School Technology Policy Development

🌍 UNESCO’s Pillars Framework for Digital Transformation in Education offers a roadmap for leaders, educators, and tech partners to work together and bridge the digital divide. This framework is about more than just tech—it’s about supporting communities and keeping education a public good. 💡 When implementing EdTech, policymakers should pay special attention to these critical aspects to ensure that technology meaningfully enhances education without introducing unintended issues:  🚸1. Equity and Access Policymakers need to prioritize closing the digital divide by providing affordable internet, reliable devices, and offline options where connectivity is limited. Without equitable access, EdTech can worsen existing educational inequalities.  💻2. Data Privacy and Security Implementing strong data privacy laws and secure platforms is essential to build trust. Policymakers must ensure compliance with data protection standards and implement safeguards against data breaches, especially in systems that involve sensitive information.  🚌3. Pedagogical Alignment and Quality of Content Digital tools and content should be high-quality, curriculum-aligned, and support real learning needs. Policymakers should involve educators in selecting and shaping EdTech tools that align with proven pedagogical practices.  🌍4. Sustainable Funding and Cost Management To avoid financial strain, policymakers should develop sustainable, long-term funding models and evaluate the total cost of ownership, including infrastructure, updates, and training. Balancing costs with impact is key to sustaining EdTech programs.  🦺5. Capacity Building and Professional Development Training is essential for teachers to integrate EdTech into their teaching practices confidently. Policymakers need to provide robust, ongoing professional development and peer-support systems, so educators feel empowered rather than overwhelmed by new tools. 👓 6. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement Policymakers should establish monitoring and evaluation processes to track progress and understand what works. This includes using data to refine strategies, ensure goals are met, and avoid wasted resources on ineffective solutions. 🧑🚒 7. Cultural and Social Adaptation Cultural sensitivity is crucial, especially in communities less familiar with digital learning. Policymakers should promote a growth mindset and address resistance through community engagement and awareness campaigns that highlight the educational value of EdTech. 🥸 8. Environmental Sustainability Policymakers should integrate green practices, like using energy-efficient devices and recycling programs, to reduce EdTech’s carbon footprint. Sustainable practices can also help keep costs manageable over time. 🔥Download: UNESCO. (2024). Six pillars for the digital transformation of education. UNESCO. https://lnkd.in/eYgr922n  #DigitalTransformation #EducationInnovation #GlobalEducation

In the past few months, we've worked with partners who've run into the same challenge with AI adoption. They rolled out policies or guidelines without bringing people into the conversation first—no workshop, no consensus building, just documents that needed signatures or implementation. Unsurprisingly, the result was frustrated staff expected to enforce or follow rules they had no part in creating, and leaders facing resistance instead of adoption. Both AI policies and guidelines are critical for responsible AI adoption, but they have to be built intentionally, with stakeholders driving consensus, or they most likely won't work. After working with hundreds of districts, we've created the resource below. Here are the best practices we recommend. Policies are your compliance layer and are designed to protect your district. We suggest adaptations to existing: ✔️ Acceptable use policies ✔️ Data privacy/FERPA protections ✔️ Academic integrity standards ✔️ Cyberbullying policies (to add deepfakes) Guidelines are your change management layer. They are the "why" that brings people along. We recommend including the following in your AI guidelines: 💡 Vision for GenAI adoption across your district 💡 GenAI misuse/academic integrity response protocols 💡 GenAI chatbot and EdTech tool vetting processes 💡 Digital wellbeing, data privacy, and student safety practices 💡 Implementation tips and instructional supports 💡 AI Literacy training opportunities and expectations What matters most is that both policies and guidelines should be built with stakeholders, not handed down to them. They should evolve with feedback, evidence of impact, and technical advancements. In all of our guideline and policy development work, we always start with AI literacy. It's important to build foundational understanding across stakeholders so that when policies and guidelines are developed, people can contribute meaningfully to the process and understand the "why" behind what they're being asked to implement. Intentional stakeholder engagement isn't a nice-to-have. It's what we've seen drive adoption. #AIforEducation #GenAI #ChangeManagement #AI

