{"resourceId":"psja-isd-ai-guidebook-202609","versions":[{"version":"external-eb1ea8c9a9f751f8830643e6a926de98446b6f9cbd3752bd9b89319d7b61139e","resource":{"id":"psja-isd-ai-guidebook-202609","title":"PSJA ISD September-updated AI Guidebook: approved tools, FERPA prompt bans, student pilot/co-pilot rules","organization":"Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District (Texas)","sector":"Public K-12 school district policy","geography":"Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD, Texas, USA","publishedAt":"Updated September 2026","publicationDate":"2026-09-01","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"PSJA ISD","sourceLabel":"District AI Guidebook (HTML)","sourceUrl":"https://www.psjaisd.us/academics/psja-isd-ai-guidebook","evidenceClass":"standards-guidance","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["governance-procurement","data-security","knowledge-work","operating-model"],"finding":"PSJA ISD’s AI Guidebook, marked Updated September 2026, sets an affirmative GenAI operating model: staff must use district-approved tools via district login and must not enter, upload, paste, or describe identifiable student information into public AI tools (FERPA/Board Policy FL), with incidents reported to IT helpdesk. Approved tools listed include ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Gemini, MagicSchool AI, NotebookLM, Wayground, Khanmigo, Canva AI, Adobe Express, Diffit, Brisk, Curipod, and TeachShare; new tools require IT approval. Student expectations emphasize permission, citation, fact-checking, no private info, and no copy-paste misuse under a pilot / AI co-pilot framing, with academic integrity requiring teacher permission and disclosure. References Texas DIR AI code of ethics obligations (Gov Code 2054.702 / TAC 219). Why now: provides a concrete enablement template contrasting NYC/LA pause pathways covered 2026-09-23.","sledRelevance":"Useful SLED artifact for districts choosing guided enablement: shows how approved lists, FERPA prompt bans, and student integrity rules can be packaged together. Not evidence of learning gains.","evidence":"Primary district policy webpage inspected in full HTML text extraction; living document without independent outcome metrics.","architectureImplications":"Route GenAI through district-managed accounts and an approved-tool gateway; block or warn on consumer tools for work; require helpdesk workflow for new-tool intake.","governanceImplications":"Publish staff and student expectation matrices; require citation/disclosure for AI-assisted coursework; align with state AI ethics codes where applicable.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Strong explicit ban on identifiable student data in prompts; treat any suspected exposure as a reportable incident to IT—practical FERPA operationalization.","caveats":"Single-district guidance; enforcement and training quality unknown; approved list includes general-purpose tools that still need classroom controls; not an evaluation of learning or safety outcomes.","streamIds":["k12"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: offer a policy-and-approved-list engagement modeled on living district guidebooks like PSJA’s—not a claim that PSJA’s stack is universally right. Emphasize FERPA prompt bans and student integrity rules as non-negotiables. Do not sell open consumer GenAI for student PII workflows.","engineering":"Engineering framing: implement approved-tool allowlists, district-account SSO, and DLP/prompt warnings for identifiers. Prerequisites: helpdesk intake for new tools and logging of unapproved use. Constraints: list includes general LLMs that still need assignment-time controls. Proof of value: reduction in unapproved tool use and zero tolerated PII prompt incidents in audits.","delivery":"Delivery framing: localize an approved-list guidebook, train staff on the STOP rule, and roll student pilot/co-pilot expectations with teacher permission workflows. Ownership: academics and IT jointly. Acceptance criteria: guidebook published, staff attestation, and student syllabus language live. Risks include list sprawl and teachers using personal premium accounts with PII despite policy."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Districts need a practical enablement policy that hardens FERPA prompt hygiene without defaulting to a total ban.","stakeholders":["CIO/IT","CAO","Privacy officer","Principals","Teachers"],"discoveryQuestions":["What is on your approved AI list today?","How do you prevent student PII in prompts?","What is the new-tool intake path?","How is student AI use disclosed in coursework?"],"valueHypothesis":"A guidebook-style policy package can make enablement auditable and privacy-safer than ad hoc teacher accounts.","potentialEngagement":"3 to 4 week AI guidebook localization: approved list, FERPA STOP rule, student integrity language, and helpdesk intake.","unsupportedClaims":["That PSJA’s tool list improves learning","Guaranteed FERPA compliance from policy text alone","That general LLMs are safe for all grade bands"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Allowlisted GenAI via district identity; poor fit for unmanaged personal accounts on work tasks.","architectureIntegration":"SSO to approved apps, CASB/DLP hints for identifiers, helpdesk ticketing for new tools, managed-device blocks for non-approved AI where feasible.","prerequisites":["Identity provider","Helpdesk workflow","Legal FERPA language","Communications branding rules"],"constraints":["Living document may change","General tools still gameable","Single-district context"],"security":"Enforce no-PII prompting; incident report path to IT; prefer district-managed tenants over personal Plus accounts for student-related work.","proofOfValue":["Approved-list coverage of observed use","Incident response drills","Teacher attestation completion"]},"delivery":{"work":"Publish guidebook, train on STOP rule and student disclosure, configure allowlists, and monitor personal-account exceptions.","dependencies":["IT","Legal","Curriculum","Campus admin communications"],"ownership":"IT owns allowlist/intake; academics own student integrity expectations.","skillsAdoption":"Practice rewriting prompts without identifiers; teach citation/disclosure habits to students.","governanceCheckpoints":["Guidebook approval","Staff training wave","Semester list review","Incident log review"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Guidebook publicly posted","Staff completion of privacy module","Student syllabus language in force"],"risks":["Personal premium account shadow use","Approved-list sprawl","Integrity rules unenforced in classrooms"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-09-25T03:12:10Z","enrichedAt":"2026-09-25T03:17:50Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Student pilot/co-pilot framing supports AI literacy but needs scaffolds for multilingual and special-education learners not detailed here.","procurementImplications":"Maintain a living approved list with IT intake; require DPAs before adding tools; do not equate list membership with instructional effectiveness.","operatingModelImplications":"Enablement path: central allowlist plus campus academic integrity practices plus privacy incident ops.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://www.psjaisd.us/academics/psja-isd-ai-guidebook","referenceExcerpt":"STOP: Under no circumstances should staff enter, upload, paste, or describe identifiable student information into public AI tools or prompts.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}