{"resourceId":"utah-usbe-instructional-tech-ai-model-policy-draft2-202610","versions":[{"version":"external-9d37ff0b41620157b91eca3b8141450b1a120c378beb9ac77dc5e75f0dd4d6de","resource":{"id":"utah-usbe-instructional-tech-ai-model-policy-draft2-202610","title":"Utah draft model policy: default policy for non-adopting LEAs, no AI grading, parental-consent AI sandbox courses","organization":"Utah State Board of Education","sector":"K-12 education","geography":"Utah, US","publishedAt":"Draft 2 for October 2026 Board (PDF created 2026-10-07)","publicationDate":"2026-10-07","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"Utah Public Notice Website","sourceLabel":"Utah Public Notice Website","sourceUrl":"https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/1497247.pdf","evidenceClass":"standards-guidance","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["governance-procurement","data-security","accessibility-workforce","operating-model"],"finding":"USBE's draft Instructional Technology and AI Model Policy and Implementation Resource (Draft 2, October Board) implements 53G-7-228/-229, 53G-7-1401 to -1403 and Rule R277-334. It states that if an LEA fails to adopt its own policies the model policy becomes its default; requires LEAs to prohibit generative AI from independently grading student work or making high-stakes determinations, train staff and monitor compliance; requires written parent notification for instructional generative AI; and sets conditions for optional grades 9-12 AI Sandbox courses (CTE only, parent notification, written consent, voluntary). It adds a students-with-disabilities section on AI and the IEP process and appendices including an approved-tools transparency template. Why now: this companion model policy is newly posted for the October board; the archive holds only the R277-334 rule draft.","sledRelevance":"Shows the concrete local-policy template Utah LEAs will inherit by default, complementing the archived rule.","evidence":"Draft document (~3,100 text lines) inspected via table of contents and the AI, sandbox, LEA-responsibility and model-policy sections; draft redlines visible.","architectureImplications":"Approved-tool transparency template with metadata links implies LEAs need an inventory system publishable to families.","governanceImplications":"Default-policy mechanism means non-acting LEAs are governed by state text; human decision required for grading and high-stakes uses.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Sandbox courses must comply with federal/state privacy and student data protection requirements; approved tools only.","caveats":"Draft with tracked bracketed edits; final board action not observed. No outcome evidence.","streamIds":["k12"],"roles":{"sales":"Framing point: Utah LEAs face a deadline-driven policy decision, since failing to adopt means inheriting the state model. Value lies in helping LEAs adapt the template, populate the approved-tools transparency appendix and run parent notification and sandbox consent processes. Do not claim the policy proves benefits; it is a draft governance instrument. Engagements should be bounded to policy adaptation and inventory work.","engineering":"Framing point: the template converts policy into data requirements. LEAs need an approved-tool inventory with metadata dictionary links, parent-facing transparency outputs, and controls ensuring generative AI does not independently grade. Sandbox CTE courses need consent tracking tied to rosters. Validate that vendor tools allow disabling autograde features and that data-sharing terms meet state student data protection requirements.","delivery":"Framing point: delivery is adoption-versus-default decision support and controls. Each LEA must choose to adopt, adapt or default, then train staff, notify parents and monitor school compliance. Acceptance criteria are proposals such as published approved-tool lists and consent records for every sandbox student. Risks include adopting the default without local capacity to monitor and confusion between draft and final text."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"LEAs must adopt compliant instructional technology and AI policies or inherit the state model by default.","stakeholders":["LEA superintendents and boards","Technology directors","CTE directors","Special education directors","Parents"],"discoveryQuestions":["Will the LEA adopt its own policy or the model?","Is there a current approved-tools inventory with metadata links?","Does the LEA plan an AI Sandbox course?","How is parent notification delivered today?"],"valueHypothesis":"Interpretation: template adaptation and inventory support may shorten compliance work; unproven.","potentialEngagement":"Bounded policy-adaptation and approved-tools transparency workshop for one LEA.","unsupportedClaims":["Learning gains","That the draft text is final","Cost savings"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Fits tools with admin controls over grading features, data-sharing transparency and SSO rostering.","architectureIntegration":"Approved-tool inventory feeding parent-facing transparency template; consent records linked to SIS rosters for sandbox courses.","prerequisites":["Tool inventory with data dictionary links","SIS consent fields","Staff training records"],"constraints":["Generative AI may not independently grade or make high-stakes determinations","Sandbox courses limited to grades 9-12 CTE with written consent","Draft subject to board change"],"security":"Sandbox and instructional use must meet federal/state privacy and student data protection requirements using approved tools only.","proofOfValue":["Show autograde features can be disabled or require human sign-off","Generate a transparency appendix entry for a tool","Track consent for a test sandbox roster"]},"delivery":{"work":"Policy adoption decision, staff training, parent notification and school-level compliance monitoring.","dependencies":["Final USBE board action","R277-334 rule finalization","LEA board adoption"],"ownership":"LEA superintendent and local board, with technology and CTE directors.","skillsAdoption":"Required staff training on the LEA AI policy; educators must communicate permitted uses to students and parents.","governanceCheckpoints":["LEA adopt/adapt/default decision","Approved-tools list publication","Annual compliance monitoring"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: approved-tools list published with metadata links","Proposed: written consent on file for 100% of sandbox students","Proposed: all staff complete AI policy training"],"risks":["Defaulting without monitoring capacity","Draft-final text drift","IEP AI considerations applied inconsistently"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-10-09T22:03:30-05:00","enrichedAt":"2026-10-09T22:20:00-05:00","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Dedicated students-with-disabilities section and IEP-process guidance; staff training required.","procurementImplications":"Approved-tool transparency and review templates become de facto procurement documentation.","operatingModelImplications":"Default-policy mechanism shifts work to LEAs that lack capacity to adapt.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/1497247.pdf","referenceExcerpt":"Prohibit the use of generative AI to independently grade student work or make high-stakes determinations.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}