Mesa board tables Course Mojo MOU after parents raise AI, data and transparency concerns

The Mesa Public Schools governing board on Wednesday tabled a proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Course Mojo after public commenters and board members asked for more information about how the software uses artificial intelligence, how student data would be handled and whether parents could opt out. The motion to table passed 4-1.

The move came after community member Ed Steele outlined five points parents wanted addressed before the board approved the MOU, saying the decision “does not need to be rushed” and listing transparency in data collection, opt-out or consent mechanisms, curriculum influence disclosure, parental access to AI-generated insights and regular review and feedback mechanisms. “I would ask that the board make a motion to suspend the vote on this to a later date until such time as parents' concerns can be properly addressed,” Steele told the board.

District staff described Course Mojo as a supplemental, AI-enabled learning tool meant to accelerate feedback for students and to help teachers differentiate instruction. A staff member responding to Member Walden said the tool operates as a “walled garden” intended to keep district data within the district’s environment and that the district follows its existing data-sharing and data-privacy agreements when piloting outside vendors.

Board members raised additional questions about what data the platform stores and for how long, how closely the tool’s instructional suggestions align to Mesa curriculum, and whether the AI could inadvertently shape “what to think” rather than “how to think.” A board member asked for written answers and a short FAQ describing the safeguards and data protections for the community.

Several board members and staff said they support pilots when they are tightly limited and monitored. District staff said Course Mojo had been proposed to support two comprehensive-support schools, Smith and Rhodes, and that other districts nationwide use the product. Staff also said the MOU under consideration would allow the vendor to pay licensing costs so the district would not be charged directly; otherwise the district or teachers would incur the fee.

After discussion, a board member moved to table the item to the next meeting so district staff could provide written responses to specific questions and an FAQ for the public. The clerk recorded the final tally as four yeas and one nay.

The item will return to the board at a future meeting with the additional documentation requested by members and the public.