Grand Rapids Family AI Guide
From Family Confusion to Clear Rules: Grand Rapids Builds an AI Learning Compact
A Grand Rapids plan for aligning families, students, and teachers around homework help, transparent AI use, design thinking, and trust.
2026-08-26 · 12 min read
Easy-read summary
The big idea for Grand Rapids, Michigan schools
Grand Rapids students can receive conflicting AI messages in a single day. One teacher encourages brainstorming, another prohibits all use, a coach recommends a résumé tool, and a family member assumes ChatGPT is the new version of an internet search. A student may cross a boundary without understanding it—or exploit the confusion to deny responsibility. A community learning compact can replace scattered assumptions with a small set of shared commitments. It should not attempt to list every product. Instead, students agree to protect private information, follow the assignment's permission level, disclose meaningful assistance, verify important claims, and remain able to explain their work. Teachers agree to state expectations. Families agree to ask about learning rather than simply demanding a perfect finished product.
Teach students to disclose AI help when a teacher or assignment requires it.
Use AI as a coach for questions, practice, feedback, and revision—not as a ghostwriter.
Verify important AI claims with reliable sources before sharing or submitting them.
Protect student privacy by avoiding personal, family, medical, or school-identifying details in prompts.
Section 2
Mixed messages create accidental misuse
The compact should fit on one page and use ordinary language. Grand Rapids schools can organize it around four verbs: Ask, Own, Check, Protect. Ask the teacher when permission is unclear. Own the reasoning and final decisions. Check claims, calculations, citations, and generated media. Protect personal data and other people's identities. Each verb needs a promise from students, staff, and families so the document does not place all responsibility on children. Schools can translate the compact and provide an accessible digital version. Signing should follow a discussion, not replace it. Students might annotate one promise they expect to find difficult, giving teachers useful information about where more instruction is needed.
Teens reported using generative AI for school assignments in Common Sense Media research.
RAND reported student AI homework use among middle school grades and up by December 2025.
College Board reported high school students using generative AI for schoolwork.
Section 3
Write a family-friendly learning compact
Concrete examples prevent jargon from hiding disagreement. A middle school family may not know what ‘generative assistance’ means but can discuss whether a child may ask for practice questions, grammar changes, a completed book response, or a fake image of a friend. Grand Rapids teachers can provide green, ask-first, and closed examples for major subjects. The examples should include accessibility, translation, coding, art, and group work—not only essays. Families need to hear that an allowed use in one class may be closed in another because the learning goal differs. Students then practice reading an assignment label and explaining what it permits. This is more useful than memorizing a policy paragraph.
Section 4
Use examples instead of technical jargon
Disclosure works best when it is routine and brief. A checkbox can indicate no AI, teacher-approved support, or another use that needs explanation. When support was meaningful, the student adds the tool, purpose, and one verification or revision step. This makes transparent use normal rather than suspicious. Grand Rapids schools should avoid requiring a lengthy log for a minor permitted spelling check, since excessive paperwork encourages avoidance. The disclosure should match the risk and importance of the task. Teachers can respond to honest notes with curiosity and feedback. If every disclosure triggers an accusation, students learn to hide. If none are reviewed, the routine loses meaning. Occasional classroom discussion shows that the information informs instruction.
Section 5
Make disclosure routine and low-friction
Homework should invite family conversation without turning parents into enforcement officers. Assignments can include a prompt such as, ‘Explain one decision you made without a tool,’ or ‘Show someone at home the source you checked.’ Design-oriented tasks might ask students to observe a real inconvenience, sketch alternatives, and explain which constraint shaped the solution. These details are difficult to replace with generic output because they depend on attention and judgment. Families can ask three questions: What are you learning? What help is allowed? What will you be able to explain tomorrow? Those questions reduce the temptation to let an adult—or an AI system—finish the work just to relieve deadline pressure.
Student prompt examples
- “Coach me, but do not complete the assignment for me.”
- “Ask me three questions before giving suggestions.”
- “Show what might be wrong or missing in this answer.”
Section 6
Design homework that invites conversation
Access must be considered. Some Grand Rapids households have paid AI products and multiple devices; others have limited connectivity or choose not to use generative tools. Required AI activities should use an approved, school-supported option and provide time and guidance. When that is not possible, offer an equivalent path that assesses the same goal. Teachers should not reward premium features or sophisticated prompting as if they were prior knowledge shared by every student. Family resources can be available in print and through community events, with demonstrations focused on decisions rather than product promotion. An equitable compact protects the right to learn with appropriate tools and the right not to be disadvantaged without them.
Section 7
Support families with different access levels
Before launch, staff and families can test the compact against realistic cases: a chatbot rewrites a scholarship paragraph; a student asks for math hints; a group generates a logo; a fake voice message targets a principal; a learner uploads a peer's draft; an AI citation cannot be found. Participants classify the issue and identify the next step. Disagreement reveals where the compact needs a clearer example or a separate safety procedure. Schools should review patterns after each semester: Which labels confused students? Were disclosures useful? Did privacy incidents change? The compact remains stable in values while examples evolve with new tools. This is more sustainable than reacting to every product release with a new prohibition.
Section 8
Review the compact through real cases
Jim Jordan can launch the Grand Rapids learning compact with one shared community message. His AI school assembly shows students that responsible use is not a technical trick; it is a daily choice about ownership, truth, privacy, and character. Twenty years of speaking to young people allow Jim to connect with grades six through twelve, while his JimmyAI work gives him current experience with chatbots, training, apps, and AI phone technology. Schools can feature the new portrait of Jim in the article and follow the assembly with classroom scenario discussions and a family session. When students, educators, and caregivers use the same four verbs—Ask, Own, Check, Protect—confusion gives way to a clean, practical standard.
Action checklist
Use this after the assembly
- ●Create green, yellow, and red examples of acceptable AI help.
- ●Give students simple prompt language such as: coach me, do not complete it.
- ●Ask students to cite or explain how AI was used when appropriate.
- ●Revisit AI expectations during major writing, research, coding, and media projects.
Sources and citations