Article Text

Falls Church City Public Schools has adopted its first systemwide policy governing artificial intelligence, setting sharply different rules by grade level and requiring human judgment to remain at the center of teaching, grading and student learning.

The Falls Church City School Board, led by Chair Kathleen Tysse, approved Policy II/GF, Use of Artificial Intelligence, with only minor changes during its final work session of the year on Monday, June 22.

The four-page policy covers student and employee use of AI, academic integrity, accessibility, equity, privacy, data security, community communication and future policy reviews.

Generative AI is defined as technology that learns patterns from data and responds to prompts by producing or substantially modifying text, images, audio, video, code and other digital material.

Its rapid spread since the launch of OpenAI’s ChatGPT four years ago has raised concerns across education. Those concerns include fabricated or incorrect answers, cheating and plagiarism, diminished critical-thinking and creative skills, unreliable AI-detection tools, copyright violations, student privacy risks, technology costs and commercial targeting of young people.

Human judgment remains the foundation

The policy takes a cautious but not prohibitive approach. FCCPS recognizes that AI may help with instruction, accessibility, communication and school operations, but says it cannot replace human responsibility or accountability.

AI use must support the school system’s instructional goals and help students develop thinking, research, communication, social and self-management skills. It must also be developmentally appropriate, transparent, attentive to equity and protective of student privacy and well-being.

For students, AI is intended to strengthen—not replace—critical thinking, creativity, academic honesty and independent judgment. Employees likewise may use the technology to assist their work, but not as a substitute for professional expertise or independent decisions.

The policy identifies possible benefits such as differentiated instruction, translation, accessibility, feedback, information analysis, student creativity and staff productivity. It also warns about biased or inaccurate output, excessive dependence on AI, disclosure of protected student information and the use of technology to complete work students are expected to perform themselves.

Student rules change by grade level

Across all FCCPS schools, acceptable AI use will depend on a student’s age, developmental stage, course, assignment and instructional purpose.

Working within division guidance, teachers may prohibit AI, allow it only under explicit direction, permit it as limited assistance or incorporate it into a defined classroom activity. Expectations must be communicated clearly to students, and rules for misuse will be included in the student code of conduct.

Teachers may also require students to disclose when AI materially contributed to their work. Courses must continue to evaluate students, at least in part, through assignments completed without generative AI.

The policy guarantees AI-free learning experiences intended to protect independent thinking, memory, creativity, handwriting, close reading, discussion, collaboration, problem-solving and human connection within the International Baccalaureate framework.

At the high school level, students may receive more freedom to use AI for subject-specific purposes. Such use must support learning goals, prepare students for further education or employment, and remain subject to teacher oversight, transparency and academic-integrity requirements.

High school students must also have opportunities to learn ethical AI practices while demonstrating original thought, sustained attention, independent mastery and unaided performance when those abilities are central to an assignment.

Middle school use will be more restricted. AI may appear only in structured, teacher-directed activities designed to show students how the technology works, where it may be useful and when it could interfere with learning. Teachers must distinguish between activities where AI can assist with practice, organization, feedback or exploration and assignments requiring original, unaided work.

Elementary students will not be permitted to use generative AI independently. Teachers may provide age-appropriate, guided exposure to AI literacy or use approved tools to personalize lessons and instruction.

The technology cannot displace foundational instruction in reading, writing, mathematics, play, social interaction, creativity or independent problem-solving.

Equity and privacy protections

FCCPS must consider the needs of students with disabilities, multilingual learners, advanced academic learners, twice-exceptional students and children whose access to technology outside school may be limited.

AI rules cannot restrict approved accommodations, assistive technology, language services or other supports required for equitable access to education.

The policy also bars users from entering personally identifiable information, confidential records, disability information, mental-health information or other sensitive student data into AI tools unless they are using approved division systems under applicable privacy protections.

Students and employees will receive continuing, age-appropriate instruction on AI’s uses, limitations, ethical concerns, privacy implications and academic-integrity risks. Families must be informed about how the technology is being used in schools and given opportunities to ask questions and provide feedback under procedures established by the superintendent.

Policy grew from community expertise

The School Board appointed an AI Advisory Committee in January to recommend how FCCPS should govern artificial intelligence and to develop a comprehensive policy informed by the community.

Its members included FCCPS parents with backgrounds in AI development, cognitive neuroscience, philosophy, education technology, data science, cybersecurity, law, special education, clinical social work, workforce strategy, public-sector technology policy, social-impact software and emergency-service leadership.

Because AI technology and its educational uses are evolving quickly, the superintendent must report annually to the School Board on its use and effects on learning, teaching, academic integrity and staff capacity. The board must formally review the policy at least once every two years.