Montgomery BOE Tables AI Policy, Reviews Limits on Board Member Communication

Nicholas Mistretta

Questions raised by Board Member Kathryn Worland prompted further review of parental consent language and how members communicate between public meetings

MONTGOMERY — The Montgomery Township Board of Education tabled a proposed artificial intelligence policy during its July 28 meeting after Board Member Kathryn Worland questioned whether the policy’s parental consent language could unintentionally allow families to opt students out of classroom assignments involving AI.

Worland also raised a separate concern about communication among board members between meetings, asking whether there was a transparent and legally permissible way for members to exchange ideas without violating New Jersey’s open public meeting requirements.

Both discussions focused on the practical consequences of board policies and procedures rather than the broader merits of the underlying issues.

AI Policy Sent Back for Further Review
Policy 2365, titled “Acceptable Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence,” had been scheduled for adoption following a second reading.

Worland pointed to language requiring the district to establish a procedure to inform parents and receive parental consent before students are permitted to use AI for assignments under the district’s AI plan.

She questioned whether the provision meant parents could decline permission for their children to participate in any assignment involving artificial intelligence. She said such an interpretation could require teachers to develop alternative assignments that assess the same skills and require a comparable amount of work.

As an example, Worland described a possible high school assignment in which students might be asked to evaluate or critique an analysis generated by an AI program. A student whose parent withheld consent could potentially need a different assignment.

Board members and district representatives agreed the language could create implementation difficulties, particularly because AI tools may already be incorporated into educational software and classroom programs used across grade levels.

The discussion also revealed a difference between asking parents to acknowledge that they had reviewed the district’s AI policy and requiring affirmative consent for a student to use artificial intelligence.

Board Vice President Maria Spina said the original intention was for families to acknowledge the policy through the district’s Genesis forms. However, the wording under consideration appeared to provide parents with a broader right to prohibit their children from using AI.

Board counsel advised that the language could be refined to distinguish between AI used as part of classroom instruction and its use for homework, independent study or projects completed outside school.

The board ultimately voted to table Policy 2365. It will return to the policy committee for additional review and is expected to be brought back before the full board as a new first reading.

Worland Questions One-Sided Emails Among Board Members
Later in the meeting, Worland raised concerns about how board members communicate between public meetings.

She acknowledged the need to comply with the Open Public Meetings Act and maintain transparency but said it can be difficult for all nine members to discuss emerging issues only while seated together at a formal board meeting.

Worland specifically addressed emails in which an individual board member sends an opinion or perspective to the entire board with an instruction not to “reply all.”

She said that approach allows one viewpoint to be distributed while preventing other board members from offering differing or complementary perspectives. In her view, that can leave members feeling silenced and may encourage people to circulate their positions first because no broader discussion can follow.

Worland asked whether the board could establish another method for discussing issues between meetings while remaining consistent with both the language and intent of the state’s public meeting law.

The board president responded that the board’s primary forums for discussion are full public meetings and committee meetings. Board committees generally include four members, which is fewer than the number required to constitute a quorum of the nine-member board.

Informational emails may be sent by the board president or district administration, members were told, but those communications are intended to distribute facts rather than begin a discussion.

Board counsel agreed with Worland’s concern about opinion-based emails sent to the full board.

He said adding an instruction not to reply does not protect the communication from potential legal concerns. An email expressing a provocative opinion to all members could naturally invite responses and begin a discussion outside public view.

Board counsel advised members to communicate individually with the board president, superintendent or business administrator when appropriate. Broader discussions involving board members, he said, should take place during a public board meeting or within a committee that does not constitute a quorum.

No formal action was taken on the communication issue, but the exchange clarified that individual members should not use board-wide emails to distribute opinions or initiate discussion outside a properly noticed public meeting.

Photo Credit: Nicholas Mistretta/headlinenewsmontgomery.com