This platform is full of pronouncements about edtech platforms and AI in education. But most of it's barely more than marketing rhetoric or industry-adjacent promotional material that should be treated sceptically at best. As an alternative, here is an excellent policy brief on edtech platforms from the National Education Policy Center, written by Faith Boninger and Phil Nichols, examining the "edtech ecosystems" impacting on school classrooms: "Digital educational platforms have become ubiquitous in American classrooms, with tools like Google Workspace for Education, Kahoot!, Zearn, Khan Academy, and many others now structuring curriculum, instruction, collaboration, assessment, and communication. This policy brief highlights how these platforms are not neutral “tools” but complex ecosystems shaped by technical architectures, commercial imperatives, and political-economic interests. While educators tend to view them as aids for instruction, platforms extract and monetize data, linking schools into broader markets of advertisers and data brokers. For educators and policymakers, this reality calls for an ecological perspective that asks not only how platforms function in classrooms but also whose interests they serve, what values they embed, and whether nondigital means might better achieve educational goals. To guard against overreliance on industry marketing and the amplified risks of emerging AI systems, schools must articulate their own needs and values first, adopt platforms selectively, and seek policy safeguards that protect their educational mission." https://lnkd.in/dF9C99ke 

90% of students are using AI. Less than half of institutions have issued an AI policy. That gap should alarm every college and university leader in the country. I've spent months researching, compiling, and verifying AI usage policies across higher education — and today I'm releasing a free resource I wish had existed when I started this work. Introducing the AI Usage Policies in Higher Education: A Policy Handbook. Inside you'll find: 📋 110 verified AI policies from institutions across 14 countries — categorized by Enterprise, Academic, and Student Usage — spanning the Ivy League, state university systems, Russell Group, Go8, HBCUs, tribal colleges, community colleges, and major associations like EDUCAUSE, AAUP, and MSCHE. 📊 27 key statistics on AI policy adoption, student usage, faculty perception, and enterprise risk — all sourced and linked. 📚 37 resources and reports including periodicals, policy trackers, accreditation guidance, and academic research every leader should know. 🔒 25 enterprise risk considerations covering agentic browser security, open-source supply chain vulnerabilities, OWASP's Top 10 for Agentic AI, FERPA compliance, EU AI Act implications, and practical policy development guidance. The policy landscape is moving fast. Leaders who wait for perfect clarity will find themselves governing by crisis instead of by design. This handbook is free, open, and community-driven. If your institution has an AI policy that should be included, I want to hear from you. 🔗 Access the full handbook here: https://lnkd.in/ePKAKdMw What's the biggest AI governance challenge your institution is facing right now? #AIinHigherEd #HigherEducation #AIPolicy #EdTech #AIGovernance #AgenticAI #GenerativeAI #HigherEdLeadership

The U.S. Department of Education has released two key documents on Artificial Intelligence in K–12 education: 1️⃣ A “Dear Colleague” letter clarifying how AI use is allowable under federal education programs, provided it complies with existing statutory and regulatory requirements. 2️⃣ A 74-page AI Toolkit designed to help school and district leaders evaluate risks, establish governance, and make informed implementation decisions. The guidance reinforces that: • Federal grant funds may support AI projects if used within program guidelines. • Educators remain central; AI may assist but not replace them. • Equity, civil rights, privacy, and bias mitigation must be core considerations in any AI use. The toolkit provides practical tools, including decision rubrics, governance structures, and sample use cases, to guide safe and effective integration. As a superintendent and leadership coach, I view this as an important framework for school systems. I am committed to continuing to learn more and lead more in this space, ensuring AI is approached with clarity, ethics, and impact. For school and district leaders, now is the time to engage teams in exploring: • Where AI could responsibly support teaching and learning • How policies and safeguards must evolve • What professional development educators will need #AIinEducation #EdTech #SchoolLeadership #K12Leadership #EducationInnovation #FutureReadySchools

