Article Text

Falls Church school leaders are moving toward an artificial intelligence policy that would keep people—not automated systems—responsible for grading, discipline, student placement and other consequential decisions.

The Falls Church City School Board gave the proposal first-reading approval June 9 after refining its restrictions on high-stakes AI use. The emerging policy would also place clear consequences for student misuse in the Code of Conduct.

Only minor revisions remained during the meeting, suggesting the board was nearing consensus after months of consultation with educators, students, families and an expert advisory committee.

Schools Confront AI’s Expanding Role

The policy comes as schools nationwide weigh AI’s potential benefits against concerns about cheating, misinformation and the erosion of critical-thinking skills.

Technology reporter Natasha Singer described that tension during a June 17 episode of “The Daily.” Students who have not yet learned to research, analyze texts or evaluate claims may struggle to recognize when a chatbot produces unreliable information, she said. Relying on AI to perform those tasks could also interfere with the development of students’ own abilities.

Falls Church has already encountered another concern: Some Meridian High School students have objected to teachers using generative AI to provide feedback or help evaluate their work.

Meridian began publicly examining classroom AI use in December 2025, when Principal Peter Laub and IB Diploma Program Coordinator Josh Singer hosted “From Chalkboards to Chatbots.” The 57-minute parent forum brought teachers and students together to discuss how AI was affecting instruction, assignments and academic integrity.

The school system described the event as one source of information for the board’s development of a districtwide policy.

Advisory Committee Calls for Guardrails

Superintendent Terry J. Dade has advocated a balanced approach. He has said schools must ensure students remain well-read and capable researchers while also preparing them to use technology they are likely to encounter after graduation.

Drawing on his experience in a previous district, Dade said high schools were a logical starting point because older students were already accessing AI and teachers were confronting difficult questions about plagiarism, authentic student ability, homework and project design.

In January 2026, the board established an Ad Hoc AI Advisory Committee composed of FCCPS parents with experience in fields including AI development, cognitive neuroscience, education technology, data science, special education, cybersecurity, social work, law and public-sector technology policy.

The committee delivered its report, “Facing AI with Clarity, Care, and Purpose,” on April 28. It called for rules that protect students and preserve human accountability without treating AI as inherently beneficial or harmful.

Its recommendations covered student AI literacy, classroom integration, personalized learning and ways to pursue potential benefits while reducing risks. The proposed guiding principles included alignment with the International Baccalaureate program, age-appropriate use, human-centered decision-making, equity and continued revision as technology changes.

The committee also warned that AI’s educational benefits remain uncertain, its risks are significant, its use can be difficult to detect and the future quality of available tools cannot be predicted.

Those concerns applied to adults as well as students. The report said teachers and staff could use AI for preparation, support and operational work, but educators must remain accountable for their final decisions. It specifically advised against delegating grading, assessments, academic-integrity findings and other high-stakes judgments to automated systems.

Elementary AI Pilot Language Removed

At the June 9 meeting, Chief Officer of City Legal Services Trish Minson said the draft needed only minor changes. She credited board members Bethany Henderson and Dr. Jerrod Anderson, Superintendent Dade and the AI subcommittee for developing the proposal.

Henderson said the group had tried to turn wide-ranging feedback into clear principles and guardrails without placing detailed operational procedures in the policy itself.

One challenge was preventing AI-generated material from becoming the basis of important work while leaving educators enough flexibility to adapt as the technology changes.

The draft initially included parenthetical language raising the possibility of elementary students using AI in curated, closed systems through future pilot programs. Anderson recommended removing that exception during the policy’s first version and retaining a straightforward prohibition on independent AI use by younger students.

Board member Anne Sherwood agreed that pilot programs could be considered later, after the district learned more from AI use at the middle- and high-school levels. The board ultimately removed the parenthetical language.

Board Debates a Parental Opt-Out

Board member Lori Silverman asked whether families should be allowed to opt their children out of AI instruction. She noted that Google Gemini had been installed automatically on student laptops and questioned whether parents should receive notice and be able to disable their children’s access.

Henderson said individually configuring software for every student would create substantial operational difficulties. She also argued that an opt-out would conflict with the district’s goal of developing AI literacy.

Students do not need to use AI for every task, Henderson said, but they must learn how it works and when they should avoid it. The policy attempts to preserve writing, mathematics, critical thinking and other independent skills by requiring students to complete at least some evaluated work without AI.

Silverman compared a possible AI exemption with the district’s opt-out for Family Life Education. Board Chair Kathleen Tysse said the comparison was imperfect because Family Life Education occurs during clearly defined lessons, while AI could arise at different times throughout numerous courses.

Board member MaryKate Hughes, a former fifth-grade teacher, raised a related concern. If elementary students are prohibited from independently using generative AI, she said, the software available on their computers should reflect that rule. Enforcing the policy would be difficult if an AI tool appeared whenever students opened their devices.

Families to Receive Classroom Guidance

Silverman also sought assurances that parents would be told when students could and could not use AI, particularly for specific assignments.

Henderson said the draft’s communication and feedback provisions anticipated that need, with details to be established through superintendent regulations.

Dade said Meridian already incorporates AI expectations into course syllabi. The district could build on that practice by having teachers and schools clearly explain permitted and prohibited uses rather than issuing one blanket statement for every classroom.

A comprehensive regulation will take longer. Dade suggested that a fully vetted version might not be ready to come before the board for about a year.

In the meantime, he said, the policy itself provides relatively clear direction for elementary schools. Meridian’s existing approach can serve as a model, while the district concentrates next on defining appropriate use at the middle-school level and refining high-school practices.

The district plans to communicate with families, students and staff in the fall. However, Dade cautioned that a complete professional-development program could not be created before teachers return in mid-August. Developing an AI-literacy curriculum and determining how to teach ethical use will require additional time.

District Seeks Consistent Classroom Rules

Henderson pressed the administration on student complaints that acceptable AI use varies from one classroom to another, sometimes even among teachers in the same department.

Dade agreed that such inconsistencies were unacceptable. Establishing shared expectations within departments would begin at convocation and continue into the new school year, he said.

The board also strengthened language governing consequential decisions. The proposed policy now says decisions involving grading, discipline, placement, special-education eligibility, individualized education programs, Section 504 determinations, mental-health support and similar matters must be based substantially on human input.

The wording is intended to prevent AI from driving high-stakes outcomes while allowing teachers to use support tools—for example, to flag something that deserves closer review. Henderson cautioned that detecting possible AI use should not automatically end an educator’s evaluation of a student’s work.

Hughes supported stronger protections for human-generated work, particularly when a decision depends on a student’s or professional’s expertise. She said schools must protect both the development and demonstration of that expertise.

Anderson compared AI literacy with learning to use spreadsheets: Graduates should understand an important modern tool, but schools must also assess what students can do on their own. The proposed language directs teachers to evaluate student knowledge and skills, in whole or in part, through work completed without generative AI when consistent with course goals.

Misuse Will Carry Clear Consequences

Hughes also argued that the district’s response to improper AI use remained too vague. Students and staff need continuing, age-appropriate instruction about AI’s uses and limitations, she said, along with specific consequences for violating the rules.

She suggested a structure resembling an honor committee, with students and faculty jointly examining AI cases and creating examples that could help teach younger students.

Dade agreed that the consequences must be communicated clearly and confirmed that student misuse would be addressed in the Code of Conduct.

With those revisions, the board’s central position has become clear: Falls Church students should learn to navigate AI, but the technology cannot replace their own mastery—or the judgment and accountability expected of the adults making decisions about them.