Mesa board tables Course Mojo AI memorandum after parents and trustees raise privacy and bias concerns

The Mesa Public Schools governing board on Tuesday voted 4–1 to table consideration of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Course Mojo, an AI-driven supplemental learning vendor, after public commenters and trustees pressed for clearer guardrails on student data use, algorithmic bias and long-term effects.

The board’s vote followed public comment and an extended discussion in which trustees said they wanted more time to review how the tool would collect, store and use student learning data, and to see a plain‑language FAQ for families. "This decision does not need to be rushed," said community member Ed Steele, who urged the board to suspend the vote until parental concerns were addressed.

Board members and staff described the vendor product as a "support tool" designed to help teachers identify learning gaps and provide real‑time feedback for students working independently. District staff said the pilot would be at two schools identified for additional state support, Smith and Rhodes, and that an approved agreement would allow the vendor to cover license fees so the district — and families — were not charged.

But several trustees and public speakers said the board lacked enough detail about what the vendor would collect, how long data would be stored, and whether third parties would have access. "We're just too early on in the integration of AI to understand whether the learning outcomes in the current year ... are effective," said one board member during discussion. Trustees repeatedly asked for assurances that any AI processing would occur inside a "walled garden" — a closed environment that limits external access to student data.

During public comment, Ed Steele laid out five areas parents want addressed before the board signs the MOU: transparency in data collection and usage; opt‑out or consent mechanisms; disclosure of curriculum influence; parental access to AI‑generated insights; and regular review and feedback mechanisms. "So 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 said.

District staff told the board that the district already uses data‑sharing agreements and draws on existing policy and privacy procedures when contracting with vendors. "Whenever there's AI involved in our educational settings we want to use walled gardens because then the privacy, the data, all of that is safe within our own environment," a district staff member said. Trustees asked staff to return with clear, written responses to community questions and to include the concerns Steele had emailed earlier.

After discussion, Trustee motioned to table the MOU until the next board meeting so staff could prepare the requested FAQ and additional details. The motion to table passed 4–1.

The board’s action does not prohibit teachers from using Course Mojo independently; rather, tabling halts approval of the district agreement that would allow the vendor to provide licenses at no cost to the schools named in the memorandum. Staff said a one‑meeting delay would still allow time to finalize rostering and logistics if the board approves at a later date.

Trustees and community members said they would welcome pilot results and evidence from other districts that have used similar tools. District staff offered to compile vendor case studies, privacy and storage details, and examples of measured student outcomes for the board and the public before the next vote.

Provenance: - topicintro: transcript block s=3002.2 — "Agenda item 8 d, this course mojo. I have a compilation of concerns from a number of parents..." - topfinish: transcript block s=7849.5747 — "With a vote of 4 yeas, 1 nay, we have tabled this discussion for the MOU for Course Mojo."