Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Code Of Conduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts student code of conduct after split vote; AI wording left to regulation
Summary
After a lengthy debate about how the code should treat generative AI and teacher enforcement, the Manassas board voted 6–1 to adopt version A of the 2026–27 student code of conduct, which omits the extended AI language contained in option B.
The board considered two versions of the 2026–27 student code of conduct that differed mainly in how they treat generative artificial intelligence. Supporters of adding explicit AI language cited the need to define improper uses in the code; opponents warned that enforcement without reliable detection tools could create unfair outcomes for students and additional burdens for teachers.
During the debate one board member urged caution about using vendor detection software, noting district demonstrations produced high false-positive rates. Dr. Newman (district administrator) said the division had evaluated detection tools and observed a roughly 50% failure rate in trials, leading staff to decline adopting that approach.
Board member Miss Miles suggested a concise code entry could help balance clarity and enforceability: "If we do not have a tool for our teachers to use in order to detect AI, putting it in the code of conduct leads us to possible discrimination," she said and suggested a short line such as "unauthorized use of artificial intelligence." Lisa Stevens noted the division already has a regulation outlining parameters for generative-AI use and that instructional guidance will be promulgated by the director of instruction.
At the conclusion of the discussion, the motion to adopt option A passed 6–1. Board members who opposed the motion said they wanted a clearer, enforceable definition of improper AI usage to appear in the code or accompanying guidelines; supporters argued the regulation and instructional rubrics were the appropriate place to develop detailed definitions and enforcement procedures ahead of the school year.
The board asked staff to continue work on a targeted rubric and additional staff guidance to clarify appropriate and unauthorized AI use in classrooms.