A few months ago, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Ed Tech released a 'Dear Colleague' letter that should be required reading for anyone in the field. The leverage of DOE's guidance is in the huge volume of federal funding that many states and districts rely on to balance their budgets. This includes temporary increases under Covid relief laws like ESSER, on top of normal funding like Title I and IDEA special #education supplements. With this funding stream in mind, the letter sets the criteria by which EdTech spending decisions should be made, at all levels. The bottom line is that all technology must hold as its central purpose that it "aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors." In other words, technology purchases need to facilitate the relationship between teacher and student - tech is to be a tool to help teachers do their jobs better, not replace them. There is no 'plug-and-play' exception. Even with all of the buzz around AI and Chat GPT, or the explosion in short-form video content, the centrality of educators working directly with students is still the main underpinning of the entire system- as it should be. The second criterion for new purchases of technology is that they play a part in "addressing the academic impact of lost instructional time" due to school closures and the disruptions of the pandemic. Within that subset, the DOE wants #edtech spending to represent one of four buckets: 1. Assessments 2. Active Learning 3. Share information with families 4. Track engagement of distance learners And a reminder that there is even more money available than just the funding earmarked for technology - "Competitive grant programs allow funds to be used to support digital learning, even if the program statutes do not reference educational technology explicitly." The letter gives precise examples of how the money may be used: 1. Improve and personalize PD and other supports for educators 2. Increase access to high-quality digital content for students 3. Facilitate educator collaboration and communication 4. Provide devices for educators and students The guidance then reminds state and local districts to conduct needs assessments to specify exactly which needs are met by the purchase and deployment of technology - For EdTech, these needs assessments are an exact roadmap. Schools couldn't get more specific with what they want to purchase if they tried. If your sales and marketing departments aren't reading these with a highlighter in hand, they're not doing their jobs. The letter ends with a list of targeted questions districts should be asking as part of their technology needs assessments - providing roadmaps for both the districts on what to ask, and EdTech on what they need to prove. I'll add the link to the entire letter in the comments, and you'll want to read + bookmark it. Be ready to have direct answers to the direct questions it lays out.

This piece on K-12 AI policy caught my attention because it underscores something that’s been on my mind. Back in my Microsoft days, the goal was to put a computer on every desk and in every home. We had a strategy, timeline, and rollout plan. It was uncharted territory, but we had a vision. With AI in schools, there's no grand strategy—it's just happening. As one educator puts it: "People are going to use it, and we can't stop it." What I appreciate in this article is how some school leaders are meeting that reality: listening and learning first, then building policy around real needs. A few takeaways worth noting: - Ground-up approaches work. Greenwich's superintendent invited teachers to join a task force and asked them to study AI policies from Harvard and Brown, then tailor one that fit their district.  - Hands-on experience changes minds. Initial fears give way to excitement when educators see AI’s potential to enhance, not replace, their work.   - Simple guardrails matter. Tucson’s "stoplight system" (red/yellow/green) usage sets clear boundaries while preserving teacher judgment.  This models the kind of thoughtful, collaborative leadership we need to harness AI for our public schools, and to shape how an entire generation learns and works.  What questions are you grappling with as AI becomes part of the classroom? #AIinEducation #EducationLeadership #PublicEducation #Innovation #SystemsThinking https://lnkd.in/gefmjDpc

Creating an AI Classroom Policy! I’ve been working on a chapter about AI use policies for an edited book and thought I’d share some of what I’ve learned along the way. Teachers everywhere are trying to figure out how to manage AI tools in their classrooms, and having a simple classroom policy can make a big difference. Here are a few tips to guide the process. 1. Start with Existing Policies Begin by checking what already exists in your school or district. Some schools have official AI use policies, while others are still developing them. If your school doesn’t have one yet, look at existing technology integration or digital citizenship policies. They often contain sections that can guide your thinking. Your classroom policy should connect to these documents and should definitely be aligned with them. 2. Frame It as an Agreement Think of your classroom AI policy as a flexible agreement between you and your students, not a formal administrative document. You’re creating something practical to guide daily classroom use. Still, it helps to share your draft with your principal or tech coordinator so they know what you’re doing and can offer feedback if needed. I prefer calling it an “AI Classroom Agreement” rather than a “policy.” That small change in wording makes it feel more collaborative. It tells students, we’re building this together. 3. Make it a collaborative process When you start working on it, bring your students into the conversation. Sit together as a class and talk about what responsible AI use looks like. Ask them what tools they already use, what they think is fair, and how they’d like AI to support their learning. This approach does two things. It gives students a voice and helps them see that their opinions matter. And it builds accountability, because people are far more likely to follow rules they helped create. 4. Make It Interactive Turn the process into an engaging classroom activity. Use an AI chatbot to brainstorm ideas together, then show your students how to evaluate and refine what the AI suggests. This exercise is also a great lesson in AI literacy. Students learn that AI is a starting point. They see that every AI-generated response needs human judgment, editing, and reflection before it becomes useful. 4. Involve Parents and Guardians It’s also worth looping parents into the process. Share your classroom AI agreement with them and explain how you’ll be using AI tools in your lessons. Be clear about how student data is protected and how assignments involving AI will be handled. When parents understand the purpose behind your policy, they’re more likely to support it. This shared understanding helps create consistency between home and school. What’s Next In a future post, I’ll walk through what to include in your classroom AI policy and share examples and templates that you can adapt for your own context. Stay tuned! #AIinEducation #Teachers #AIClassroom #EdTech #AIEthics #AIforTeachers

