Lake Oswego School District sets guidelines, but doesn’t discourage use of artificial intelligence in classrooms
Published 3:53 pm Tuesday, August 26, 2025
It’s difficult to spend a few minutes on the internet without encountering a discussion about the implications of artificial intelligence — whether they be economic, ethical or in education.
And local governments are grappling with such matters.
Earlier this month, the Lake Oswego School Board adopted its first AI policy, which attempts to balance the usefulness of AI with the need for guardrails to prevent its abuse. With the proliferation of AI platforms like ChatGPT, teachers globally have reported concerns with students using AI to write essays and complete other assignments for them.
The school district approved the policy based in part on a recommended draft from the Oregon School Boards Association, but tweaked some of the language to reflect opinions voiced by the school board.
During a meeting on the topic in May, Lake Oswego School Board member Brian Bills advocated for the district’s policy to prevent teachers from being overly restrictive of AI use and for there to be consistency across classrooms. He worried that inconsistent teacher policies would create confusion and be impractical to enforce. He also felt that AI could potentially be a useful learning tool for students and receiving help from outside sources on assignments is not a new phenomenon.
“If we continue to have a bias and treat work that’s augmented or supported by AI more harshly or more negatively or even differently, we disincentivize students from citing that use or from acknowledging or being open about that collaboration, and we lose the opportunity to teach and to make them better in those collaborations,” he said.
He later added: “If the policy is, if you quote something you cite it, you just need to teach students what that means. And that there is no harm, there is no negative connotation in citing this brilliant analogy ChatGPT came up with to help me understand thermodynamics. Why is that bad?”
In turn, while the Oregon School Boards Association language says that “specific rules for the independent use of generative artificial intelligence for assigned student work may be developed by the teacher and communicated to students,” the board took a slightly different approach.
The approved policy states that: “Teachers may establish and communicate expectations for the use or non-use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in assigned student work, consistent with district policy and guidelines. Any restrictions or requirements concerning student AI use must be no more restrictive than those applied to other forms of external or supplementary support (such as tutors, family members, or peers).”
Some other notable elements of the district’s AI policy include:
“Expectations regarding AI use are communicated clearly and in advance of assignments.”
“AI is not required for assignments unless all students have reasonable access to the necessary technology and programs.”
“Teachers should educate students on the limitations and risks of AI, including issues of bias, inaccuracy, and responsible engagement.”
“Students are prohibited from sharing their logins or passwords for AI tools or platforms with others.”
“Alleged violations of assignment expectations (including unauthorized or inappropriate AI use) will be addressed in accordance with the district’s existing academic honesty and student conduct policies.”
The district does not have approved AI tools and does not currently have plans to purchase AI platforms or products, Executive Director of Communications Mary Kay Larson said via email, and is focused now on developing AI literacy. Licensed staff members are receiving AI training as part of professional development in the lead up to the school year, she added.
She also said the district has not tracked instances of plagiarism related to AI within local schools.
“Related policies on cybersecurity/data privacy, responsible use of technology, electronic communications, academic integrity, and educational equity remain unchanged,” Larson said. “Together, these policies provide clear expectations: for students, they reinforce responsible use and academic integrity. For staff, policies help establish consistent guidance on technology, privacy, and equity.”
