{"resourceId":"tn-score-ai-guiding-principles-20261007","versions":[{"version":"external-a7e103017a0ff396ad57cfc74615fe75fe67e53d34c8654c084546bc4839b2ac","resource":{"id":"tn-score-ai-guiding-principles-20261007","title":"SCORE Guiding Principles: AI literacy and durable skills, pilots with evaluation, safety at the center, and AI that amplifies teachers","organization":"State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE)","sector":"State education advocacy / K-12 policy guidance","geography":"Tennessee (statewide); transferable to other state advocacy and SEA contexts with limits","publishedAt":"October 2026 (PDF FINAL100726; landing page October 7, 2026)","publicationDate":"2026-10-07","eventDate":"2026-10-07","sourceName":"Tennessee SCORE","sourceLabel":"Independent state education advocacy organization guiding-principles memo","sourceUrl":"https://tnscore.org/assets/documents/AI-Guiding-Principles-Memo-FINAL100726.pdf","evidenceClass":"public-sector-association","outcomeClass":"mixed","topics":["governance-procurement","knowledge-work","accessibility-workforce","data-security","operating-model"],"finding":"SCORE's October 2026 memo Guiding Principles for AI in Tennessee Education (PDF dated FINAL100726; landing page October 7, 2026) updates May 2025 recommendations as Tennessee moves from exploration to implementation. Seven principles: (1) all students should develop AI literacy; (2) durable skills deserve renewed prioritization; (3) effective research-backed teaching remains essential; (4) responsible innovation guided by pilots, learning networks, impact evaluation, and sustained investment; (5) keep safety and student outcomes at the center; (6) AI should amplify, not replace, human connections and educator expertise; (7) leaders need trusted support to evaluate safe, ethical, effective tools. Cites >60% of TN teachers and >80% of administrators using AI; Sumner County Coursemojo pilot proficiency gains (vendor-evaluated); TN Public Chapter 808 K-5 screen-time minimization; Public Chapter 1056 funding AI educator courses for grades 6–12; State Board/TDOE AI in Education Working Group. Why now: not previously archived; released this month and pairs literacy credentials with evidence-before-scale and safety/procurement expectations.","sledRelevance":"Gives SEAs and districts a seven-principle operating checklist that connects literacy programs to evidence-before-scale, safety/screen-time law, procurement support, and teacher-centered implementation—directly usable alongside tonight's Wyoming credential and federal evidence-gap coverage.","evidence":"Advocacy synthesis drawing on Tennessee Educator Survey usage figures, cited pilots (including Sumner/Coursemojo from secondary sources), and state legislation (Public Chapters 808 and 1056). Not a new causal evaluation.","architectureImplications":"Favours instructionally coherent, curriculum-aligned AI that supports teachers (example cited: curriculum-aligned teaching assistant) over isolated point solutions. Interpretation: platforms should expose teacher controls, evidence hooks for pilots, and grade-band safety configurations.","governanceImplications":"Calls for shared statewide guidance, trusted evaluation tools, procurement support, and collaboration so districts are not alone. Safety and student outcomes are organizing constraints alongside literacy and workforce readiness.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Urges procurement that is transparent about student-data protection; references other states' privacy-agreement assistance and vendor safety disclosures (Utah, Idaho) as models. No technical control specification.","caveats":"Tennessee advocacy context; not an RCT. Outcome statistics for named products are cited from other studies and should not be treated as SCORE-generated causal findings. October 7 publication is slightly before the last edition date but was not in the archive.","streamIds":["k12"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: SCORE lets you sell a state or large-district operating system for AI—literacy for all, durable skills, pilot-and-evaluate gates, safety, and teacher amplification—rather than a single tool license. Propose a principles-to-policy sprint that turns the seven principles into adopted expectations, a pilot evaluation template with pre-set metrics, and procurement questions on pedagogy and data transparency. Do not promise the proficiency gains SCORE cites from elsewhere; those are second-hand. The credible value is coherent decisions boards and educators can defend while Tennessee-style screen-time and safety rules tighten.","engineering":"Engineering framing: instructionally coherent AI means curriculum alignment, teacher-in-the-loop workflows, and telemetry suitable for impact evaluation—not unsupervised answer engines. Pre-sales should check evidence exports, teacher override of AI outputs, age or grade-band controls, and clear data-protection disclosures. Designs