Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Artificial Intelligence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears draft AI policy after year‑long committee work, seeks parent input and safeguards
Summary
Staff presented a draft generative‑AI policy and implementation guide developed with statewide training cohorts and a division AI committee; board members expressed concerns about student privacy, academic integrity and community engagement.
Orange County Public Schools staff presented a draft policy and regulation to govern generative artificial intelligence after more than a year of committee work, training and pilot efforts.
Nora, lead staff on the project, said the division participated in a cohort organized by the Virginia Association of School Superintendents and funded by the Virginia Department of Education; the cohort contracted with Advanced Learning Partnerships (ALP) for training. "We went four times earlier this year to Manassas City" for full‑day sessions, Nora said, and the division developed a six‑principle guide recommending uses and safeguards for generative AI.
The guide’s principles, Nora said, emphasize using AI to enhance rigorous learning, streamline administrative tasks, support decision‑making, safeguard student and staff data, increase access for students with disabilities and English learners, and use AI mindfully because of bias and inaccuracies. She reported a staff survey showed most teachers were curious but unsure about AI and that common uses included communications, adapting materials and generating engagement ideas. Staff asked chiefly for professional development and clear parameters for classroom use.
Superintendent Dr. Hornick (presenting the materials) said the draft policy and a regulation were brought forward to give staff clarity and to avoid making the board a barrier to implementation where state law already applies. He said the policy is intended to be flexible and that regulations and guidance will be updated frequently as the technology evolves.
Board members voiced safety and academic‑integrity concerns. One member said the guide’s language redefining “original work” as a human‑AI partnership made them uneasy and asked how teachers could verify student authorship on assignments. Staff replied that work on classroom expectations, app/privacy vetting, and data‑use agreements will follow existing app‑review procedures; any student‑facing AI tools will need appropriate data‑privacy agreements.
Board members suggested practical steps: designate a point of contact for each building for AI questions, expand parent education and engagement, and use PlanForward or similar platforms to survey and gather parent input on AI policy. Nora said the division had already been selected as a statewide exemplar for the accessibility component of its AI guide and planned further professional development with partners including George Mason and VDOE cohorts.
No policy vote was taken; staff said the draft policy and regulations would be revised based on board input and returned for action at a later meeting.
