{"resourceId":"smmusd-instructional-technology-planning-2026","versions":[{"version":"external-dc786f57d91cf230cd657dd0615b9319314155ccde94b0f921d5b791da6444c8","resource":{"id":"smmusd-instructional-technology-planning-2026","title":"Santa Monica-Malibu places AI guidance within a wider learning and wellness review","organization":"Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District","sector":"K–12 school district","geography":"California, United States","publishedAt":"Undated live page; June–October 2026 planning timeline","publicationDate":null,"eventDate":null,"sourceName":"Instructional Technology","sourceLabel":"Official district working-group guidance","sourceUrl":"https://www.smmusd.org/departments/education-technology-services/instructional-technology","evidenceClass":"standards-guidance","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["knowledge-work","governance-procurement","accessibility-workforce","operating-model"],"finding":"The district places September AI exploration after stakeholder research, with final recommendations planned for October. The agenda links academic integrity and equity to student wellness.","sledRelevance":"Interpretation: Newly archived September planning context for districts reviewing classroom technology as a whole.","evidence":"Four-phase official work plan and membership list; no measured impact, baseline or evidence that future deliverables are complete.","architectureImplications":"Interpretation: inventory current workflows before adding tools; assess device, network and identity dependencies. Hosting and developer-agent choices have limited relevance to this planning evidence.","governanceImplications":"Interpretation: use a decision record to explain how feedback changes an intended use or its safeguards.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Interpretation: review the data consequences of each proposed classroom activity; do not treat a committee as security assurance.","caveats":"Planning evidence from one district; no causal or independent evaluation. Page publication date is unknown. Linked meeting materials were not used to substantiate additional claims.","streamIds":["k12"],"roles":{"sales":"Interpretation: A district considering AI alongside screen use may need a clear account of which classroom problem a tool addresses. Ask what existing practice would change, how wellness concerns influence the choice, and which families have not been heard. Offer a bounded review of one instructional workflow and its evaluation plan. The value hypothesis is clearer prioritization and a defensible decision. This source describes an agenda, so it cannot establish savings, successful adoption or improved wellness. Confirm local objectives and budget independently rather than treating a working group as a sales lead.","engineering":"Interpretation: Map the proposed activity across teacher preparation, learner interaction and assessment. Identify device access, identity, content filtering and data flows before selecting a model or application. Prerequisites include grade-specific learning objectives and approved input types. Validate representative tasks using synthetic material, including accessible alternatives and failure recovery. A proposed proof of value should measure instructional quality and review effort against current practice while checking data handling. Do not infer that an approved platform meets every classroom requirement, or that this policy work validates any cloud, on-premises or hybrid design.","delivery":"Interpretation: Appoint an instructional owner to translate findings into a small implementation plan with IT, student-support and educator representatives. Dependencies include time to review feedback and prepare accessible communications. Train participating staff to explain the activity's purpose, check outputs and offer alternatives. Proposed acceptance: every pilot has a baseline, an evaluation owner, a family communication plan and a dated stop-or-continue review. Include workload and student experience alongside learning measures. These are proposed criteria rather than reported district outcomes. Risks include treating scheduled deliverables as completed work and allowing a broad agenda to obscure operational accountability."},"retrievedAt":"2026-09-08T03:01:24Z","enrichedAt":"2026-09-08T03:01:51Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Interpretation: test classroom alternatives with disability and multilingual learner representatives; include staff review time in workload estimates.","procurementImplications":"Interpretation: make proposed educational purpose and evaluation conditions part of purchase review; committee activity is not a procurement opportunity.","operatingModelImplications":"Interpretation: curriculum and wellness owners should share the decision with technology staff, with a named lead for follow-up.","updateExplanation":"Not an archive repeat: absent from all 20 K12 records and the full-library candidate search. Newly added context for fall 2026 decisions; not represented as new September 7 publication.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://www.smmusd.org/departments/education-technology-services/instructional-technology","referenceExcerpt":"Begin shaping recommendations and practical supports","promptVersion":"sled-research-v3.1","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}