District staff presented a draft policy on the use of artificial intelligence in instruction and operations at the Newberg School District board meeting on Aug. 12, 2025.

Holly, who led the district’s AI work group, told the board the draft was based on a policy exemplar from the Oregon School Boards Association and had been developed with secondary teachers, administrators and two outside university presenters. The draft seeks to give classroom teachers “gatekeeping” authority over how students use AI, to permit staff use under vetted, district‑approved tools, and to pilot the policy for one year before making it permanent.

Board members pressed staff on several practical issues. Director Andy and others asked what tools the district would use to detect student AI use or plagiarism and whether the district could require hand‑produced assessments to verify student learning. Holly said some platforms already include AI‑use flags (she cited Google Classroom and the district’s Edgenuity platform) and that the district’s tech department would maintain a vetted list of approved tools; teachers would decide which approved tools are allowed in each classroom.

Board members raised privacy and FERPA concerns about putting student data into third‑party AI tools. Holly said the district will work with technology staff to vet safety and privacy for each tool and to advise teachers on anonymization and data‑handling practices.

Several board members questioned whether the proposal was a board policy or an administrative regulation and recommended clearer separation of policy principles from classroom procedures. Directors also objected to a provision that would automatically assign incomplete or no credit when a student violated AI‑use rules; one board member asked that the language read “may” rather than an automatic sanction to preserve case‑by‑case discretion.

After discussion the board directed staff to send the draft back to the policy committee for more work, including: (1) providing the OSBA exemplar for board review, (2) clarifying the distinction between policy and classroom practice, (3) refining disciplinary language and (4) documenting professional development the district will provide to staff.

Why this matters: Generative AI tools are widely available to students and staff; a district policy sets consistent expectations for use, privacy protections and teacher authority while giving the district a chance to pilot and adjust rules. The board’s referral to the policy committee reflects open questions about enforcement, privacy and whether certain requirements belong in board policy versus administrative regulation.

What’s next: Staff said the draft will return to the policy committee for revision and a recommendation to the full board. School leaders plan staff professional development on AI and on instructional approaches that emphasize learning while limiting misuse.

(Reporting note: Information and quotes are based on the district meeting transcript.)