{"resourceId":"ohio-odew-ai-model-policy-202601","versions":[{"version":"external-c66c97250de9b52cf451128562cec3b4f7e0408ec4524c1e95077bb2b8a30db8","resource":{"id":"ohio-odew-ai-model-policy-202601","title":"Ohio ODEW model AI policy: literacy, workgroup, FERPA procurement, and integrity floor under ORC 3301.24","organization":"Ohio Department of Education and Workforce","sector":"State education agency policy","geography":"United States — Ohio (statewide model for districts, community schools, STEM schools)","publishedAt":"2025 model text; ODEW release for July 1, 2026 adoption deadline","publicationDate":"2026-01-01","eventDate":"2026-07-01","sourceName":"Ohio Department of Education and Workforce","sourceLabel":"ODEW AI in Education Model Policy","sourceUrl":"https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/AI-in-Ohio-s-Education/Model-Policy/AI-In-Education-Model-Policy.pdf.aspx","evidenceClass":"standards-guidance","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["governance-procurement","data-security","accessibility-workforce"],"finding":"ODEW’s model policy, developed to help districts meet ORC 3301.24’s July 1, 2026 adoption deadline, frames AI as support for learning/teaching—not a substitute for student effort or educators—and requires AI literacy, a standing multi-stakeholder AI workgroup (including special education), FERPA/PII-aligned data controls, procurement/evaluation of AI tools for privacy/accessibility/goals/cost, context-specific acceptable use stated in syllabi with district-provided tools only, and academic integrity rules that AI-generated work must not replace student work. Related considerations flag NCII/deepfake policy integration and crosswalks to special education and other local policies.","sledRelevance":"Primary SEA template behind Ohio’s first-in-nation statutory AI-policy duty; pairs with same-day district implementation reporting.","evidence":"Official state model policy PDF retrieved in full; advisory template districts may adopt verbatim or customize.","architectureImplications":"Approved-tool catalogs, DPA-gated vendors, syllabus-level AI-use configuration, and no required tool the district cannot provision.","governanceImplications":"Board adoption plus ongoing workgroup review; integrate AI into integrity, bullying/NCII, and special education policies.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Need-to-know data processing, encryption/access controls, FERPA and Ohio/federal privacy alignment, age-limit ToS compliance.","caveats":"Model is a compliance floor, not outcome evidence; silent on many liability edge cases (e.g., detector discipline, FAPE masking); publication banner reads 2025 while deadline is 2026.","streamIds":["k12"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: Ohio’s ODEW model AI policy is the compliance floor under ORC 3301.24—adopting it meets the July 1, 2026 duty but does not by itself solve classroom practice. The model emphasizes AI literacy, an ongoing AI workgroup (including special education), FERPA-aligned procurement, human-centered ethics, and academic integrity that forbids AI-generated work replacing student work. Lead with policy-plus-implementation packages: workgroup facilitation, vendor evaluation checklists, and syllabus AI-use language. Interpretation only; counsel should confirm local adoption text.","engineering":"Engineering framing: The model requires AI tools to access only necessary data under encryption/access controls, follow age limits in terms of service, and pass procurement checks for privacy, accessibility, instructional alignment, and cost. Acceptable use must vary by grade/subject/assignment and appear in syllabi; no assignment may require a tool the district cannot provide. Build approved-tool catalogs, DPA gates blocking commercial reuse of student data, and integrity workflows that distinguish AI-supported brainstorming from AI-authored submissions.","delivery":"Delivery framing: Sequence board adoption of the model (or customized policy), convene the standing AI workgroup, publish approved tools, train staff on ethical use and integrity, and calendar frequent reviews as technology shifts. Crosswalk related bullying, NCII/deepfake, special education, and procurement policies rather than treating AI as a standalone PDF. Interpretation for Ohio district program offices; statute mandates existence of a policy, not teaching or using AI."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Ohio districts must adopt an AI policy by statute and still need operational content on literacy, privacy, procurement, ethics, and integrity.","stakeholders":["school board","superintendent","CTO","curriculum","special education","counsel","teachers"],"discoveryQuestions":["Did the board adopt ODEW’s model verbatim or customize for local tools?","Is a standing AI workgroup active with special-education representation?","Which vendor evaluation criteria block training on student data?","How are syllabus AI-use expectations audited across schools?"],"valueHypothesis":"If districts treat the ODEW model as a starting checklist and operationalize workgroup, procurement, and integrity controls, they can move from deadline compliance toward safer classroom use.","potentialEngagement":"Policy gap analysis against the ODEW model plus a 30-day workgroup charter, approved-tool rubric, and academic-integrity addendum.","unsupportedClaims":["That verbatim model adoption eliminates FAPE or privacy liability","Guaranteed instructional improvement from policy adoption alone","That the model mandates student use of generative AI"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Baseline for every Ohio district/community/STEM school; transferable as a template for other 'policy-required' states.","architectureIntegration":"Tie procurement gates to identity-aware education tenants; publish approved AI tools API/list; enforce syllabus metadata for AI-use expectations.","prerequisites":["Board action adopting policy","Data privacy policies to inherit","Procurement process for edtech","Academic integrity code"],"constraints":["Statute does not prescribe policy content","Model silent on many liability edge cases","Frequent review expected as tools change"],"security":"FERPA/PII controls; need-to-know data access; encryption and access control vetting; age-limit compliance.","proofOfValue":["Board minutes show adoption","Vendor DPA checklist completed for each AI tool","Sample courses include AI-use expectations"]},"delivery":{"work":"Adopt/customize policy, stand up workgroup, vet vendors, publish acceptable-use guidance, train staff, schedule review cadence.","dependencies":["ORC 3301.24","ODEW model text","existing AUP/FERPA policies","board calendar"],"ownership":"Board owns policy; IT/privacy owns procurement gates; curriculum owns literacy and integrity expectations.","skillsAdoption":"PD on human-centered AI use, critical analysis of outputs, citation of AI assistance, and when not to use AI.","governanceCheckpoints":["Board adoption","Workgroup quarterly review","Annual policy effectiveness review","Incident review for misuse"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Policy publicly available","Approved-tool list current","Integrity investigation procedure documented","Special education represented on workgroup"],"risks":["Paper compliance without classroom change","Assignments requiring unavailable tools","AI-generated student work miscounted as mastery"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-09-28T22:06:30-05:00","enrichedAt":"2026-09-28T22:10:30-05:00","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Procurement must evaluate accessibility; workgroup should include special education/related services voices.","procurementImplications":"Third-party AI vendors must meet district privacy, ethics, and accessibility standards before classroom use.","operatingModelImplications":"Policy effectiveness depends on continuous review and classroom-level acceptable-use articulation, not shelfware.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/AI-in-Ohio-s-Education/Model-Policy/AI-In-Education-Model-Policy.pdf.aspx","referenceExcerpt":"It is a tool to support learning and teaching, not a substitute for student effort or the role of the educator.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}