should support pilots with cohort tagging and unassisted outcome measures. Proof of value is a documented pilot with pre-registered metrics and teacher review logs, not activation counts or homework completion speed alone.","delivery":"Delivery framing: map the seven principles to owners across academics, digital learning, privacy, and professional development. Deliver grade-banded literacy expectations, a pilot registry with evaluation plans, updated procurement checklists, and teacher AI coursework pathways analogous to Tennessee Public Chapter 1056. Acceptance should include at least one evaluated pilot and published expectations—not tool counts. Main risks are principles used as wallpaper without evaluation funding, and safety or screen-time rules colliding with literacy credential rollouts."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"States are moving from AI exploration to adoption without shared principles that tie literacy, safety, teaching quality, and evaluation together.","stakeholders":["State education agency and board","District superintendents and CAOs","School boards","Teacher leaders","Advocacy and workforce partners"],"discoveryQuestions":["Which of the seven principles are already in local policy?","How are AI pilots evaluated before scale?","What K-5 screen-time or safety rules constrain tool choice?","Who helps districts vet pedagogy, evidence, and data practices?"],"valueHypothesis":"A principles-based operating model could reduce fragmented tool adoption and improve decision quality; outcome gains are not demonstrated by this memo.","potentialEngagement":"6–10 week principles-to-practice engagement: gap analysis, draft expectations, pilot/evaluation template, and procurement question bank.","unsupportedClaims":["SCORE does not prove any named product improves learning.","Cited pilot percentage-point gains are not independently verified here.","No costed statewide implementation plan."]},"engineering":{"fit":"Fits teacher-mediated, curriculum-aligned platforms with evaluation telemetry; weak fit for unsupervised answer-giving student chatbots.","architectureIntegration":"Teacher-in-the-loop assistants tied to HQIM, grade-band policy flags, pilot cohort tagging, and exports for impact evaluation.","prerequisites":["Instructional vision and HQIM","Pilot governance","Privacy review capacity","Teacher PD pathway"],"constraints":["Tennessee-specific statutes cited","Evidence base still limited","Political screen-time pressures"],"security":"Require transparent student-data practices in procurement; prefer tools with clear retention and non-training clauses where required by policy.","proofOfValue":["Pilot metrics defined before launch","Teacher review of AI outputs documented","Safety/screen-time rules enforced in product config","Literacy objectives mapped to features"]},"delivery":{"work":"Translate seven principles into adopted guidance, pilot evaluation routines, procurement updates, and teacher AI learning pathways.","dependencies":["SEA/board sponsorship","Research or evaluation partner","PD funding","District participation"],"ownership":"State academic and digital-learning leadership with advocacy partners; districts own local policy.","skillsAdoption":"Educator AI courses (grades 6–12 analog to TN PC 1056) plus leader sensemaking on durable skills and evaluation.","governanceCheckpoints":["Pilot approval with evaluation plan","Annual principles review","Procurement evidence/data check","K-5 technology benefit justification"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Published local/state expectations mapped to seven principles","At least one evaluated pilot completed","Procurement checklist updated","Teacher PD enrollment underway"],"risks":["Principles without funding","Vendor case studies mistaken for causal proof","Safety and literacy goals collide","Fragmented local interpretation"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-10-15T22:13:55-05:00","enrichedAt":"2026-10-15T22:16:15-05:00","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Treats AI literacy and durable skills (judgment, collaboration, critical thinking) as universal career-readiness needs, not only STEM tracks. Notes CTE teacher comfort gaps on industry AI skills.","procurementImplications":"Leaders need trusted support to evaluate tools that are safe, ethical, effective, pedagogy-aligned, and transparent on student data—procurement is framed as a capacity problem, not only a contract problem.","operatingModelImplications":"Argues successful implementation depends less on the technology than on surrounding conditions: shared guidance, evaluation tools, and statewide collaboration.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://tnscore.org/assets/documents/AI-Guiding-Principles-Memo-FINAL100726.pdf","referenceExcerpt":"AI use should amplify, not replace, the human connections and educator expertise that drive student learning.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}