From the K–12 edition of September 28, 2026
Ohio ODEW model AI policy: literacy, workgroup, FERPA procurement, and integrity floor under ORC 3301.24
Ohio Department of Education and Workforce · State education agency policy · United States — Ohio (statewide model for districts, community schools, STEM schools)
- Publisher
- Ohio Department of Education and Workforce
- Original publication
- 2025 model text; ODEW release for July 1, 2026 adoption deadline
- Source retrieved
- 2026-09-29
- Event date
- 2026-07-01
What happened
ODEW’s model policy, developed to help districts meet ORC 3301.24’s July 1, 2026 adoption deadline, frames AI as support for learning/teaching—not a substitute for student effort or educators—and requires AI literacy, a standing multi-stakeholder AI workgroup (including special education), FERPA/PII-aligned data controls, procurement/evaluation of AI tools for privacy/accessibility/goals/cost, context-specific acceptable use stated in syllabi with district-provided tools only, and academic integrity rules that AI-generated work must not replace student work. Related considerations flag NCII/deepfake policy integration and crosswalks to special education and other local policies.
Why it matters
Primary SEA template behind Ohio’s first-in-nation statutory AI-policy duty; pairs with same-day district implementation reporting.
Evidence and measured results
Official state model policy PDF retrieved in full; advisory template districts may adopt verbatim or customize.
Limitations and uncertainty
Model is a compliance floor, not outcome evidence; silent on many liability edge cases (e.g., detector discipline, FAPE masking); publication banner reads 2025 while deadline is 2026.
Put this evidence to work
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation, grounded in this source. Enriched 2026-09-28; this does not change the original publication date. Each role follows the same checklist so takeaways compare across sources.
Sales
Role takeaway
- Customer problem
- Ohio districts must adopt an AI policy by statute and still need operational content on literacy, privacy, procurement, ethics, and integrity.
- Stakeholders
- school board
- superintendent
- CTO
- curriculum
- special education
- counsel
- teachers
- Discovery questions
- Did the board adopt ODEW’s model verbatim or customize for local tools?
- Is a standing AI workgroup active with special-education representation?
- Which vendor evaluation criteria block training on student data?
- How are syllabus AI-use expectations audited across schools?
- Value hypothesis
- If districts treat the ODEW model as a starting checklist and operationalize workgroup, procurement, and integrity controls, they can move from deadline compliance toward safer classroom use.
- Potential engagement
- Policy gap analysis against the ODEW model plus a 30-day workgroup charter, approved-tool rubric, and academic-integrity addendum.
- Unsupported claims
- That verbatim model adoption eliminates FAPE or privacy liability
- Guaranteed instructional improvement from policy adoption alone
- That the model mandates student use of generative AI
Pre-sales engineering
Role takeaway
- Fit
- Baseline for every Ohio district/community/STEM school; transferable as a template for other 'policy-required' states.
- Architecture and integration
- Tie procurement gates to identity-aware education tenants; publish approved AI tools API/list; enforce syllabus metadata for AI-use expectations.
- Prerequisites
- Board action adopting policy
- Data privacy policies to inherit
- Procurement process for edtech
- Academic integrity code
- Constraints
- Statute does not prescribe policy content
- Model silent on many liability edge cases
- Frequent review expected as tools change
- Security
- FERPA/PII controls; need-to-know data access; encryption and access control vetting; age-limit compliance.
- Proof of value
- Board minutes show adoption
- Vendor DPA checklist completed for each AI tool
- Sample courses include AI-use expectations
Delivery
Role takeaway
- Work
- Adopt/customize policy, stand up workgroup, vet vendors, publish acceptable-use guidance, train staff, schedule review cadence.
- Dependencies
- ORC 3301.24
- ODEW model text
- existing AUP/FERPA policies
- board calendar
- Ownership
- Board owns policy; IT/privacy owns procurement gates; curriculum owns literacy and integrity expectations.
- Skills and adoption
- PD on human-centered AI use, critical analysis of outputs, citation of AI assistance, and when not to use AI.
- Governance checkpoints
- Board adoption
- Workgroup quarterly review
- Annual policy effectiveness review
- Incident review for misuse
- Acceptance criteria
- Policy publicly available
- Approved-tool list current
- Integrity investigation procedure documented
- Special education represented on workgroup
- Risks
- Paper compliance without classroom change
- Assignments requiring unavailable tools
- AI-generated student work miscounted as mastery
Implementation considerations
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation across the operating dimensions a public-sector buyer must settle before this evidence becomes a design. Each note answers the question under its heading for this specific source.
Architecture and integration
What must connect, and where does the AI sit in the workflow?
Approved-tool catalogs, DPA-gated vendors, syllabus-level AI-use configuration, and no required tool the district cannot provision.
Governance
Who approves, reviews and stays accountable for outcomes?
Board adoption plus ongoing workgroup review; integrate AI into integrity, bullying/NCII, and special education policies.
Security and privacy
What data, permissions and controls need testing?
Need-to-know data processing, encryption/access controls, FERPA and Ohio/federal privacy alignment, age-limit ToS compliance.
Accessibility and workforce
Who is affected, and what skills or accommodations follow?
Procurement must evaluate accessibility; workgroup should include special education/related services voices.
Procurement
What should contracts, pricing and exit terms secure?
Third-party AI vendors must meet district privacy, ethics, and accessibility standards before classroom use.
Operating model
Which teams own the service once it runs?
Policy effectiveness depends on continuous review and classroom-level acceptable-use articulation, not shelfware.
Publication history
- 2026-09-28K–12 · Issue 235 resources
Stable resource ID: ohio-odew-ai-model-policy-202601