{"resourceId":"fairplay-student-first-ai-policy-20261007","versions":[{"version":"external-c88b0627d96a0b321275a034ed4ad416425e55a5cbad836b99dec2c578cebb64","resource":{"id":"fairplay-student-first-ai-policy-20261007","title":"Fairplay Student-First AI Policy: independent learning-gain evidence, privacy/non-addictive design, and three-month phase-out for unapproved student GenAI","organization":"Fairplay (with Parabola Center for Law and Policy; Critical Internet Studies Institute)","sector":"Children’s advocacy / model K-12 board policy","geography":"United States (model for local school districts nationwide)","publishedAt":"October 7, 2026 (press); model PDF retrieved 2026-10-13","publicationDate":"2026-10-07","eventDate":"2026-10-07","sourceName":"Fairplay","sourceLabel":"Advocacy organization model board policy PDF (co-authored with Parabola Center and Boston University CISI)","sourceUrl":"https://fairplayforkids.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/student-first-ai-policy.pdf","evidenceClass":"standards-guidance","outcomeClass":"cautionary","topics":["governance-procurement","data-security","accessibility-workforce","operating-model","knowledge-work"],"finding":"Fairplay’s Student-First AI Policy (model PDF accompanying an Oct 7, 2026 release) forbids student use of generative AI products unless independent evidence shows the specific product improves learning outcomes better than existing methods, protects privacy without addictive design, and does not perpetuate discrimination or inequities. Unapproved student-facing products and features are phased out within three months of adoption; exceptions cover legally mandated accommodations (IEP/504/ADA/health-provider necessity) and time-limited curriculum-necessary uses (e.g., AI coding with no equivalent). Any student, administrator, educator, or parent/caregiver may petition for consideration. Independent research must be peer-reviewed and free of vendor funding/material involvement. Educators may use approved tools for differentiation/instructional planning with review and disclosure, but not for grading or behavior monitoring. Independent digital-literacy instruction is required. Why now: not archived; pairs with today’s NY policy-vacuum census as a concrete high-bar template boards can adapt after moratoriums in NYC/LA.","sledRelevance":"Supplies districts with adaptable procurement and approval criteria that convert “responsible use” slogans into evidence, privacy, and equity gates—especially salient where board policies are still missing.","evidence":"Primary model policy text with defined terms (Addictive Design, Independent Auditor/Research), applicability, exceptions, petition process, and staff-use limits. Not an empirical impact evaluation; advocacy-authored; local counsel must adapt.","architectureImplications":"Requires an Approved List, ability to disable GenAI features in existing products, contract clauses blocking silent GenAI feature adds, and data-deletion/return workflows within the three-month phase-out window.","governanceImplications":"Interpretation: move student GenAI from vendor marketing to petitionable, independently evidenced approvals with public process. Keep human ownership of grading and behavior monitoring.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Mandates vendor certifications against ads/ad-business models, addictive design, and biometric collection, plus contractual privacy guarantees—raising the bar above generic DPAs.","caveats":"Model policy, not enacted law. High ESSA “strong evidence” bar may exclude many tools. Authors are advocacy/legal scholars; consult local counsel. Does not measure learning outcomes itself.","streamIds":["k12"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: Fairplay’s Student-First model sells a district-ready vetting ordinance rather than a product SKU—independent learning-gain evidence versus existing methods, privacy and non-addictive design certifications, equity audits, community petitions, and a three-month phase-out for unapproved student GenAI. Offer localization and facilitation for boards exiting bans or filling policy vacuums. Be explicit that this is advocacy guidance requiring local counsel, and that the ESSA strong-evidence bar may delay many vendors. Do not promise any specific tool will clear approval.","engineering":"Engineering framing: implement an Approved List service, GenAI feature-level disablement across existing SaaS, contract metadata that blocks silent AI feature adds, and deletion-or-return certification workflows timed to the three-month phase-out. Support petition tickets, accommodation exception registers, and end-of-year expiry for curriculum-necessary exceptions. Keep grading