sidebar, the innovation agenda was what turned our K through 8 schools into K through 5 schools and created the 6th through 8th grade upper schools. If you were not in Cambridge or did not have school-age children in 2011, you might have missed this, but I can assure you it was a time of high drama throughout the district. I only knew about the innovation agenda through friends with older children, but it comes up in much, if not most of the talk about today's upper schools. Mostly because the many promises of the innovation agenda were not fully realized and the city seems to think that building buildings is the same thing as creating schools. I happen to believe that schools are more than that. I also happen to believe that the three politicians who voted for the innovation agenda and are still serving the public should have some answers as to why the upper schools of today do not match the original plans as laid out in the innovation agenda. But that is not why I'm talking about the listserv. I'm talking about the listserv because it came up in public comment. John Summers voiced concern about a post by Member DePalo Santos. Now, I have decided not to read all the back and forth that took place because my beef is not with the details of this particular skirmish. But I do have beef, and here is what it's about. First, the listserv is absolutely not the place for school committee business. It is an exclusive list that is not representative. There are just over 1,600 listserv members and roughly 7,000 students in CPS, so there is no way that the listserv represents a complete picture of CPS stakeholders or the actual reality of decision making by the school committee. If individual members want to post on the listserv in their capacity as caregivers or otherwise concerned community members, I suppose I can't fully argue with that. Indeed, I am certain that every school committee member keeps an eye on the listserv whether they are posting or not. However, as soon as they put on their elected representative hats and start opining, arguing, or presenting themselves as representing the school committee as a whole, even if just through implication, then I have a problem. Especially when this posting takes place in the middle of an actual school committee meeting. The second thing I feel strongly about is that while I don't agree with school committee members being on the listserv, I do think the committee and the district should take notes from the fact that it exists. The listserv was created by CPS caregivers who wanted to be in better contact with other families throughout the district. And I believe this is one of the reasons it remains popular today. Families throughout the district want to know what happens at other schools. They want to know if other families are having similar experiences. School council members and other volunteers want the chance to learn from each other, and caregivers want to use the parenting hive mind to do well by their children. In addition, many people turn to the listserv for basic information about things like busing and schedules at the high school. The listserv exists and persists to fill a need in the CPS community, and I think the school committee should pay attention to that and take the lead on fixing it. This is related to my next thought. During the meeting, Chair Weinstein praised the superintendent's recent push on community engagement via listening sessions and community meetings and suggested that that kind of thing become more common and regular. I completely agree. I have called on the school committee to do this themselves more than once, and I really wish they would. I will say it again and again. We vote for school committee members. They are meant to represent the will of the people, and therefore they need to know the will of the people, and so they need to talk to them. Office hours, listening sessions, invitations to talk on specific subjects at regular meetings are all tools that could be used. My last thought for this meeting is a question. Should the school committee meet on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month instead of the first and the third? I'm sure there are major details to such a switch that I am not aware of, but the current setup means that there is always a meeting during February break, April break, and on the first day of school. This results in two months when the committee only meets once, and at least one meeting guaranteed to have all involved, not at their best. Anyway, that's all I have for today. I hope the sunshine and spring blooms are doing your souls well, and thanks for listening.