David Douglas workshop previews draft generative-AI guidance, student use scale and data-protection limits

District staff and the district EdTech committee presented an initial draft of generative-AI guidance and a proposed "student use scale" at a David Douglas School District workshop, explaining survey results, recommended safety limits and next steps for classroom rollout.

The guidance, prepared by district EdTech members and distributed to staff in draft form, frames AI as a tool to support instruction rather than replace educators; it emphasizes data protection, human decision-making and AI literacy. The presentation said staff should not input personally identifiable student or staff information into AI tools, and that AI tools must comply with the district's digital program review process and security standards.

The EdTech team described two district-approved tools the district plans to make available to staff and students: Securly Chat (described as available for all grade levels and designed for under‑13 use) and Google Gemini for Education (described as available to students age 13 and older through the district's Google for Education suite). Presenters said the tools are configured to meet FERPA-related privacy requirements and that model-training data will not be exposed to the wider public model "ether," meaning inputs do not train external public models.

Why it matters: The district said it is responding to a rapid expansion in generative-AI use among students and staff and wants common classroom guidance, consistent practice between classes, and professional development before large-scale rollout. Officials framed the work as seeking to preserve student safety and academic integrity while preparing teachers and students to use AI responsibly.

Key details presented - Draft guidance structure: purpose (AI to enhance instruction), safe use (data protections and no input of identifiable student/staff data), agency and integrity (human control and alignment with academic-integrity policy), and knowledge (AI literacy and assessment of AI outputs). - Surveys: presenters said a staff survey in March drew 358 responses; a May student survey drew more than 1,400 responses (grades 5–12). In the district surveys, use patterns showed higher use of voice assistants (Siri) and lower self-reported ChatGPT use than some national comparisons; presenters cautioned the figures are from spring 2024 and could change rapidly. - Adoption context: speakers cited the speed of adoption for generative tools (presenters referenced ChatGPT reaching tens of millions of users within weeks). The district said it reviewed Oregon Department of Education guidance and regional district examples when drafting its materials. - Student-use scale: the draft student-use scale describes levels of permissible AI involvement on assignments (from no use to AI-assisted drafting), with scenario examples used in the workshop to illustrate acceptable and unacceptable uses. The district said the scale will begin as a high-school pilot and later be adapted for middle and elementary grades. - Safety controls: Securly Chat was described as configured for district safety, including content‑flagging and plagiarism functions. Google Gemini for Education was described as part of the district Google package for students 13 and older; presenters said Gemini Teen (education tier) was not yet widely available to students but was planned.

Next steps and staff direction - Professional learning: the EdTech team recommended ongoing training for staff on generative-AI tools and on AI literacy for students. - Pilot and phased roll-out: the district plans to pilot the student-use scale with high-school administrators and staff first, then consider middle-school adaptation; elementary adaptations were said to require further development. - Policy updates: presenters recommended reviewing and updating existing academic-integrity and acceptable-use policies where necessary; presenters noted OSBA and ODE resources and said OSBA had circulated a draft policy for districts to consider.

What was not decided - The workshop was informational and did not include a formal vote or final policy adoption. Presenters described the guidance and scale as drafts that will evolve. The district did not set a final timeline for districtwide implementation at the meeting.

Community context - Presenters said the guidance was built from ODE materials, Teach AI and regional district examples, and local staff and student feedback. They noted equity concerns—particularly whether different teachers' approaches could create inconsistent access for students—and said the student-scale pilot and professional learning are intended in part to reduce that inconsistency.

Ending The EdTech team asked high-school administrators to join the next conversation and to help shape the pilot so the district can finalize guidance, training and any policy updates before broader rollout.