and behavior-monitoring AI paths out of production. Security centers on no-ad, no-biometric, and no-addictive-design vendor certifications backed by enforceable contract terms—not checkbox DPAs alone.","delivery":"Delivery framing: convene the board or technology subcommittee, inventory every student-facing GenAI product and feature, run petition and approval workflows, carve documented IEP/504/ADA and curriculum-necessary exceptions, and stand up digital-literacy modules from providers without ed-tech financial conflicts. Staff may use approved tools for planning only with review and disclosure. Acceptance is published criteria plus completed phase-out or disablement—not the number of AI pilots launched. Watch for petition backlog and assistive-tech exceptions that fail in practice."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Boards lack a ready high-bar framework to approve or remove student GenAI after bans/moratoriums and amid vendor claims.","stakeholders":["School board","Superintendent","Privacy counsel","Special education","Teachers union/association","Parent advocates","Students"],"discoveryQuestions":["Which student GenAI tools are live today?","Can GenAI features be disabled in current SaaS?","What evidence standard will the board accept?","How are IEP/504 AI accommodations handled?"],"valueHypothesis":"Localizing this model can give boards an enforceable approval path that parents and educators can petition into, reducing ad-hoc vendor rollouts.","potentialEngagement":"6–10 week policy localization: inventory, draft adaptations, exception procedures, Approved List standing process, phase-out plan.","unsupportedClaims":["That the model is already law","Guaranteed learning gains from any approved tool","That every vendor can meet ESSA strong-evidence immediately"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Policy-driven student GenAI allowlist with feature-level disable and contractual change control.","architectureIntegration":"Approved List service; feature flags; contract metadata for GenAI clauses; workflows for data destruction certificates at phase-out.","prerequisites":["Full inventory of GenAI features","Legal review of contracts","Identity groups for staff vs student use","Petition/ticket workflow"],"constraints":["Three-month phase-out clock after adoption","ESSA strong-evidence bar","Curriculum exceptions expire end of year"],"security":"Enforce no-ad / no-biometric / no-addictive-design certifications; minimize student data processing; require deletion proof on removal.","proofOfValue":["Percent of student GenAI tools on Approved List or disabled","Phase-out milestones met","Exception register completeness"]},"delivery":{"work":"Facilitate policy adoption, inventory and disablement, petition hearings, literacy curriculum from independent providers, and annual exception renewals.","dependencies":["Board sponsorship","Special education for accommodations","Procurement for contract amendments","Independent literacy partners"],"ownership":"Board/tech subcommittee owns approvals; CIO owns disablement; academics own literacy; SPED owns accommodation exceptions.","skillsAdoption":"Train staff on planning-only AI uses with mandatory review/disclosure; ban grading/behavior-monitoring AI uses.","governanceCheckpoints":["Adoption vote","30/60/90-day phase-out checks","End-of-year exception expiry review"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Published approval criteria","Unapproved student GenAI removed or disabled","Documented accommodation/curriculum exceptions"],"risks":["Over-broad bans blocking assistive tech if exceptions fail","Vendor capture of “independent” research","Petition backlog"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-10-13T22:06:25-05:00","enrichedAt":"2026-10-13T22:10:11-05:00","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Explicit exceptions for IEP/504/ADA and clinician-necessary uses preserve assistive pathways while default student GenAI stays gated; staff digital-literacy mandate includes cognitive and social-emotional risk topics.","procurementImplications":"Contracts must bar silent GenAI feature adds, require privacy/non-addictive certifications, and support termination/data-return when products fail approval.","operatingModelImplications":"Community petition + subcommittee review becomes the steady-state intake for student GenAI, replacing vendor-led classroom pilots.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://fairplayforkids.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/student-first-ai-policy.pdf","referenceExcerpt":"Under the policy, unapproved products and features are phased out over three months.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}