Board tables AI-in-education policy after wide public comment; members ask for clearer age, oversight and monitoring rules

The Tucson Unified School District governing board on March 31 voted to table a second-reading artificial intelligence-in-education policy after extensive public comment and board discussion about student privacy, age appropriateness and how the district will monitor and evaluate AI use.

Tracy M. Rowley, TUSD's senior director of education technology and online education, and members of an AI task force presented a draft policy and accompanying guidelines the task force developed over nearly a year. Rowley said the policy would require human oversight, limit AI use to educational purposes, and require privacy and security assessments of AI platforms before adoption. "AI systems must be evaluated for potential bias or discriminatory outcomes," she said.

Public commenters urged both caution and action. Tara Radliff warned of student harms she associated with increased screen time and urged the board to vote no on related items; Peter Norquist and other speakers raised concerns about plagiarism, data collection and workforce impacts. During call to the audience, Dr. Teresa Toro and students spoke on an unrelated item (Pueblo College Prep Academy); several board members praised the district's outreach and the AI discussion.

Board members asked for changes before adoption. Board member Michelle Ekstrom asked whether any revisions had been made since the policy was posted and whether the policy could be more explicit about grade bands; she said she wanted the policy to avoid mandating AI. Dr. Shaw asked that mandatory language be softened (replace "shall" with "may" in the policy's educational-purpose clause) and asked for clearer monitoring and evaluation language. Other board members pressed for expanded teacher and parent training and suggested convening elementary teachers and parents before bringing the policy back.

President Ekstrom clarified that the version before the board was the same version the board had approved for public posting at first read and that revisions could be proposed. The board then voted on a motion to table the item so staff could return with modifications and additional stakeholder input. Doctor Shaw moved to table the policy; the motion passed 3 to 1.

The board did not adopt the policy at second reading. The motion to table means staff will return with revisions addressing age restrictions, the requested wording change and more explicit monitoring and evaluation procedures. Rowley said the task force's guidelines would remain available internally and that the program team was building public-facing materials and training resources for staff and families.