Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technology Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Governance committee narrows scope for technology policy, asks staff to compile member language
Summary
At its April 14 meeting the Fairfax County Public Schools Governance Committee agreed to retitle its draft "Innovation and Instructional Technology" policy, asked clerks to compile member-submitted philosophy language, and directed staff and the superintendent to review definitions, acceptable-use placement and responsibilities across departments.
The Fairfax County Public Schools Governance Committee on April 14 continued work to transform an AI-centered document into a broader Innovation and Instructional Technology policy, debating where detailed rules should live and what the board should reserve for regulation.
Chair opened the discussion by framing the committee genda as a step-by-step review of purpose, philosophy, definitions and responsibilities so staff could return a revised draft that reflects the committee irection. Dr. Anderson moved the earlier procedural item to amend and approve minutes before moving into the policy review.
Committee members voiced competing priorities for the draft. Some members, including Dr. Anderson, said the policy should emphasize instructional purpose and live with Instructional Services; others argued it must remain an enterprise-wide document because information security, equity and IT operations also intersect with instructional use.
Members coalesced around two operational points: (1) keep the policy at a higher, instructional-policy level and place technical, frequently changing rules in regulations or annexes; and (2) preserve language about safety, equity and ethics in the policy s a public statement of values. "We want the students not to be on devices unless it's structurally necessary," one member said during the discussion about device use and screen time.
The committee specifically asked staff to: - Add clear definitions for generative and non-generative AI (or otherwise incorporate Question 7/9 definitions from the superintendent's response document); - Identify which acceptable-use language belongs in regulation (student and employee acceptable-use rules already exist in divisional regulations and on public websites, Mr. Sethi noted); - Review the draft and flag any provisions that do not belong in an instructional policy and should instead sit with IT, equity, or enterprise-level policy.
Members also debated whether the committee should adopt a standalone AI policy or a single technology policy that references AI as one component. One member recommended a narrower AI policy would be easier to update; others favored a single policy with regulations for specifics.
On process, the committee agreed to a short timeline: board members will each draft suggested philosophy language and send it to the clerk by Monday; the clerk nd staff will compile submissions and post a consolidated draft by Thursday noon. The clerk team committed to return an updated draft incorporating the agreed technical edits. The chair said staff will then work with legal and the superintendent on redlines and feasibility questions before the committee's next meeting.
Next steps: staff will incorporate the committee's direction, produce an updated draft for posting, and bring back a redlined version and recommendations keyed to regulation vs. policy.
