Candidates’ Questionnaire Week 2: Generative AI in Schools
Welcome to the second Weekly Issue Questionnaire in our series covering the 2026 Vancouver School Board Election.
Every week, we send questions focusing on key election issues to trustee candidates, and publish their responses on our website.
Last week, we sent the following question to candidates:
What is your stance on the use of Generative AI in schools?
Below, you’ll find candidates’ responses, which were edited only for grammar. In the interest of fairness, the order in which political parties are listed is randomized, and, within each political party, the order in which candidates are listed is also randomized.
As well, we asked candidates to limit their responses to 250 words. If their responses exceeded the word limit, in the interest of fairness, we’ve only published their first 250 words and inserted ellipses at the end of their response to denote this.
Please send any queries or concerns to ehnewspaper@gmail.com. Contact us If you have questions that you think we should consider asking candidates in future questionnaires.
OneCity Vancouver
Christopher Lee
Simply put, we don’t fully understand the effects of Generative AI in the classroom and on learning yet. I was in high school when the AI boom first started and, at Helping Hearts, I’ve heard from students especially about their concerns. As a candidate, it’s a priority of mine to give students, parents, and staff a fulsome response to GenAI from the school board. My approach is clear: we can’t give a blank cheque to AI tech; the VSB must take a skeptical, research-informed approach to dealing with GenAI in our classrooms, especially when developing programs related to GenAI.
OneCity’s policy is that approach. We cannot allow unrestricted, free-for-all access to AI chatbots in our schools — there must be clear rules and policy. We need a new AI policy. On School Board, OneCity will create a committee of students, parents, staff, and administrators to create a well-informed AI policy that truly works for our schools. We’ll push back existing AI programs such that they can be used in senior grades only. We'll also strengthen privacy protections and ensure teachers are equipped to deal with the challenges of AI in classrooms. Most of all, in the midst of AI, we’ll encourage real human work, face-to-face relationships, and continued learning.
Sherry Breshears
I know that students and families are worried that AI is changing education for the worse. We still do not fully understand its effects on learning, critical thinking, and safety. I can relate to those concerns. I have two recently graduated kids who experienced the arrival of ChatGPT without much guidance. As a university instructor, I also had to rethink my teaching because chatbots can now complete assignments that once supported learning.
When I think about AI in schools, I consider: What do students need to know to navigate a world where AI is increasingly part of daily life? And how do we prevent AI from replacing the thinking and problem-solving that help students learn?
I am also concerned about equity. Many young people are already using AI outside of school, but not all students have the same access to safe, reliable tools or guidance. AI systems can also reproduce social biases and affect students unequally. I believe that schools have a responsibility to help students understand these technologies, their environmental and cognitive impacts, and their limitations.
My approach is neither a ban nor a free-for-all. I do not support unrestricted access to AI chatbots in every classroom. However, I do support teachers having the option to use safer AI tools with senior students in supervised educational contexts. Alongside this, the VSB should strengthen privacy protections and support critical AI literacy by providing professional development opportunities and resources for teachers. Ultimately, human work, relationships and learning have to be protected.
Rory Brown
I know that increasingly, an important role of the school system is to teach discretion in the use of technologies, like generative artificial intelligence. To effectively teach this discretion, teachers and students will need to have very regulated and supported access to AI technologies. As an instructor of Technology Education in the post-secondary context, many of my class discussions are focussed on the appropriate use of technologies and the role they play in education. To answer the question of whether AI should exist in schools, we need to carefully examine the purpose of school itself. Is school about the acquisition of content? Sometimes, yes. It is also about how to approach the world as a young adult in a mature, knowledgeable and cooperative manner. I feel that a complete ban on AI will be more harmful than a carefully supported and nuanced approach.
Krista Sigurdson
While I was a research and writing instructor at UBC in WRDS (Writing Research and Discourse Studies) between 2000-2005, I noticed the enormous impact AI had on how students approached their work. I found myself policing the use of AI rather than teaching students how to live in a world with AI. I wished that I had had the tools to both instill in them the merits of learning without AI (e.g., sitting, reading and digesting an entire book) and the appropriate, safe, and ethical use of AI in research and writing. I have learned from that experience and would like to approach AI as a School Board trustee as something students need to know about, understand, and be cautious about. We do not fully understand the effects of AI on cognition, critical thinking, and mental health and yet, it is here and we need to be able to talk to students about how to best approach it with a critical lens that centers humanity, learning and wellbeing.
My approach is neither a ban nor a free-for-all. I do not support unrestricted access to AI chatbots in every classroom. However, I do support teachers having the option to use safer AI tools with senior students in supervised educational contexts. Alongside this, the VSB should strengthen privacy protections and support critical AI literacy by providing professional development opportunities and resources for teachers. Teachers and staff need to be properly equipped to handle the challenges and promises of AI in our [...]
