MCPS policy committee advances draft emerging-technology policy to address AI after wide stakeholder outreach

The Montgomery County Public Schools Policy Management Committee moved a draft update to policy IGS — given the working title Emerging Technologies in Education — to the full Board of Education for tentative action on May 15 after staff presented recommended amendments that incorporate board priorities around artificial intelligence.

The draft policy update would add guidance and ask the superintendent to produce regulations, procedures and professional learning to support the integration of AI and other emerging technologies into instruction and operations. Staff told the committee they collected 11,282 responses from a broad set of stakeholders as part of an outreach effort that included in-person and virtual sessions, webinars, PTA meetings and surveys.

Why it matters: MCPS staff said the draft is intended to set principles that balance AI’s instructional potential with concerns about academic integrity, equitable access and student data privacy. Staff recommended moving the draft to the full board for tentative action so the Board can decide whether to send it to a public comment period.

Staff presentations framed AI as one of several “emerging technologies” that require policy and regulatory attention. Kimberly Fields, chief technology officer, said AI “can power things such as speech recognition or accessibility, comprehending visual input, language learning, student support to name a few,” and noted stakeholder feedback is guiding the draft language.

Cara Trumkamp, director for digital innovation, emphasized historical parallels: “Everything old was new once,” she said while walking the committee through past technology adoptions. Trumkamp and other staff outlined specific classroom uses that respondents supported — lesson planning, customized scaffolding for diverse learners and AI-generated rubric feedback — while also flagging concerns about privacy, bias and the risk that AI outputs could reduce student thinking if used inappropriately.

Staff described planned follow-up steps: develop a regulation to implement the policy (targeted for completion by spring 2026), expand professional learning this summer (two continuing professional development courses, “AI for Educators: Productivity and Collaboration” and “AI for Teaching and Learning,” are launching with waitlists), and pilot a “walled garden” AI platform for controlled classroom use.

Student participation and oversight: Pranil Sivarna, student member of the Board, praised the county’s outreach and urged that any AI oversight committee include a student representative. Sivarna said the presentation’s recommendation to create “an AI oversight committee to vet tools for ethics and safety” should explicitly allow student membership.

Board discussion and next steps: Committee members discussed where AI-related details should live — in policy or in subsequent regulations — and asked staff to ensure the regulations clearly define acceptable classroom practices, academic-integrity processes and how human review will work when academic dishonesty is alleged. Staff said preliminary guidelines already advise teachers to set assignment‑specific rules (examples include requiring students to cite AI sources, to upload prompts or to prohibit AI on particular assignments) and that final regulatory language will provide more system-level guardrails.

Motion and vote: A motion to move the draft IGS policy to the full Board for tentative action passed unanimously.

The committee asked staff to return with the proposed regulation and implementation plan at the fall meeting; staff said the regulation would be completed prior to the start of the next school year and shared with the committee at its first fall meeting.