Use AI to support teaching and learning without weakening student thinking, educator judgment, privacy, or equitable access.
Mississippi communities do not have identical needs, infrastructure, histories, or access. Use the evidence and tools as a starting point, then let local people shape the purpose, examples, pace, safeguards, and measures of success.
What should students learn or practice themselves?
Is the tool approved and age-appropriate?
Could any student information leave the school’s control?
Whose history or experience may be missing from the output?
How will an educator review the result and explain the decision?
Mississippi’s classroom guidance and UNESCO’s education guidance both point toward age-appropriate use, protected student data, human judgment, and a clear learning purpose.
Mississippi Department of Education
MDE frames classroom AI as both an instructional opportunity and a policy question for district leaders, school leaders, and teachers.
We use it to ground the playbook in learning goals, educator judgment, local policy, and classroom-ready expectations.
UNESCO
UNESCO calls for a human-centered, age-appropriate approach that protects data privacy, validates tools, and preserves learner agency.
We use it to support the privacy checks, age and access questions, human oversight, and emphasis on student thinking.
Sources and requirements can change. Check the publication date, read the original material, and confirm the rules that apply locally before making a consequential decision.
Use these four areas to plan classroom AI with students, families, and educators in mind.
AI may help educators brainstorm, differentiate, or create practice, but students still need sustained opportunities to read, write, calculate, create, and reason independently.
Use school-approved, age-appropriate systems and follow district safeguards. A student name, record, disability status, behavior note, or identifiable work sample should not be placed in an unapproved tool.
Ask whether examples reflect Mississippi students, histories, languages, and communities. Treat omissions and stereotypes as learning opportunities to investigate—not facts to repeat.
Educators—not automated scores or recommendations—remain responsible for instruction, grading, placement, discipline, safety, and family communication.
✓ Brainstorming examples for a teacher to review
✓ Creating practice questions from approved material
✓ Comparing an AI answer with primary sources
× Uploading student records or identifiable work
× Automatic grading, discipline, placement, or safety decisions
× Replacing a student’s required reading, writing, or reasoning
Choose the checklist, agreement, or family guide that fits your next conversation, then adapt it with your school community.
A before-during-after review for responsible instruction.
Plain-language expectations learners can understand and use.
The essentials schools should communicate before classroom use.
Compare an AI-generated mini-lesson on the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement with established historical sources.
Generate or provide a short sample lesson using no student information.
Pairs mark claims as verified, inaccurate, incomplete, or uncertain.
Identify whose perspective appears and whose contribution is minimized or missing.
Rewrite one section using evidence from established sources.
Share what a learner might misunderstand if the original were accepted uncritically.
What did human knowledge and source-checking add that the generated lesson could not provide on its own?
Share the plan with the people responsible for the work and the people who may be affected. Confirm local rules, protect private information, and name the person who can answer questions or correct a problem.