{"resourceId":"pgcps-ai-declaration-addendum-aida","versions":[{"version":"external-4a049f665526136a093d2ac2a37b907795c1bfa0044c4dc31fc0205a0e5a4603","resource":{"id":"pgcps-ai-declaration-addendum-aida","title":"PGCPS Artificial Intelligence Declaration Agreement (AIDA): mandatory vendor AI disclosure, no-retain student PII, disable rights, and audit/remediation","organization":"Prince George’s County Public Schools","sector":"Large U.S. K–12 school district (procurement)","geography":"Prince George’s County, Maryland, United States","publishedAt":"Undated (active Appendix P procurement form)","publicationDate":null,"eventDate":null,"sourceName":"PGCPS Purchasing and Supply Services – Appendix P AIDA","sourceLabel":"District procurement / vendor-control instrument","sourceUrl":"https://www.pgcps.org/contentassets/0d463a5c451f40fcba26c2796d7a59c8/appendix-p-ai-declartion-addendum.pdf","evidenceClass":"standards-guidance","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["governance-procurement","data-security","operating-model"],"finding":"Prince George’s County Public Schools Purchasing Appendix P requires every digital-tool vendor to complete an Artificial Intelligence Declaration Agreement (AIDA). If AI is present, vendors must disclose models/training-data sources/local-vs-cloud storage/improvement methods; primary user audience; FERPA/COPPA/state-privacy confidentiality verification; Student Data points used for personalization; verification that generative models will not retain/store Student Data or PII entered during use and that outputs are not linked to individuals; ban on secondary use without PGCPS and parental approval (termination risk); bias/privacy/harm monitoring with results shareable on request; enable/disable directions; explainability for advancement-impacting recommendations; and third-party processor disclosure including geography. Vendors must notify within 60 days of new AI-containing versions; PGCPS may enable/disable AI features, terminate for unilateral T&C/privacy changes, audit AI systems/data practices, and require remediation within 60 days at vendor cost. AIDA supersedes vendor AI policies. Why now: newly relevant alongside Vermont reporting of uneven privacy-agreement practice—shows a concrete district-level AI declaration control not previously archived.","sledRelevance":"High for K–12 procurement: a reusable contract addendum that forces AI feature disclosure and student-data retention limits before tools ship.","evidence":"Official district purchasing PDF (Appendix P); contractual requirements without published compliance statistics.","architectureImplications":"Requires vendors to document local vs cloud storage, model improvement methods, and feature enable/disable; supports district kill-switches when AI cannot be disabled.","governanceImplications":"AIDA is part of the Agreement and supersedes vendor AI policies; breach can terminate the Agreement; external audit rights reserved.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Explicit no-retain/store Student Data or PII in generative models; FERPA/COPPA/state-law confidentiality assertions; subprocessor geography disclosure; secondary-use ban without PGCPS and parental approval.","caveats":"Undated PDF; no published rates of vendor completion or audit findings; filename misspells ‘declaration’.","streamIds":["k12"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: PGCPS’s AIDA shows a large district converting AI risk into purchasing paperwork—vendors must disclose models, swear generative systems will not retain student PII, provide disable instructions, accept audit rights, and risk termination for unilateral privacy changes. Account teams should expect similar addenda in other LEAs. Interpretation: this is a control template for procurement conversations, not evidence that PGCPS AI classroom deployments succeeded or that declarations equal FERPA compliance.","engineering":"Engineering framing: vendors must document models, training-data sources, local vs cloud storage, subprocessors/geographies, and how generative features can be turned off. Pre-sales engineers should map which features are disable-able and whether outputs can be unlinkable from students. Interpretation: products that auto-add non-disableable AI face reassessment risk under section 3.","delivery":"Delivery framing: districts can adapt AIDA-like clauses into digital-tool DPAs before pilots scale. Delivery work includes collecting the 1a–j disclosures, wiring enable/disable decisions to approval status, monitoring the 60-day AI-version notice channel, and defining audit remediation SLAs at vendor cost. Interpretation: paper declarations still need technical verification. Acceptance criteria are proposals for adopting the control, not observed vendor compliance rates."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Districts need enforceable vendor commitments when digital tools quietly add generative AI that may retain student prompts or change privacy terms.","stakeholders":["Purchasing/supply services","CIO/CITO","Data privacy officer","Curriculum/tech evaluation teams","Vendors of digital tools"],"discoveryQuestions":["Does the product contain AI features for any user group?","Can generative features be disabled by the district?","Will prompts/PII be retained or used to improve models?","Which subprocessors and geographies process student data?"],"valueHypothesis":"Interpretation: helping a district operationalize an AIDA-like addendum can reduce undisclosed AI risk; it cannot guarantee vendor truthfulness without audit.","potentialEngagement":"Bounded procurement-control design: adapt AIDA checklist into the district’s digital-tool approval packet and vendor onboarding.","unsupportedClaims":["That PGCPS measured learning gains from AI","Guaranteed vendor compliance without audits","That all Maryland districts use AIDA","FERPA compliance by declaration alone"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Fits districts standardizing AI disclosures across all digital tools, including products that later bolt on generative features.","architectureIntegration":"Require feature flags for generative components; document data flows local/cloud; list subprocessors and storage regions.","prerequisites":["Digital-tool inventory (Appendix L equivalent)","Legal review of addendum","Process to receive 60-day AI-version notices at a monitored mailbox"],"constraints":["Undated form; local Maryland legal context","Vendors may resist no-retain or audit clauses","Non-disableable AI triggers reassessment"],"security":"No-retain Student Data/PII in generative models; FERPA/COPPA assertions; bias/privacy/harm monitoring with shareable results; audit rights with 60-day remediation.","proofOfValue":["Sample completed AIDA packets for three vendors","Verify disable paths in a staging tenant","Confirm notice mailbox receives version-change alerts"]},"delivery":{"work":"Insert AIDA into vendor onboarding; collect disclosures; wire enable/disable decisions to approval status; exercise audit clause when risk warrants.","dependencies":["Purchasing workflow","Legal counsel","IT security review","Vendor cooperation"],"ownership":"PGCPS Purchasing and Supply Services with CITO notification channel (cito@pgcps.org for version notices).","skillsAdoption":"Procurement and IT staff need AI-feature literacy to evaluate 1a–j responses.","governanceCheckpoints":["No AI tool approval without completed AIDA","60-day notice review for new AI versions","Termination path for unilateral privacy/T&C changes"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: 100% of new digital-tool contracts include AIDA","Proposed: generative features have documented disable steps","Proposed: audit findings remediated within 60 days when invoked"],"risks":["Paper compliance without technical verification","Vendors adding non-disableable AI","Resource limits on exercising audit rights"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-10-13T03:01:15Z","enrichedAt":"2026-10-13T03:04:17Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Explainability demanded for recommendations affecting student advancement; audience (teachers/students/all) must be declared.","procurementImplications":"Required for all digital tools identified in Appendix L; 60-day notice for new AI versions; unilateral privacy/T&C changes can trigger termination.","operatingModelImplications":"Shifts AI governance into purchasing—vendors must declare AI before or during approval, and district retains runtime enable/disable control.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://www.pgcps.org/contentassets/0d463a5c451f40fcba26c2796d7a59c8/appendix-p-ai-declartion-addendum.pdf","referenceExcerpt":"Verification that the Vendor’s generative AI models will not retain or store any Student Data or PII entered during use.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}