Fairfax County governance committee debates AI-in-instruction policy, pushes staff review and vendor safeguards

The Fairfax County Public Schools Governance Committee spent much of its March 17 meeting debating a draft artificial intelligence and instructional-technology policy, with members emphasizing human oversight, student privacy and the need for robust professional development before broad classroom rollout.

Committee members opened the discussion by revisiting the superintendent’s Version 7 draft and the committee’s commitment to gather feedback and return a revised recommendation. Dr. Anderson said the policy should begin from a clear philosophy: “People have to be at the center. It has to be monitored by people,” she said, urging clearer definitions for generative versus non-generative AI and explicit descriptions of where tools and applications are used.

The committee’s remote member, Mr. Fresh, walked colleagues through his proposed edits and a working title — “Innovation in Instructional Technology” — that he said would keep the superintendent’s definitions while adding AI literacy, a chatbot definition and stronger responsibilities on vetting and transparency. “Parents want to know what technology their kids are on,” he said, noting that the division currently lists roughly 700 digital resources.

Across the table, members repeatedly raised the same priorities: protect student data, preserve academic integrity, keep equity and access central and avoid allowing tools to replace teachers. Saint John-Cunning summarized the concern succinctly: technology can “open learning” for some and undermine learning for others if not managed with pedagogy and oversight.

Procurement and contract oversight drew pointed questions. One member said the division did not review some vendor agreements earlier because the board generally reviews contracts only when the value exceeds a specified threshold; the member added that contracts with vendors such as OpenAI and Playlab were signed in the division’s name and arrived for the board’s review only recently. Staff responded that all contracts are reviewed by Division Council and that some agreements (notably the OpenAI relationship) were established under state/commonwealth procurement vehicles.

Members pressed staff about existing pilots and rollout plans. Dr. Reid and Mr. Sethi said staff have provided professional development to school-based technology specialists and that vendor partnerships have in some cases included at-cost or no-cost training that helped early-adopter teachers. Staff warned that broad rollout depends on budget and that a policy should provide direction while allowing staff operational flexibility.

The committee agreed on next steps: board members will submit targeted questions and feedback; staff will review the new draft and return answers and redlines by the division’s internal deadline (April 7) so the committee can consider staff responses at the April 14 meeting. Members also discussed scheduling extra governance meetings or field visits to observe classroom pilots.

The committee did not vote on the policy at the March 17 meeting. Instead, members emphasized a multi-step approach: tighten definitions and responsibilities in the policy’s philosophy, have staff test implementation constraints and provide concrete answers on procurement and privacy, and require an AI-literacy plan and clear grade-level guidance before systemwide adoption.

What’s next: staff will prepare written responses to committee questions by early April and will include instructional-services representation at follow-up meetings; the committee expects to continue deliberations in April and May before sending a recommended draft to the full board.