The survey runs until August 27. However, the majority of the 247 respondents so far (71.3 percent) said they were aware of the current use of AI technologies in educational institutions. However, many are against AI in schools and have security concerns.

One wrote: “Just use books. Not computers, these are elementary school children.” Another wrote: “I don’t like the idea of ​​increased use of AI in schools.” On the topic of security, one wrote: “Data is constantly being misused. I hope students and especially staff are safe from this.”

Another respondent wrote: “I doubt even policymakers know what AI is capable of.”

A few more examples of comments include: “Possibly a workshop for students to explain the importance of privacy and the risks of AI and the Internet” and “I think children need to be taught how to use this tool to their advantage. They shouldn’t be told not to use it or face punishment.”

Results of the survey, due August 20, were presented to school administrators for their first reading of the proposed policy. Additional responses will be considered during the final reading and vote on the policy.

“We have sent an email to all parents and guardians. The link (to the survey) is also available on social media and the (school district’s) website,” said Kaya Church, the school district’s communications specialist, in an Aug. 21 email.

ECSD Superintendent Clayton Anderson said, “The number one priority is to prepare students for the future,” and he said many survey respondents knew AI was being used in education, but not how it was being used. “What I see in the comments, and I don’t mean this in a negative way, is the lack of understanding of what AI can do in our schools from a positive perspective.”

He said the first version of the AI ​​policy required a lot of work from individuals and an ad hoc committee and was then scrapped based on feedback, including from the school board.

“There’s a lot of red, so we’ve gotten a lot of feedback from people,” Anderson said, reporting that AI compiled the survey summary and was “an example of what AI can do. It went through comments and quickly summarized them.”

“I like the summary,” said Trustee Jeff Durham.

An overall summary from ChatGPT states: “The feedback on the proposed AI policy reveals a wide range of opinions, with some clear themes emerging. A significant number of respondents are strongly opposed to the use of AI in schools, raising concerns about bias, privacy and the potential of AI to disrupt traditional learning methods.”

The summary continues: “Many fear that AI could lead to over-reliance on technology, negatively impact students’ critical thinking skills, and reduce the need for human teachers, whom they see as essential to quality education. There is also strong sentiment against the overuse of technology in general, with fears that too much screen time could exacerbate existing educational deficits rather than improve them.”

AI’s summary also states: “On the other hand, some respondents recognize the inevitability of AI in education and suggest integrating it in ways that support and enhance learning rather than replacing traditional methods.

“These respondents advocate for adequate training for teachers and students to use AI responsibly and effectively. They also call for clear guidelines on when and how AI should be used, and emphasize the need for a balanced approach that prepares students for the future in which AI is likely to play a significant role,” the analysis concludes.

The full report also includes some further summaries of various categories of the survey, including: “While some believe that AI can be a useful tool if properly managed and monitored, a large proportion of respondents are either completely opposed to AI or are deeply suspicious of its potential impact, particularly given the ethical and privacy concerns it raises.”

“I don’t want to rely on AI in any way,” Anderson said, noting that AI is not intended to replace teachers and that “the policy says decisions are not based on AI.”

He said anyone can cheat using their phone and classmates, but that the focus of the policy is on preparing students for the future, not on detecting cheating.

“AI is unable to recognize its own use,” Anderson said, also pointing out that teachers are good at recognizing when a student’s work is not their own.

The trustees agreed that the new AI policy should be reviewed at least once a year.

Anderson said the administration could review the policy and contact the board again if necessary.

“With technology evolving so quickly, it’s nice to get a look at it more often,” said Trustee Susan Neal.

“I would like to see something about training for students…” Trustee Brooke Ballard said, and Anderson said there will be training for students and staff.

The trustees agreed that manuals on AI should be developed.

The proposed policy states: “Recognizing the rapid growth of artificial intelligence technologies and their potential to enhance educational experiences, the district is committed to facilitating the responsible and effective use of AI tools in our schools. This commitment is consistent with empowering ‘students prepared for the future’ as described in the district’s strategic plan.”

The overview also states that the policy “outlines guidelines and expectations for the use of AI technologies. The goal of these guidelines is to ensure that all tools used to support learning, teaching, and administration are consistent with our mission and values.”

The detailed proposed directive includes definitions such as that a deepfake is “any video recording, cinematographic film, sound recording, electronic image or photograph, or any technical representation of speech or behaviour substantially derived therefrom” that appears to represent the speech or behaviour of a person but is false or an imitation of a person.

The proposed policy outlines the types of AI used in education, such as generating new content, generating text in a student’s natural language, and more, but also states that “users must not use AI tools to commit or facilitate cheating, plagiarism, or other dishonesty within the academy.”

The policy also states that users are encouraged to report cases of perceived bias to the technology department for further investigation. It also requires IT to ensure that AI tools deployed have robust security measures in place to protect user data from unauthorized access.

The full policy can be found online under the “IA Policy” agenda item for the August 20 school board meeting. During that meeting, trustees also rejected the policy proposal that would have restructured the board and changed the election of the president from annual to biennial.

However, the Board agreed to use the guidelines for the removal of a CEO.

In addition, in their final reading, the trustees adopted a policy regarding the use of private vehicles by students in certain approved cases.

The agenda stated that several schools had students who worked as teaching assistants and/or travelled to primary schools as part of their teacher training to work with teachers. However, the old arrangement did not allow students to drive themselves to other schools.