It’s also being given to the Stakeholder Advisory Task Force. But beyond that? Unclear.

wait this is just teaching. this was just my job as a teacher. you don’t need a computer for this.

And that's it! Meeting adjourned.

I can also confirm this as a parent of smart, tech-literate secondary students. (This is Jane.)

Briggs points out that she knows that students have access to CoPilot on their student-issued laptops and that it's used to write essays for them. (She has SPS students herself.) Someone else also testified that what SPS says can/cannot be done on student-issued laptops does not match reality.

Briggs says that learning about the technology is not the same as incorporating into the classroom. She's quotes Macklemore, "We're being tricked by business."

She thinks all of this is informed by tech companies who have an interest in the profits to be made here.

Director Briggs says "there's a lot of red flags for me" and that it sounds like "big tech talking points." She doesn't buy what they're selling, basically. Even OSPI, she says, has a note that on its website that their AI guidance was written by AI.

Starosky says there's a state law that says that school districts have to do "something" about AI and that's a consideration here. He acknowledges there's a lot of work to do, "specifically around teachers."

Rankin wants SPS to have a "high school for the future." OK, I'm sold!

Director Rankin wants to know how these AI policies reflect the goals and guardrails. Are they talking with students about the difference between plagiarism and original work for writing and art.

Director Rankin says this presentation is all about the what, but not the why.

Starosky says they're not looking to supplant teachers. They want to give teachers access to tools. He says that cheating didn't just start to happen when AI came about. Hmmm.