AIP (Artificial Intelligence Policy) starts by measuring where your school actually stands, on two axes that are never averaged. The programme then builds the governance that answers what the baseline found: an agent on your own server prepares every step, and the person who owns your AI policy approves it. Nothing goes live without that approval.
The baseline measures where a school actually stands. The programme then builds what the baseline shows is missing — a policy, the people who decide, the records that show it — and keeps it current. An agent on your own server prepares every step; your named AI policy owner approves each one; your school takes the result to its own board, counsel and community.
It measures two things, and never one without the other. Readiness — can your people use AI well: are staff and students equipped, is access fair, is any of it improving teaching. Governance — can the institution be responsible for it: who decides, who is accountable, what happens when something goes wrong. The finding is the quadrant the two make together, not either score alone. A school strong on one and weak on the other has a specific problem with a specific answer, and from the inside the two are hard to tell apart.
| Quadrant | Readiness | Governance | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early on both | below 3.25 | below 3.25 | Neither governed nor deliberately used for learning |
| Ready but ungoverned | 3.25 or more | below 3.25 | People use it well; nobody owns the risk |
| Governed but not ready | below 3.25 | 3.25 or more | Rules exist; people cannot yet use the tools well |
| Running it properly | 3.25 or more | 3.25 or more | Capability, with mechanisms behind it |
The deliverables are concrete: both axis scores reported separately and never averaged, with Practice reported apart, a Living AI Policy draft that is jurisdiction-aware, a risk register prioritised by likelihood and impact, an opportunity register naming what already works, a values and fear map, a governance model with decision rights, a 12-month operating cadence, and the communications needed to roll it out.
What it is not: a multi-year consulting contract, a software platform, a certification, or a substitute for legal counsel. You should have the policy draft reviewed by an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction before adopting it — we do not provide one, and nothing we produce is legal advice. There are no training sessions, facilitated workshops, visits or board presentations by us: the agent prepares, your school decides and presents. The instruments have not been externally validated or psychometrically tested; they support a defensible management conversation, not a compliance claim.
Only school weeks count: a holiday or an exam week pauses the plan rather than compressing it. The owner gives about two hours a week. Each week the agent sends one message saying what it has prepared and what it needs back.
The agent drafts the calendar of school weeks, the privacy notice and the evidence request. Your policy owner names the contacts, books the review window with your data protection officer or counsel, and approves the notice.
Surveys go to staff, students, leadership, IT and families, in one fixed ten-day window. Your IT team runs the Exposure Scan in its own browser — it looks for AI features switched on inside software you already licence, and apps staff authorised with school accounts.
Then the evidence is checked against the claim. For each control the school believes it has, the agent records whether the evidence was produced on request, and when. The result is labelled for what it is: self-assessed with evidence checked, not independently reviewed. A school checking its own evidence is not an audit, and the report does not call it one.
Both axes are scored, the quadrant is named, and every red flag is confirmed with leadership before a word is written down. Nobody should learn a finding about their own school by reading it in a finished document. What staff, families and students value and fear comes from the surveys alone.
The policy draft, decision rights and approval checklists are written from what your measurement actually found — every clause traceable to a finding. A clause that answers nothing gets cut.
Your owner fills in the names and sends the draft to your legal counsel; leadership approves version 1.0.
A kit for each role, each line citing the policy clause it rests on, student kits by age band and a family kit. The school approves them and shares them through its own channels.
The approval workflow runs on two tools you already use, in consecutive school weeks. Your governance panel decides. At least one tool must be refused or modified, or the workflow was not tested.
The agent prepares the year-one calendar, a succession note and a board briefing; the owner names a deputy, and the head or the owner presents the briefing. It covers what was found, what is already working, and what remains open — a briefing that reports only good news is not believed.
After that the agent keeps the programme current — policy versions, role material kept in step, law changes — and each change still goes live only when your owner approves it.
Premium adds written human judgement: Hector’s reading of your baseline and an annual written review, both without a meeting, and a read of your policy before it goes to your counsel. What each package includes →
Two axes scored separately and never averaged — Readiness and Governance across 15 dimensions — plus a Practice measure of whether AI is serving learning yet.
Top risks scored (L × I), mitigations named, owners assigned.
Anonymized stakeholder voices across 5 groups, from the surveys.
v1.0 draft, jurisdiction-aware, ready for legal review.
Panel structure, RACI matrix, version-control protocol.
Go/No-Go scoring on 8 criteria, applied to two tools you already use.
A kit for each role, each line citing the policy clause it rests on; 5 role-based assessments.
12-month calendar, standing meetings, review cycle.
5 grade-band cards for student engagement.
Parent letters, staff memo, board briefing, newsletter.
Country-localized cost estimate with grant offsets.
What your school owns, what's next, what to monitor.
Every deliverable above exists as a blank template. If you want to see the structure of what we produce — and try filling it in yourself — start there.
Open Blueprint →The 9-component philosophy behind the baseline and the programme. Read this first if you want to know what we believe before you decide what to buy.
See Framework →Measuring where your school stands is free. Standard, Premium and Networks each list exactly what the school receives and what it commits to.