Parents, student rep and pediatrician press FCPS for transparency on AI and student data

Public commenters and the student representative told the Fairfax County School Board on Feb. 12 that the district must be more transparent about artificial‑intelligence tools being offered to teachers and the data those tools may collect.

Miss McKonnan, the student representative, said FCPS’s student data and privacy framework ‘‘has not been updated since 2015’’ and urged the board to pause the ChatGPT education partnership until the contract is reviewed, families and students are formally notified, and the data‑privacy policy is modernized. She said teachers’ inputs and classroom interactions could make students ‘‘indirect study subjects’’ if safeguards are not clear.

Several speakers and submitted videos amplified that concern. In a recorded comment played for the board, Kelly Oxtotolis said the district should treat free AI trials skeptically because ‘‘the currency is not money. It’s data. Our children’s data.’’ A pediatrician who spoke in a submitted video asked whether outcomes measured in the pilot would favor private company valuation over student learning gains.

Superintendent Dr. Scott S. Brabrand (identified in the meeting as Doctor Reed) and staff were asked during the meeting for details on oversight, evaluation metrics and cost assumptions beyond the free‑trial period. Board members asked staff whether the district can accurately project what an AI contract will cost after June 2027; staff replied the district has not planned to extend beyond the current agreement and will revisit projections before that date.

The student representative also linked AI concerns to other transparency questions: she asked for an accessible, centralized student AI guide, clearer references in the Student Rights and Responsibilities document, and a public plan showing how teacher training and long‑term costs will be handled once the free period ends.

Board members acknowledged the concerns and asked staff to provide additional detail. No formal board action was taken at the meeting; members and staff said further review and public reporting will follow as the district develops its policy and implementation plans.