[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6276498,"mediaKeyId","2659379-ba7f5db032a4f2d65b244c4be407a35f","parentId",2659379,"title","David Douglas workshop explores equitable‑grading pilot, data review and a consultant contract","audioSeconds",1938,"startMs",3383000,"endMs",5321000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2659379-ba7f5db032a4f2d65b244c4be407a35f&start=3383&end=5321","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2659379-ba7f5db032a4f2d65b244c4be407a35f/thumbnail_3383000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6276498/Oregon/David-Douglas-workshop-explores-equitablegrading-pilot-data-review-and-a-consultant-contract","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6276498-3f9f24a6c6e88849c4199d26b3772f4c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770620718&Signature=ntBMa2joPMsQidb1b9Yc2j321XVCxa4uHVMtfqzkBJRVr0yCMBn6A-4COkgBJO81gxMD0h-GtDnHs6shjZl4QFeQbA6rL6Y8zjMCXZ3jAVs~uDpR-R04T42e5y9RYoMMcHOrhvYg8G0puSrIkLK~UiFciRJeG0plq-aWZWIn9aMT4iyLJN4PI5SKsl1eQNPr5n3qyzbQk4W4u~xHFJ6Ox6PF56Utn9B4b-N~EB~3uwdI~Ik1ejdtlH34gmummK2Z7vtVXqFQUxAT~4icpkCLlIcypLCXY7YdvkkpcjKOburWzHFkc8Zuw5f3fuz58PQTK6ZuEsisJT~ExNsN28R89w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","David Douglas School District","date","2025-02-27T00:00:00Z","article","David Douglas School District administrators, building leaders and teachers described a multi-pronged effort to explore equitable grading practices at a board workshop, reporting early data reviews, school‑level pilots and a contracted consulting engagement to support the work.

Presenters said the district has begun work to reduce punitive grading practices that penalize students for missing assignments rather than measuring mastery. Schools represented at the workshop described different implementation stages: one high school building reported a multi-step awareness process and planned department-level review of syllabi and late‑work policies; a smaller campus reported more advanced pilot work using rubrics and reassessment opportunities for students.

Why it matters: Presenters framed equitable grading as a change to better match grades to student learning rather than behavior or point‑chasing. They argued that replacing zeros and averaging with mastery-focused measures and reassessment opportunities can increase student persistence and reduce disproportionate impacts on marginalized students.

Key points and actions described
- Contracted support: presenters noted the district used improvement funds to hire Linda Mansell (Creative Leadership Solutions) to work with building teams; presenters said the contract was approved in January and Linda has begun working with high‑school and Burridge teams.
- Data review and awareness work: administrators said they reviewed grade distributions by teacher and department, asked department chairs to compare patterns and are identifying pockets of differing practices as an \"awareness year\" before policy changes.
- Practices being piloted: examples included rubric‑based summative scoring aligned to standards, multiple reassessment opportunities, limiting the role of homework to formative practice, and attention to how zeros or minimum scores affect averages.
- Implementation concerns: presenters and teachers raised workload and logistics concerns—managing reassessments for large caseloads, translating standards‑based measures to traditional transcripts for colleges, and communicating changes to students and families.

Voices and classroom experience
School-level teachers and principals described practical effects: one teacher said building rubrics and aligning assessments clarified instruction and reduced extraneous point‑chasing; another said students responded positively when multiple attempts were allowed. Administrators described department‑level work to standardize syllabus language and late‑work policies so students see consistent expectations across classes.

Next steps and direction
- Continue awareness and data review this year; convene department chairs to identify which practices are already in use and where differences exist.
- Pilot changes in selected classrooms and provide professional learning for rubric design, assessment alignment and reassessment management.
- Translate standards‑based measures into traditional transcript entries when needed for college applications; presenters said jurisdictions and many colleges perform their own transcript reweighting.

What was not decided
- No board policy change or formal vote occurred at the workshop. Presenters described the work as ongoing and iterative; administrators emphasized a slow, school‑by‑school approach rather than an immediate districtwide mandate.

