The Tucson Unified School District governing board failed to advance a slate of proposed revisions to the district’s AI Use in Education Policy after a 2-2 vote Tuesday, leaving the measures stalled before they could be released for public review. The proposals, brought forward by the district’s AI task force as part of the policy’s required annual review, would have updated the policy’s technical definition of artificial intelligence, expanded access to certain approved AI platforms for younger students, and authorized embedded AI-driven communication tools for students with disabilities.
Students working at classroom computers as the Tucson Unified School District board weighs proposed changes to AI policies affecting students.
Senior director of educational technology and field support Tracy Metcalfe presented the recommendations on behalf of the AI task force, walking board members through the three distinct changes under consideration. The first proposal would broaden the policy’s definitions for generative artificial intelligence to capture how the technology has evolved. "One of the definitions we have for generative artificial intelligence did not include some of the new versions of artificial intelligence, including agentic," Metcalfe told the board. "So we would like to expand the definition to include these new versions of artificial intelligence and making sure that that new definition is comprehensive for whatever changes come up in the next months, year." The intention was to ensure the document remained current with rapid technological change.
The task force emphasized that the policy itself already sets out the scope, usage guidelines and safeguards intended to govern AI’s role across education, administration and operations. Those provisions are designed to protect privacy, promote ethical use and support equitable learning environments, the task force said as it described the framework that governs which tools are permitted and how they may be integrated into classrooms and school systems. The proposed definitional update aimed to help district staff and the public understand which emergent tools would fall under the policy’s purview.
A second proposed change would expand the list of approved AI platforms that middle school students may use, while leaving the decision to adopt those tools in specific classrooms to individual teachers. Metcalfe explained the request stemmed from teachers themselves, noting that computer science instructors and some eighth-grade algebra teachers who deliver high-school-level curriculum had asked to access the same AI platforms available in high schools. TUSD identified several platforms already approved for student use under its closed-system model, including CodeHS, Canva, Magic School and Khanmigo. The district reiterated that it maintains strict closed systems for student access and that open, publicly available systems are not permitted for use by students under current policy.
Metcalfe was explicit about the distinction the district draws between closed and open systems. "Those are open systems and not appropriate for our students," she said, referring to platforms such as ChatGPT and Gemini that were cited during the discussion as examples of open systems the district does not allow. The closed-system approach is intended to give the district control over the tools students may access and limits exposure to platforms that do not meet the district’s data protection or pedagogical standards. Under the middle-school expansion proposal, teachers would determine whether to incorporate the approved platforms into instruction for their classes.
The third recommended revision focused on embedded AI features that are already part of assistive technologies used by students with disabilities. Metcalfe described devices and software used to support communication that include AI elements tailored to the user, explaining these tools can adapt as a student grows. "There are certain tools that our students have access to that have AI baked into the programming, one of which, for example, is we have a communication system that our students, our special needs students are using to assist them to speak and it evolves based on the age of the student," she said. "It's using artificial intelligence, so it's giving voice to students who haven't had a voice before, but they're using it as young as five up to 18." The proposal would acknowledge and permit such embedded AI within the district’s policy framework so those devices could continue to be used in classrooms and special education settings.
Board members raised concerns about introducing certain AI capabilities to younger students and the broader implications of expanding access to classroom AI, contributing to the 2-2 split. Because the vote deadlocked, the task force’s proposed revisions will not proceed to the public review phase at this time. Superintendent Dr. Gabriel Trujillo indicated the proposals could be brought back for consideration at a future meeting. A redline copy of the proposed policy changes had been made available for review as the board considered next steps. No changes will be implemented until the board takes further action and the required public processes are completed.