Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Parents and CAC urge gradual, values-driven AI use in Camas schools
Loading...
Summary
Camas School District’s Community Advisory Committee members presented a ‘Prosper, Prepare, Protect’ framework and teacher survey results, urging staged AI integration, robust staff training and guardrails to prevent reliance on AI for grading, discipline or sensitive student interactions.
John, a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) member, and Gina, a CAC parent presenter, told the board that the group has reviewed research, teacher feedback and workshops to craft guidance for classroom AI use. John framed AI as another educational technology to be managed rather than a novel civic threat and said CAC’s work aims to translate parent and teacher values into usable district guidance.
Gina outlined a three-part framework she said the CAC adopted — “Prosper, Prepare, Protect” — and described classroom exercises and communication strategies she recommended. “AI is gonna be a huge helper, but she’s gotta trust herself first,” Gina said, urging students to verify AI output and treat tools (not people) as aids. She recommended age-appropriate activities (for example, playing tic-tac-toe against an AI to compare decision-making) and pitched AI‑free zones that expand gradually by developmental level.
Gina reported results of a district teacher survey (140 respondents): about 67% of teachers said they were comfortable using AI and roughly 60% reported confidence in doing so; fewer than half reported regular personal use. She said teachers’ primary concerns centered on academic integrity (cheating), potential harms and consequences of misuse, and the need for concrete classroom guidance and robust professional development.
On regulatory alignment, Gina told trustees the CAC reviewed two state bills under consideration that would limit automatic reliance on AI for grading, discipline and predictive risk scores and that would require chatbot safeguards for youth (for example, reminders that the user is interacting with a chatbot and restrictions on explicit content). She cited a published lawsuit alleged in materials the CAC reviewed in which a teenager reported sexualized, explicit or self‑harm‑related responses from a chatbot; the example was used to argue for stronger vendor safeguards and parental notification for flagged conversations.
District staff told the board they will synthesize CAC guidance with available research and a vendor partnership and return with a proposed framework. A staff member said the district is partnering with an educational technology company (EDT) to help convert CAC input, teacher feedback and external guidance into usable recommendations and potential policy language, while noting they will remain responsive to any final rules OSPI may issue.
The board thanked the CAC presenters and requested follow-up materials, including the CAC’s slides and resource lists. The presenters said they would provide short videos and classroom resources (e.g., materials from code.org and OSPI) and that CAC planned to keep student voice engaged as the district refines its approach.
