AI enters the Richland Two school board race: candidates still don't know what to do with it in the classroom

By Post and Courier · November 2, 2026.

Ten candidates, two of them incumbents, are running for four seats on the Richland Two school board, the district in northeastern Richland County, South Carolina. The election is on November 3. According to the newspaper, the district has 20 elementary schools, seven middle schools and five high schools.

The main issues are falling enrollment as charter schools expand, infighting on the board and the use of technology. On the infighting, the board censured its secretary, Monica Elkin Scott, in April after a motion by Joe Trapp, who accused her of violating the code of conduct. These are Trapp's claims; the article does not include Elkin Scott's side. The newspaper was unable to reach five candidates.

On technology, the article sets out five positions on AI and Chromebooks (school laptops). Trapp, the board's vice chair, says no studies support cutting back on technology, but he believes there is "little room for AI in K-12" because students can misuse it. Niki Porter, the board chair, says the board is already working on an AI policy with input from stakeholders and supports structured use in secondary school, with teacher guidance and transparency. Anthony "AJ" Bracy wants students to rely less on technology and warns that AI can give inaccurate information. Lamont Canfall Jr. wants to cut unnecessary use, especially in the early grades. Shannon Morgan prefers a balanced approach: preparing students for technology rather than shielding them from it.

Our take: what matters is not who wins but how the debate is framed. Nearly all the candidates treat AI as a discipline problem (cheating, inaccuracies, loss of skills), and few see it as a teaching opportunity. That is understandable in the short term: teachers do not yet have reliable tools to assess AI-assisted work, and the risks are real. But leaving "little room" for AI in K-12 leaves students without the literacy they will need.

Porter's position is the closest to what we advocate: clear rules, academic integrity and a gradual, age-based approach. That last point fits with what Canfall wants for the early grades, where reading on paper, handwriting and solving problems on their own remain the foundation. The two ideas do not contradict each other. And Morgan's closing point, that technology should enhance learning without replacing the teacher, is the one most likely to hold up over time.

Across the U.S., school districts are improvising AI policies one election at a time. In the long run, a personalized AI tutor could be one of the most powerful tools against educational inequality. Getting there requires today's boards, with shrinking budgets and tense meetings, to neither shut the door out of fear nor open it without clear criteria. It is worth watching what policy the newly elected board adopts.