Two Harvard students used smart glasses and facial recognition to pull a stranger's home address, phone number and workplace before the conversation ended. Those glasses are in UK retailers now, the ICO launched a formal investigation into Meta in March 2026 after contractors reviewed intimate footage captured through them, and your safeguarding policy has not mentioned smart glasses once. Shrewsbury School banned them in November 2025 for pupils, parents, visitors and staff after identifying risks around covert recording, livestreaming and UK GDPR breaches. The DfE updated mobile phone guidance in January 2026 with no dedicated guidance on smart glasses, leaving schools without statutory direction while the technology walks through the door every morning. Seven things your safeguarding policy needs to address before September: 1. A named prohibition covering students, staff, parents and visitors. Your phone policy does not cover smart glasses and neither does the DfE guidance. 2. An exam policy requiring students who need prescription eyewear to wear standard non-electronic frames during assessments. A 2026 High Court case rejected a witness's evidence after he was coached through smart glasses while giving it, which means viva voce examinations are not the AI-resistant alternative schools think they are. 3. A UK GDPR assessment covering what happens when a visitor's glasses capture images of children, process them through AI and store them on US servers. Schools become data controllers in that scenario whether they know it or not, and Meta's opt-out for voice data collection is buried in account settings that bystanders, including students and staff, never had access to because they were never asked to consent in the first place. 4. A changing room and toilet protocol that names wearable recording devices explicitly rather than relying on phone policies that predate the technology. 5. A deepfake protocol. Realistic deepfake content can be generated from 20 images in 15 minutes, and a student filmed in a corridor without knowing it provides enough source material for content that could end a teacher's career before the school knows it exists. 6. A governor briefing that names the ICO investigation specifically. Governors approving data protection policies need to know Meta's own contractors reviewed footage of people getting dressed and using the toilet captured through these glasses, because that makes this a governance issue not just a safeguarding one. 7. A position on accessibility that names the benefits for EAL students and students with dyslexia before implementing a blanket ban, because a policy without that position has an equality duty gap that Ofsted will find before you do. Search your safeguarding policy for the words "smart glasses" and read what comes up. If nothing comes up, a parent wearing Ray-Bans to your next parents evening is your school's next safeguarding incident. #Safeguarding #SchoolLeadership #KCSIE

Proud to have contributed as a co-author to California’s AI Guidance for Public Schools, developed through a statewide working group convened by the California Department of Education and supported by Superintendent Tony Thurmond. What makes this guidance different is how it was built: Cross-sector collaboration (TK–12, higher ed, unions, county offices, nonprofits, IT, policy) Grounded in statute (SB 1288), Explicit about human judgment, equity, and developmental appropriateness Rather than asking schools to “adopt AI,” it asks better questions: When does AI support learning—and when does it interfere? How do we protect student data before procurement? What does AI literacy look like across grade spans, not just as a standalone unit? For leaders feeling pressure to “do something with AI,” this guidance is a good resource that governance, pedagogy, and trust come first. Many thanks to other educators who helped put this together. Below in the comments is a link to view the CDE AI guidance page.