Ending
Administrators asked for continued board support for professional learning and said they will return with pilot findings and suggested next steps.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","DDSD Board Workshop 2.27.25","oneSentenceSummary","District leaders and school staff described pilots and early rollout steps for equitable grading—replacing some zeros, using rubrics and reassessment—with a consultant contract in place to support high-school implementation using research from Joe Feldman and Doug Reeves.","taxTitle","David Douglas SD 40, School Districts, Oregon","taxId",38239,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6276503,"David Douglas workshop previews draft generative-AI guidance, student use scale and data-protection limits",1949,155000,2104000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2659379-ba7f5db032a4f2d65b244c4be407a35f&start=155&end=2104","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2659379-ba7f5db032a4f2d65b244c4be407a35f/thumbnail_155000.jpg","/articles/6276503/Oregon/David-Douglas-workshop-previews-draft-generative-AI-guidance-student-use-scale-and-data-protection-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6276503-2a688d0ba756ccaddc31e14f830b9575/orig.mp4?Expires=1770620718&Signature=Ay81b2Yx1Fki1kvGnR9HqomOVtJj8B8cuInquU5nPFHoc3t88tSiP8GJJg7R6jwsy~~HWFSAJkvUQ7CVBOS9k4pEHo3~OTuURC1YD0GdeJ9~3D-rcJWIdUiy3h7xXIQRGPbSOoE-xsP5DdOKP-PaWMljTH7UmrE-yVrkwz8JfUGawBWcqMlWhgZfWDpHyvfVtvn9wiDCDeXOduQGe3XD3sW-kwsJKs9M-raLzrbPA0OT-KtnKdUzJL2WV1xPofIV0woScevxJgwGL-BWgJB5~YOXy6fddFRrYm9p~c1t75dwfNz9b8rXfOxqIaqCTyc1t~SuL9FBf8WcR~DbP2jgpw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","District staff and the district EdTech committee presented an initial draft of generative-AI guidance and a proposed \"student use scale\" at a David Douglas School District workshop, explaining survey results, recommended safety limits and next steps for classroom rollout.

The guidance, prepared by district EdTech members and distributed to staff in draft form, frames AI as a tool to support instruction rather than replace educators; it emphasizes data protection, human decision-making and AI literacy. The presentation said staff should not input personally identifiable student or staff information into AI tools, and that AI tools must comply with the district's digital program review process and security standards.

The EdTech team described two district-approved tools the district plans to make available to staff and students: Securly Chat (described as available for all grade levels and designed for under‑13 use) and Google Gemini for Education (described as available to students age 13 and older through the district's Google for Education suite). Presenters said the tools are configured to meet FERPA-related privacy requirements and that model-training data will not be exposed to the wider public model \"ether,\" meaning inputs do not train external public models.

Why it matters: The district said it is responding to a rapid expansion in generative-AI use among students and staff and wants common classroom guidance, consistent practice between classes, and professional development before large-scale rollout. Officials framed the work as seeking to preserve student safety and academic integrity while preparing teachers and students to use AI responsibly.

Key details presented
- Draft guidance structure: purpose (AI to enhance instruction), safe use (data protections and no input of identifiable student/staff data), agency and integrity (human control and alignment with academic-integrity policy), and knowledge (AI literacy and assessment of AI outputs).
- Surveys: presenters said a staff survey in March drew 358 responses; a May student survey drew more than 1,400 responses (grades 5–12). In the district surveys, use patterns showed higher use of voice assistants (Siri) and lower self-reported ChatGPT use than some national comparisons; presenters cautioned the figures are from spring 2024 and could change rapidly.
- Adoption context: speakers cited the speed of adoption for generative tools (presenters referenced ChatGPT reaching tens of millions of users within weeks). The district said it reviewed Oregon Department of Education guidance and regional district examples when drafting its materials.
- Student-use scale: the draft student-use scale describes levels of permissible AI involvement on assignments (from no use to AI-assisted drafting), with scenario examples used in the workshop to illustrate acceptable and unacceptable uses. The district said the scale will begin as a high-school pilot and later be adapted for middle and elementary grades.
- Safety controls: Securly Chat was described as configured for district safety, including content‑flagging and plagiarism functions. Google Gemini for Education was described as part of the district Google package for students 13 and older; presenters said Gemini Teen (education tier) was not yet widely available to students but was planned.

Next steps and staff direction
- Professional learning: the EdTech team recommended ongoing training for staff on generative-AI tools and on AI literacy for students.
- Pilot and phased roll-out: the district plans to pilot the student-use scale with high-school administrators and staff first, then consider middle-school adaptation; elementary adaptations were said to require further development.
- Policy updates: presenters recommended reviewing and updating existing academic-integrity and acceptable-use policies where necessary; presenters noted OSBA and ODE resources and said OSBA had circulated a draft policy for districts to consider.

What was not decided
- The workshop was informational and did not include a formal vote or final policy adoption. Presenters described the guidance and scale as drafts that will evolve. The district did not set a final timeline for districtwide implementation at the meeting.

Community context
- Presenters said the guidance was built from ODE materials, Teach AI and regional district examples, and local staff and student feedback. They noted equity concerns—particularly whether different teachers' approaches could create inconsistent access for students—and said the student-scale pilot and professional learning are intended in part to reduce that inconsistency.

Ending
The EdTech team asked high-school administrators to join the next conversation and to help shape the pilot so the district can finalize guidance, training and any policy updates before broader rollout.","District EdTech team presented a draft generative-AI guidance, described staff and student survey results, and outlined next steps including professional learning, a high-school pilot for a student-use scale and limits on entering identifiable student data into AI tools.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

David Douglas workshop explores equitable‑grading pilot, data review and a consultant contract

David Douglas workshop previews draft generative-AI guidance, student use scale and data-protection limits