Governance Committee votes to split school system technology policy into two documents

The Fairfax County School Board Governance Committee voted on June 16 to divide its draft "intentional use of technology" policy into two separate policies — one focused on the use of educational technology in instruction and the other on innovation and instructional technology, including generative artificial intelligence.

Dr. Anderson, who moved the measure, told the committee she wanted two documents so the board could "really hone in on what components belong in each of the segments," and to bring content forward to the June 23 work session rather than spending time wordsmithing. "That is my motion," she said, and Mr. Frisch seconded the proposal.

The split was approved by committee vote. The clerk recorded several members voting in favor (including Mr. Frisch, Robin Ladey, St. John Cunningham, Seung Chung and Dr. Anderson); the chair acknowledged dissent but accepted the committee decision. Following the vote, members spent the remainder of the meeting allocating sections from the May 19 draft into the two policy "buckets."

Why it matters: splitting the draft creates distinct tracks for rules that govern everyday instructional technology (student-centered use, definitions, digital literacy and intentional device use) and for a second policy intended to govern innovation, procurement and protections around AI and other emerging tools. Members said the arrangement is meant to make policy both clear for classroom practice and agile enough to address fast‑moving technologies.

Committee debate centered on several recurring themes. Some members urged policy language that "leads with instruction," stressing that any technology deployed in classrooms must demonstrably "enhance instruction." Others argued the second policy should house guardrails for emergent technologies, including generative AI and the district review process for new applications. Several members pressed for clearer public-facing language about procurement, reporting and how families can opt out of specific uses.

Staff described existing review practices for educational tools — an instructional efficacy review followed by security, privacy and procurement checks — and said the district maintains a public "digital ecosystem" listing of tools. Mr. Sethi (staff) cautioned that vendor reviews can be delayed by backlogs; he said reviews examine efficacy, security, privacy and accessibility before a tool is approved for classroom use.

The committee also discussed where to place particular definitions (for example, AI, generative AI and AI literacy) and whether some definitions or references will appear in both policies to reflect different purposes. Members generally agreed generative AI and AI literacy would be emphasized in the innovation policy while noting practical overlap.

A member raised a concern that the superintendent had signed a contract with OpenAI without bringing it to the board first; that allegation was made in meeting remarks and remained an unresolved claim in the discussion. Separately, district staff told the committee that classroom use of AI is effectively on hold pending policy action: "in terms of classroom technology use, everything's on hold, if you will, in AI until we have approval of the policy," a senior staff speaker said.

Next steps: the committee asked that members and staff bring redlined language and content priorities to a June 23 work session to develop content (not final wordsmithing) for both policies. Committee members said they expect staff and the Educational Technology Review Committee (ETRC) to continue work over the summer and aim to present a draft ready for board consideration early in the new school year.

The Governance Committee adjourned and will reconvene for a June 23 work session to present the two policy buckets and targeted questions for the full board.