Bend‑LaPine board to press district for evidence and limits on classroom tech after parents demand removal of student‑facing AI

Members of the public pressed the Bend‑LaPine School Board on March 10 to rein in classroom technology and to remove student‑facing generative AI tools, saying district rollout of chatbots such as Magic School was neither evidence‑based nor sufficiently transparent.

"Now that OHA is updating that guidance, we hope that BLS will move quickly to align with it," parent Amanda Dayton told the board, urging preparation for Oregon Health Authority changes on air quality — comments delivered in the same public‑comment block where parents raised tech concerns. Several parents said the district declined offers of free air monitors; others said their larger worry was classroom technology.

A string of speakers, including former teachers and outside experts, urged more oversight. "Please urgently implement a real plan to remove student‑facing generative AI," said Brian Cappy, an attendee who described edtech effect sizes for some programs as small and urged an independent study and a clear opt‑out policy. Megan Beck, who identified herself as a parent and researcher, said the district's rollout of Magic School to young students appeared to have lacked required approvals and parent notification. "How many of us in this room have tried to do focused work on an internet‑connected device and had to fight off constant distractions?" she asked. Brendan Buffard, a staff attorney focused on children's online safety, told trustees his organization has pressed lawmakers on limits and asked the district to remove gen‑AI platforms immediately.

Board members and staff responded that district teams already are reviewing uses of AI and other edtech tools and that processes exist for curriculum and technology approvals. Deputy Superintendent Dr. Lisa Burke told the board the technology and curriculum teams screen digital programs before they are placed on district‑issued devices and credited district staff for ongoing work to tighten guidance and monitoring. Still, several directors said the public lacks clear, consistent reports on app usage, instructional intent, and efficacy.

Director Amy Tatum, who had placed educational technology on the agenda, said the board should be explicit about its values and expectations: "Are we willing to say to our community that we prioritize pen‑and‑paper learning?" Tatum and other trustees asked staff to provide a public report under the district's EL4.7 executive limitation (technology evaluation and monitoring) at the board's May meeting and proposed drafting a board resolution that would ask the district to: produce grade‑level definitions of "appropriate use," publish edtech cost and efficacy data, and identify any student‑facing AI platforms currently deployed.

Administrators said some monitoring is underway through internal stakeholder groups and technical controls but acknowledged gaps in public reporting. Board members urged expanding community stakeholder engagement and sought clearer documentation of how and why particular apps were selected. Several trustees emphasized they were not criticizing teachers, whom they described as making daily instructional judgments, but were seeking system‑level clarity and guardrails.

Next steps the board requested include a public EL4.7 monitoring presentation in May, clearer community engagement from the district's tech stakeholder group, and a draft resolution that would state board priorities and request specific data from staff. The board did not adopt any immediate ban or removal during the March meeting.