Parents and students press Fairfax school board to slow rollouts, demand clearer AI, device safeguards

Dozens of parents and students told the Fairfax County School Board on March 26 that the district’s rapid expansion of classroom devices and its draft artificial intelligence policy lack clear safeguards and sufficient public input.

At the start of public comment, parent Alex Batch said he supports tech literacy but urged the board to re‑examine “one‑to‑one” device policies that assign iPads and Chromebooks to very young students, saying teachers are being pulled away from instruction and students are left to work independently on screens.

Benjamin Van, who identified himself as a company CTO, asked the board to “rethink and reduce the use of technology in education” and said some families have withdrawn children from FCPS because of concerns about social and emotional effects. Maria Moran and other parents asked the board to pause AI tool deployments until parents, teachers and independent experts help draft protections and to define which tools are approved and how student data will be protected.

Student leaders raised related procedural concerns. The student representative urged a comprehensive review of digital policies and called for published, accessible guidance on AI for students, clear appeals for alleged AI misuse in academics and consistent county‑wide standards for teachers’ and students’ use of generative tools.

Superintendent Michelle Reid and district staff did not announce immediate policy changes at the meeting but have said in prior materials that the district is working on safeguards, training and an AI student guide. Board members and staff acknowledged during later agenda items that the governance committee planned to return to an instructional technology policy discussion at its April meeting and that administrators would respond with more details on contracts and timelines.

The public testimonies covered three recurring demands: pause or slow districtwide rollouts until protections are in place, publish clear opt‑out and screen‑time guidance, and create an AI advisory group open to parents, teachers and external experts. Several commenters also asked for an independent evaluation of the educational effectiveness of classroom devices, citing stagnant third‑grade reading outcomes since prior device adoptions.

Board members said they would take the comments into account as the governance committee continues to review the February draft of the district’s instructional technology policy. The board did not take formal action on technology or AI at the March 26 meeting.