{"resourceId":"quaker-valley-ai-board-policy-20260922","versions":[{"version":"external-c02a30acc1d919e8a0ae2b3a4f9f519cef4a0c695ab35157ec70adcac9363b1c","resource":{"id":"quaker-valley-ai-board-policy-20260922","title":"Quaker Valley AI policy: FERPA-gated tools, assignment AI-use scale, and human-final grading/HR decisions","organization":"Quaker Valley School District","sector":"Local education agency board policy","geography":"United States — Pennsylvania (Quaker Valley School District)","publishedAt":"Proposed/approved AI policy text (board action reported Sept. 22, 2026)","publicationDate":"2026-09-22","eventDate":"2026-09-22","sourceName":"Quaker Valley School District","sourceLabel":"Quaker Valley Artificial Intelligence Policy PDF","sourceUrl":"https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1771856505/pvsdk12paus/plrsozeydqmrpugmijzk/ProposedArtificialIntelligencePolicy2026.pdf","evidenceClass":"standards-guidance","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["governance-procurement","data-security","operating-model"],"finding":"Quaker Valley’s Artificial Intelligence policy PDF requires age-appropriate AI instruction emphasizing human supervision and skepticism; CIPA filtering of AI tools capable of generating obscene/pornographic material; strict FERPA adherence; and a ban on student PII in AI tools not pre-approved by the Director of Technology after privacy/data-handling/FERPA review. Teachers must state permitted AI use per assignment on a 0–4 scale (No AI through Full AI Use with Human Oversight) with disclosure rules; AI may assist grading but teachers make final grade decisions; final HR evaluation/hiring/promotion decisions remain human; and regular PD on ethical AI, privacy, and compliance is required.","sledRelevance":"Primary LEA policy artifact operationalizing FERPA procurement gates and assignment-level AI-use scales—useful template alongside same-week Petaluma draft debates.","evidence":"District policy PDF retrieved in full; local press reports 8–0 board approval Sept. 22; not outcome evidence.","architectureImplications":"Maintain approved-AI inventory, assignment metadata for use levels, and grading workflows that keep humans as final decision-makers.","governanceImplications":"Board-level AI policy with tech-director vetting authority and academic-honesty discipline path.","securityPrivacyImplications":"FERPA-aligned vetting before any student PII touches an AI tool; CIPA filter obligations for generative AI sites.","caveats":"Single Pennsylvania district; PDF shows template numbering ('No. XXX'); effectiveness depends on classroom enforcement not examined here; why-now is fresh board adoption plus parallel Petaluma grade-band drafting.","streamIds":["k12"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: Quaker Valley’s board AI policy pairs FERPA-gated tool approval with a teacher-facing 0–4 AI-use scale and human-final grading and HR decisions. That is a concrete procurement-and-classroom control package districts can emulate—approved lists, assignment notices, and PD—not a vague ‘use AI responsibly’ poster. Lead with privacy vetting and assignment-level honesty rules. Interpretation of local policy text; not a guarantee of classroom fidelity.","engineering":"Engineering framing: Implement an approved-AI catalog gated by privacy and DPA review; block student PII in non-approved tools; support per-assignment AI-use levels 0–4 with disclosure; and keep gradebook authority with teachers even when AI assists scoring. CIPA filters must also cover generative AI sites capable of prohibited content. Add change-notice hooks when vendors swap models. Interpretation of the district’s stated controls.","delivery":"Delivery framing: Roll out PD on the AI-use scale, publish the approved-tool list, and audit a sample of syllabi for AI-use notices before expanding student-facing tools. Align academic-honesty discipline to the stated assignment rules and calendar a policy review as models change. Confirm HR and grading procedures still require human final decisions. Interpretation for Pennsylvania and similar LEAs; counsel should localize citations."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Districts need enforceable AI rules that cover privacy vetting, academic honesty, and human decision authority—not only aspirational principles.","stakeholders":["board","superintendent","Director of Technology","teachers","HR","counsel"],"discoveryQuestions":["Is there a living approved-AI list with FERPA/privacy review?","Do teachers publish assignment-level AI-use levels with disclosure rules?","Are final grades and HR decisions prohibited from being AI-only?","What PD covers ethical AI and data privacy annually?"],"valueHypothesis":"If LEAs adopt FERPA-gated catalogs plus assignment AI-use scales with human-final decisions, they reduce both privacy and integrity failure modes.","potentialEngagement":"Policy-to-operations package: approved-tool rubric, 0–4 syllabus language, and PD agenda mapped to board policy.","unsupportedClaims":["Uniform compliance across classrooms without audit","That CIPA filters alone stop all harmful generative AI","Guaranteed workload reduction from the policy"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Strong template for mid-size U.S. districts formalizing generative AI controls.","architectureIntegration":"Identity-aware approved-app list; DLP/PII warnings for consumer AI; LMS fields for AI-use level; human confirmation step before grade posting.","prerequisites":["Board policy adoption","Director of Technology authority","Existing AUP/CIPA filters","Academic honesty code"],"constraints":["Personal-device bypass","Teacher notice burden","Vendor model changes after approval"],"security":"No student PII in non-approved AI; FERPA-aligned DPAs; secure handling if AI assists grading.","proofOfValue":["Approved-AI list published","Sample assignments show 0–4 levels","Grading workflow requires teacher finalization"]},"delivery":{"work":"Publish approved tools, train staff on use scale and FERPA rules, sample-audit assignment notices, calendar policy review.","dependencies":["board minutes","filter configuration","vendor contracts","PD calendar"],"ownership":"Director of Technology owns approvals; teachers own assignment notices; superintendent owns procedures.","skillsAdoption":"Practice writing clear AI-use levels and teaching skepticism about accuracy.","governanceCheckpoints":["Tool approval reviews","Semester syllabus audit","Discipline consistency check","Annual PD"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Zero known classroom use of non-approved AI with student PII","Majority of sampled secondary courses state AI-use level","HR/grading human-final rules reflected in procedures"],"risks":["Paper policy without approved-list maintenance","AI-assisted grading drifts to AI-final grades","Students ignore disclosure rules on personal devices"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-09-29T22:09:26-05:00","enrichedAt":"2026-09-29T22:18:00-05:00","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Age-appropriate AI instruction and PD obligations create workforce training demand across roles.","procurementImplications":"New AI resources require tech-director approval including privacy policy and FERPA compliance review before classroom use.","operatingModelImplications":"Moves AI from ad hoc teacher choice to cataloged, noticed, and auditable practice with human decision floors.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1771856505/pvsdk12paus/plrsozeydqmrpugmijzk/ProposedArtificialIntelligencePolicy2026.pdf","referenceExcerpt":"(FERPA) when utilizing any AI resources.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}