Steve Cardwell
Generative AI is already changing how we learn, work and communicate. As a former superintendent and university educator, I believe schools have a responsibility to prepare students for that world, while protecting the fundamental purposes of education. Students need to learn how to think critically, solve problems, communicate, create and develop their own ideas. AI should support that learning, not replace the intellectual effort and human relationships that make learning meaningful.
My approach would be neither to ban generative AI nor allow unrestricted use. The VSB needs clear, age-appropriate guidelines that distinguish when AI can enhance learning and when students need to demonstrate their own thinking and understanding. Students should develop AI literacy, including how to question AI-generated information, recognize misinformation and bias, protect their privacy, understand environmental impacts, and use AI ethically and transparently. They should also have a meaningful voice in developing these guidelines. Recent student-led work on AI policy has shown that young people themselves want both access to AI literacy and clear guardrails around its use.
Teachers also need support, not simply another responsibility added to their workload. I would support strong privacy protections, equitable access to approved tools, and respect for teachers’ professional autonomy. The VSB should work with the Province and build on provincial guidance, professional learning and resources to support educators in navigating generative AI. Above all, technology, including generative AI, should serve students and teachers, not the other way around
Green Party of Vancouver
Julie Strilesky
My fellow candidate and I are aligned on this issue. My stance on generative AI use in classrooms is that we need to pause and take the time to evaluate the use of AI in schools before students continue to access it. As a school trustee, I would request that the use of AI Chatbots in schools be stopped immediately, and paused until the VSB can meaningfully engage with educators, students and parents to review the pros and cons of AI use.
During this pause, I would request a thorough review of the impacts, risks and equity issues related to AI use in classrooms, particularly focusing on the impacts to our climate, the mental wellbeing and cognitive development of students of various ages, the safety of students and educators, and the ethical concerns. We should also consider how teachers and other staff may seek to use AI, and what guidance can be provided.
Following the review, I would have the VSB draft AI policies, guidelines, and training recommendations. I would ensure parents, students, and teachers can weigh in before finalizing the plan.
Alisha Masongsong
My stance on generative AI use in classrooms is that we need to take a step back and take the time to truly evaluate the use of AI in schools before students continue to access it. As a school trustee, I would request that the use of AI Chatbots in schools be stopped, and put on pause so that the VSB staff can meaningfully engage with educators, students and parents on the pros and cons of AI use first.
During this pause, I’d also request for a thorough review of the impacts, risks and equity issues that AI use in classrooms has, particularly focusing on the impacts to our local environment, the mental wellbeing and cognitive development of students, the safety of students and educators, and the ethics of its use in schools.
Following engagement and a thorough review of the impacts, I’d request that the VSB staff develop policies, guidelines and recommendations for training based on the results received. Before finalizing the policies, guidelines and training recommendations, I would ensure that parents, students and educators have ample opportunity to review them and provide input into the final plan.
TEAM for a Livable Vancouver
Kat Nystedt
I believe that It would be sad to allow generative AI in classrooms before students learn how to write using good grammar, sentence structure and logic. Students need to be given the opportunity to think and create on their own so they can build stronger brains and not be dependent on technology
Environmentally speaking, it puts a strain on our water systems and electrical grids.
AI should be used sparingly and I believe should not be used by students when they are in K - 12 classrooms.
If AI did have any place it would be best left to higher-level learning in post-secondary settings. Critical thinking and questioning need to be learned, and teachers guide students to practice those skills in elementary and secondary. AI makes it too easy to just accept whatever it spews out!
One of the action items in TEAM's education policy is to "Pause the rollout of Microsoft Copilot 13+ in secondary schools until research shows that the benefits outweigh the risks, and students, families and educators have been meaningfully consulted."
COPE Vancouver
Derrick O’Keefe
The tech billionaires driving the speculative AI bubble have a financial interest in rapidly expanding the use of AI products like Microsoft Copilot and other chatbots. As School trustees, our job is to protect students and their educational and personal development.
COPE Trustee Suzie Mah and COPE’s Trustee candidates are opposed to the VSB’s May 2026 introduction of Microsoft’s Copilot 13+.
The implementation was done without enough consultation with parents, educators, students, and education partners. VSB Artificial Intelligence guidelines are not sufficient to address potential harms from AI chatbots. COPE has serious concerns about the impacts AI will have on children' s mental health, safety, privacy, and cognitive and emotional development.
COPE School Board candidates support a pause on student-facing Chatbots and other Generative AI products, and pledge to conduct a VSB AI Audit which would include broad consultation with parents, educators, students, and education partners. COPE’s priority is the well-being, safety, and educational development of students in Vancouver.
COPE candidates recognize the importance of students learning about AI, including “Large Language Models” and other AI applications. A responsible AI pause should allow for the development of robust guidelines and policies that would allow critical and supervised use of certain AI applications in higher-level secondary courses.
Melanie Cheng
I support pausing the VSB’s district-wide rollout of generative AI tools, including Microsoft Copilot 13+, until clear policies and safeguards are in place. There are significant concerns regarding student privacy and safety, learning outcomes, mental health, and environmental impacts.
