{"resourceId":"cde-model-policy-ai-education-20260625","versions":[{"version":"external-a424fbbf0de67332bf20dd27e959139e04d94acbfca1f1c8f658b50a1489b824","resource":{"id":"cde-model-policy-ai-education-20260625","title":"California releases adaptable TK–12 AI model policy rejecting detector-only discipline and mandating privacy-by-design","organization":"California Department of Education","sector":"K-12 state education agency standards and guidance","geography":"California, United States (TK–12 LEAs and charter schools)","publishedAt":"June 25, 2026 (model policy posted; superintendent letter July 6, 2026; page last reviewed June 26, 2026)","publicationDate":"2026-06-25","eventDate":"2026-06-25","sourceName":"Model Policy: Artificial Intelligence In Education","sourceLabel":"SEA exemplary model policy under SB 1288 (non-mandatory)","sourceUrl":"https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/pl/aipolicy.asp","evidenceClass":"standards-guidance","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["governance-procurement","data-security","accessibility-workforce","operating-model","knowledge-work"],"finding":"CDE’s SB 1288 model policy (posted June 25, 2026; Thurmond letter July 6) gives LEAs a ready-to-adapt template: disclose AI use; ban detector-only discipline/grade penalties; authorize only district-approved tools; privacy-by-design with no training/advertising on student data; FERPA/EC 49073.1 compliance; annual guardian consent for autonomous AI student tools; parent human-review rights; pre-deployment evaluation; enforceable vendor clauses (breach notice, audit, deletion); educator-of-record grading authority; AI literacy as core competency; biennial strategy review. Newly relevant on 2026-09-23 because LAUSD’s student GenAI moratorium and nationwide pause/boundary debates leave California LEAs drafting fall policies against a concrete SEA checklist—without making compliance mandatory (EC 33308.5).","sledRelevance":"California LEAs now have an explicit sales/engineering checklist: detectors cannot be sole evidence; contracts need audit/deletion/training bans; literacy and human grading authority are policy defaults.","evidence":"Opened the CDE model-policy page via WebFetch (26 principles) and the July 6 release letter confirming June 25 posting under SB 1288; cross-checked themes against CDE AI Guidance PDF downloaded the same session (human-centered AI, literacy, privacy sections).","architectureImplications":"Approved-vendor lists with wellbeing monitoring; consent workflow for autonomous student AI; human review queues for AI outputs affecting decisions; no personal AI accounts for student data.","governanceImplications":"Local boards adapt exemplary language; biennial multistakeholder strategy review; instructional discretion per assignment with family communication.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Privacy-by-design, training/advertising bans, breach notification, audit rights, and deletion-on-termination become contract norms; confidential records barred from learning tools unless authorized.","caveats":"Non-mandatory exemplary policy; not an effectiveness study; LAUSD local moratorium may be stricter than the model’s permission structure; full DOCX template not re-downloaded beyond HTML page.","streamIds":["k12"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: California buyers measuring vendors against SB 1288 model language will ask for training bans, audit rights, deletion, and a clear statement that detectors are not discipline engines. Map your DPA to the 26 principles before claiming CA readiness.","engineering":"Engineering framing: enforce approved-tool only access, consent flags for autonomous student AI, human-review APIs for high-stakes outputs, and block personal consumer accounts from student-data workflows. Do not wire detectors as automatic grade penalties.","delivery":"Delivery framing: help LEAs adapt the model policy locally, stand up approved-vendor evaluation rubrics, train staff on disclosure/citation, and schedule biennial strategy review. Acceptance is adopted local policy language plus one executed vendor addendum with audit/deletion clauses."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"CA LEAs need adaptable AI policy language covering integrity, privacy, literacy, and vendor contracts without treating CDE text as a mandate.","stakeholders":["superintendent","board counsel","privacy officer","curriculum","teachers association","parents"],"discoveryQuestions":["Have you adapted CDE’s SB 1288 model policy locally?","Do vendor contracts ban training/advertising on student data with audit rights?","Are AI detectors used as sole discipline evidence today?","Is guardian consent required for autonomous student AI tools?"],"valueHypothesis":"Vendors whose DPAs already match CDE privacy-by-design and audit/deletion clauses shorten CA legal review.","potentialEngagement":"Policy-to-DPA crosswalk against the 26 model principles and a detector-use compliance check.","unsupportedClaims":["That adopting the model policy is legally mandatory","That the policy proves any tool improves learning","That detector avoidance alone stops AI cheating"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Fit for CA LEAs building approved-tool catalogs and consent workflows; weaker for consumer-chat classroom norms.","architectureIntegration":"Approved-vendor SSO gate; consent registry; human-review workflow for AI-informed decisions; logging without automatic detector discipline hooks.","prerequisites":["board policy adaptation","privacy officer capacity","approved-vendor process"],"constraints":["non-mandatory status","local bargaining","LAUSD-style stricter pauses"],"security":"No student PII in unauthorized tools; encryption and breach notice per contract; deletion on termination.","proofOfValue":["Show personal ChatGPT account blocked from student-data use","Demonstrate consent capture before autonomous student AI","Confirm detector output cannot alone change a grade in the SIS"]},"delivery":{"work":"Adapt model language, run vendor evaluations, train on disclosure and AI literacy progressions, and set biennial review.","dependencies":["legal","IT","curriculum","communications","bargaining units"],"ownership":"Superintendent/board for policy; privacy officer for contracts; curriculum for literacy.","skillsAdoption":"Educator AI literacy PD; student claim-check and source triangulation skills per model language.","governanceCheckpoints":["First board reading","Vendor addendum executed","Consent process live","Biennial strategy scheduled"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Local AI policy posted","At least one vendor contract with audit/deletion/training-ban clauses","Detector-only discipline prohibited in written regulation"],"risks":["LEAs treat exemplary text as optional and stall","Stricter local pauses conflict with literacy pilots","Consent fatigue"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-09-24T03:13:30Z","enrichedAt":"2026-09-24T03:17:29Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Model ties AI deployment to ongoing PD in AI literacy, data fluency, and learning science so access is not license-only; equitable access to institutionally approved tools is explicit.","procurementImplications":"Pre-deployment evaluation and contractual safeguards (breach, audit, deletion, unauthorized-use liability) become the CA procurement checklist even though the model itself is non-mandatory.","operatingModelImplications":"Human-centered operating model: educator discretion per assignment, educator-of-record grading, biennial multistakeholder strategy—not automated high-stakes decisions.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/pl/aipolicy.asp","referenceExcerpt":"AI detection software should not be used as the sole basis for disciplinary action or grade penalty.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}