Project Deliverables › Phase 1

Baseline Report

AI Governance Readiness Assessment — [School name]
School
[School name], [City]
Assessment Period
9–19 December 2025
Submitted
2025-12-19
Status
Accepted
Executive Summary

[School name] entered the AI governance program with significant unmanaged AI exposure: [N] AI-capable tools were identified in active use across the school, of which only [N] had any form of documented review. Staff were using AI tools in instruction and administration with no shared policy, no incident process, and no parental disclosure framework.

The school's baseline Readiness composite was [R.R] / 5.0 and its Governance composite [G.G] / 5.0 — reported separately and never averaged. [One sentence on what the two together mean here: which of the two is the constraint, and why.]

This is a template. Every bracketed value is filled from the school's own measurement. Do not carry a number from another school into it, and do not compare a score to a “sector average” — no validated sector average exists for these instruments.

[total students]
Enrolled Students
[total staff]
Staff Members
[N]
AI Tools Found
[R.R]
Readiness /5
[G.G]
Governance /5
School Profile

Overview

  • Founded: 1998
  • Location: [Locality, City, Country]
  • Curriculum: IB World School (PYP · MYP · DP)
  • Accreditation: CIS, Cognia
  • Languages: English (primary), Spanish, French

Enrollment by Division

  • Early Years (PreK–K): 142 students
  • Primary (Grades 1–5): 487 students
  • Middle School (Grades 6–8): 418 students
  • High School (Grades 9–12): 800 students
  • Total: [total students]

Technology Stack

  • Platform: Google Workspace for Education Plus
  • LMS: Schoology (Primary) + Google Classroom
  • Device ratio: 1:1 from Grade 4+
  • Shared devices: PreK–Grade 3
  • IT staff: 6 FTE

Governance Context

  • Jurisdiction: Colombia (Ley 1581/2012)
  • DPO equivalent: Not appointed (pre-program)
  • Existing digital policy: Acceptable Use Policy (2021, outdated)
  • Previous AI governance: None
  • Board: 9-member international governance board
15-Dimension Readiness Assessment

Each dimension scored 1–5 (1 = no capability, 5 = fully mature). Scores reflect independent assessor review, staff surveys (n=[N]), leadership interviews (n=[N]), and documentation review.

DimensionPrePostΔ
AI Tool Inventory — Discovery Findings

[N] AI-capable tools were identified across the school through staff surveys, IT access logs, and classroom observations. Only 4 had been reviewed by any school authority prior to this program.

Tool Type Users Pre-Program Status
Google Workspace (Gemini)Platform AIStaff + All StudentsUnreviewed
Microsoft 365 / CopilotPlatform AISome StaffUnreviewed
Schoology (AI analytics)LMSStaff + StudentsPartially reviewed
ChatGPTGenerative AIStaff + HS StudentsNo controls
GrammarlyWriting AIStaff + MS/HSPartially reviewed
Canva AICreative AIStaff + StudentsNo controls
Duolingo (AI features)EdTech AILanguage DeptNo controls
Photomath / MathwayEdTech AIStudents (informal)No controls
Quizlet AIEdTech AIStudents (informal)No controls
Turnitin (AI detection)Academic IntegrityStaffIn use
+ 13 additional tools identifiedVariousIndividual staffNo controls
Key Findings
F1 — Unsanctioned generative AI use is widespread
[N]% of secondary teachers reported using generative AI tools for lesson planning. [N]% of Grade 9–12 students reported using generative AI for homework “sometimes or often.” No disclosure or guidance framework existed.
F2 — Google Workspace Gemini AI features were active by default for all students
The tenant configuration had not restricted Gemini AI features for under-14 students, creating a consent gap under Ley 1581/2012 (Decreto 1377/2013). Immediate remediation was required.
F3 — No data processing agreements with AI vendors
Of [N] tools identified, none had a formal Data Processing Agreement that met the requirements of Ley 1581/2012. Four vendors had privacy policies explicitly permitting training AI models on user data.
F4 — Staff feel undertrained and anxious about AI
[N]% of staff rated their AI literacy as “low” or “very low.” [N]% expressed concern that students “know more than they do.” [N]% had received any AI-specific professional development in the past two years.
F5 — No incident response pathway for AI-specific events
[N] incidents identified in the prior 12 months (AI-generated fake images shared via student WhatsApp groups; a student submitted AI-generated work in IB assessments) were handled ad hoc with no formal record.
F6 — Parents largely unaware of AI tool use
[N]% of parents surveyed said they had received communication from the school about AI tools in use. [N]% said they would want to be informed before AI features were activated on student accounts.
Recommendations