AI Open Letter to FCPS

Dear Superintendent Dr. Reid,

On behalf of FCPS Parents for Intentional Technology (PIT), we are writing as parents and teachers to express our deep concerns regarding the District’s recent meetings, statements, and proposed policies about generative AI (GenAI) use in our schools. We recognize the importance of teaching our children about emerging technologies by identifying age appropriate, specific competencies and use cases.

However, introducing GenAI into children’s educational environments without meaningfully assessing the benefits against the risks raises serious educational, developmental, ethical, environmental, and safety concerns. 

The Compliance with Executive Limitation #12 Technology report (January 2026), in addition to listing actions taken to date regarding AI, details existing plans to make GenAI technology available to high school students by the end of the 2025-2026 school year, and middle school students in the 2026-2027 school year. 

In addition, recent actions taken by FCPS to promote GenAI include:

-Launched ChatGPT for teachers (November 2025)

- Launched a Student Innovation Challenge “Seize the Moment” in all high schools in partnership with Playlab, an AI company funded by Amazon (October 2025)

-Hosted AI “Meeting the Moment” in partnership with Google, Playlab, and Adobe Express (November 2025)

- Hosted AI Industry Panels with AI evangelists to present to the School Board and Family Vision Group

- Allowed  AI functionality within existing digital platforms (including Canva, Adobe, and MathSpace) for all grade levels

- Developed curriculum guidance on AI

Over this past year, we have been troubled by the statements from District leadership and industry speakers at District-hosted events related to GenAI.  Guest speakers with conflicts of interest (from the same AI companies that want to sell their services and tools to the District; i.e., OpenAI, Playlab, Google, etc.),  are promoting GenAI tools as “safe” and suggesting they should be required so children are not “left behind.” However, real concerns in the community continue to mount around GenAI’s output of misinformation and bias, in addition to effects including cognitive dependence, reduced critical thinking, privacy risks, inappropriate interactions, emotional attachment, and the erosion of authentic human relationships. 

Ongoing litigation related to GenAI use includes current lawsuits in which AI companies are accused of contributing to suicides and other mental health harms.[1]  The growing number of these cases are troubling and this information should be alarming enough for the District to pause their plans to make this technology immediately available to students. These lawsuits reinforce that adoption of GenAI for students is outpacing the research and policies necessary to safely govern it.

AI tools must be rigorously studied to understand the benefits and harm before they are introduced in the curriculum. At present, the school district and board have failed to show any independent, peer-reviewed evidence to suggest that AI use in K-12 education provides educational benefits.The District only points to vague examples of the benefits they expect to see from inclusion of AI in K-12 curriculum. The lack of research prior to deploying these tools could ultimately harm our children more than prepare them. 

We have repeatedly witnessed the promises of technology fall short when integrated in the education curriculum. There are growing concerns from parents and teachers across the District about existing technology use in our schools. In public meetings since December 2025, parents, teachers, and students have expressed concern and frustration with the amount of time children spend working independently on 1:1 devices. Students in all grades, including kindergarten, are currently spending time working independently on computers or iPads without meaningful teacher-led interaction. These devices are being used as classroom management tools, often so teachers can complete administrative tasks or work with other students. This means students are encouraged to use devices to play math or literacy games autonomously, instead of being provided hands-on learning materials. Despite the prevalence of education technology, the outcomes are unclear and not all digital tools align with how students learn best. 

Parental concerns about children’s screentime use in school is not only about the amount of weekly minutes used, but the quality and safety of the content on the screen. FCPS technology infrastructure is currently unable to safeguard students from accessing inappropriate content. Too many students are accessing gambling, gaming, social media, streaming sites, and other inappropriate content, such as the “5 Nights at Epstein’s” and “Roblox” games, during school on school-issued devices. Much of the inappropriate content is hosted within the District’s own Google Drive or Google Docs environment. 

Introducing GenAI increases kids’ risk of unhealthy technology use that is associated with behavioral addictions and mental health conditions, and decreased human interaction and needed motor skills development [2]. Adding GenAI use in curriculum will make it more difficult to rein in these challenges and risk exacerbating them. We strongly believe teachers should not bear the additional responsibility of monitoring student GenAI use.

Families, educators, and the broader community deserve clear answers to basic questions:

• What independent evidence supports the claims of educational benefits being made?

• What core technology competencies is FCPS trying to achieve for each grade, with evidence to back up the curriculum?

• What processes were used by the District to identify developmental and mental health risks?

• What safeguards exist to prevent harmful, manipulative, or inappropriate outputs?

• How will parents meaningfully consent to, or opt out of these tools?

• What accountability measures exist if harms occur?

• How will you monitor AI integration in existing educational technology tools students are currently using, such as Google Suite and MathSpace?

We urge you to immediately pause all GenAI access plans for students pending a transparent, evidence-based public review process.

Such a pause should include:

• Independent evaluation of AI generated content accuracy, educational efficacy, and developmental impact;

• Assessment of these evaluations to determine the scope and content of an AI curriculum;

• Public review of AI curriculum with a report of FCPS-approved tools with integrated AI;

• Public disclosure of contracts, policies, and data governance practices;

• Opportunities for meaningful parent, educator, and student input;

• Review by child development, privacy, and mental health experts;

• Development of clear opt-in/opt-out consent procedures rather than passive participation;

• Comprehensive assessment of existing district technology, challenges,  and harms.

 As parents, we entrust our schools to keep our children safe and choose evidence-based curriculum to educate and prepare our children. The District has an obligation to apply a heightened level of caution when introducing technologies that may fundamentally alter how students learn, think, and communicate. Schools should be guided not by technological novelty or market pressure, but by evidence, transparency, and the best interests of students. The stakes for our children are too high to do otherwise. The members of FCPS Parents for Intentional Tech stand ready to work with all stakeholders to find effective solutions.

Sincerely, 

FCPS Parents for Intentional Tech

[1]https://www.americanbar.org/groups/health_law/news/2025/ai-chatbot-lawsuits-teen-mental-health/

[2] Christakis, D. A., & Hale, L. (Eds.). (2025). Handbook of children and screens: Digital media, development, and well-being from birth through adolescence. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-69362-5