Students should learn about AI, including how it works, its limitations and social impacts. But AI literacy does not require introducing chatbots to all secondary students without adequate consultation or guidelines on their use. The COPE policy clearly calls for a pause on AI and supports a transparent technology audit and consultation with students, families, educators and experts.
Suzie Mah
COPE is opposed to the 2026 spring implementation of Microsoft Copilot at VSB, including the use of GenAI and chatbots in Vancouver schools.
COPE will put a pause on the use of GenAI and chatbots.
COPE will engage and consult with stakeholders and the broader community to implement a technology audit with a specific focus on the use of AI in schools.
COPE will engage and consult with stakeholders and the broader community to create VSB policies and procedures to address the concerns below:
Safety and privacy for students
Impact of AI usage on learning outcomes and student mental health
Equity of technology resources
Need for transparent and robust consultation with stakeholders and community on AI usage and adoption in schools.
Impact on the use of and validity of results when AI is used for public engagement and consultation.
Impact on climate and the environment of AI usage and adoption
Lack of student and staff AI usage policies and procedures
VSB practises potentially in conflict with proposed Federal Bill C-34, The Safe Social Media Act
As a former teacher, I have seen the lure of technology as being the panacea to addressing the inequities in our system and a fast track to student learning. Our students deserve safe, equitable, and inclusive education. They deserve teachers who know them, challenge them, encourage them, and inspire them to think for themselves. Technology should serve our students - not the other way around. As trustees, our first responsibility is to our students - not to [...]
Vote Vancouver
Mandy Potter
I understand that AI is becoming a part of everyday life and in the context of schools, I believe it must serve as a research/learning tool, not a replacement for critical thinking, creativity, or educators. It is important to differentiate between the benefits of learning how to use a new technology in a critical manner and the consequences of unrestricted access to generative AI.
I believe in mandatory consultation with students, parents, teachers, and staff before implementing new tools and suggest an overall restriction on generative AI usage until such conversations can be had.
It is also important to talk about the use of generative AI by teachers. I believe in strong and clear guidance for teachers on how they may use AI for assessments, feedback, and lesson planning. There should be no direct instructional delivery given by AI, and teachers should only ever use AI to assist, never to generate lesson plans and content. Similar standards should be applied to both teachers and students to encourage successful learning environments throughout the school board.
Amarys Joseph
This is a huge question! Probably the most frequent one I get. My answer to this is, we know that AI is already embedded in our schools with search engines, websites, and lots of different digital tools. In relation to AI Chatbots in classrooms, I believe that this needs a pause until we understand their impact on student learning. AI should be a learning tool, but not replace critical and creative thinking. Nor should it replace independent learning. I will also mention that AI often produces inaccurate and/or biased information, making it important for students to learn how to question and verify what it produces. Any future integration should address privacy, environmental impacts upon usage, and academic integrity when, and if, students are going to use AI.
Tasha Doucas
As a School Board Trustee candidate, I support responsible AI integration with student safety, wellbeing, and privacy as top priorities. Generative AI should NOT be implemented just because we know students are using it at home and that people say AI is the future.
My approach in Corporate — consulting with Litigation Lawyers on Machine Learning (earlier Generative AI tools) — was focused on utilizing the tool for the appropriate task, understanding how to search/prompt and the potential outcomes, weighing risks of missing potentially relevant information. Technology is not a 100% accurate tool; neither are the humans who have created these tools.
In schools, Generative AI, like any technology, should be seen as a tool. It is not a replacement for critical thinking nor for teaching. For some students, particularly with learning differences, this tool might have significant benefits.
Some of the policies that I would look to see implemented are:
- More frequent consultation: with the information that I have, I do not feel that there has been adequate discussion with students’ viewpoints, concerns, and needs
- Teacher workshops to efficiently reduce administrative burden
- Education and Guidelines for students and teachers on what falls within appropriate use and consequences when not
- Educational Workshops with parents
- Consult with IT groups across various Districts along with Microsoft to discuss safeguards
- Establish periodic reviews and testing along with communication and consultation.
I continue to listen to podcasts, interviews with experts, along with the student voices through petitions, with the goal of hearing various perspectives.
No Response
The questionnaire was emailed to the following candidates and/or the contact email listed on their party’s website, but they did not respond by the deadline:
Darren Boidman (Vancouver Liberals)
Joshua Cameron (Vancouver Liberals)
Alfred Chien (ABC Vancouver)
Ishi Dinim (Vancouver Liberals)
Preeti Faridkot (ABC Vancouver)
Gwen Giesbrecht (COPE Vancouver)
Maria Kritikos (ABC Vancouver)
Matt Kroeker (ABC Vancouver)
Noosha Mehdian (Vancouver Liberals)
Rob Nijjar (ABC Vancouver)
Isabel Ochoa (Vancouver Liberals)
Shirley Sio (ABC Vancouver)
Lina Vargas (ABC Vancouver)
Bright Future Vancouver was given the opportunity to respond to the questionnaire under their party name, since they haven’t announced the names of any school board candidates, and they also did not respond by the deadline.