A multi-stakeholder, evidence-weighted framework for assessing a school's capacity to govern artificial intelligence responsibly — and to develop students who use it wisely.
The School AI Readiness & Digital Citizenship Diagnostic (SARDC) is a structured assessment that gives school leadership a clear, evidence-informed picture of where their institution stands across eleven critical domains of responsible AI adoption.
Unlike single-stakeholder surveys, SARDC triangulates perceptions from five groups — teachers, students, administrators, coaches, and teacher-leaders — then weights them against observable evidence (policy documents, lesson plans, incident logs). Where stakeholders disagree, the instrument flags misalignment rather than averaging it away.
Perception data (60%) is combined with evidence scoring (40%) so that strong survey responses cannot mask the absence of written policies, training records, or governance artefacts. This prevents "optimism inflation" common in self-report instruments.
Each domain is independently scored (0–100) then combined using the weights below to produce a School AI Readiness Index (SARI) score out of 100.
Domains 1 (Policy & Governance), 2 (Teaching & Learning), and 3 (Safeguarding) are weighted highest at 0.12 each. These three domains together account for 36% of the composite SARI score, reflecting their foundational role in responsible AI adoption.
| Domain | Weight | Relative Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| Policy & Governance ★ | 0.12 | |
| Teaching & Learning ★ | 0.12 | |
| Safeguarding & Safety ★ | 0.12 | |
| Data Privacy & Compliance | 0.10 | |
| AI Literacy & Critical Thinking | 0.10 | |
| Leadership & Culture | 0.09 | |
| Student Wellbeing & Agency | 0.09 | |
| Infrastructure & Access | 0.08 | |
| Professional Development | 0.08 | |
| Digital Citizenship | 0.08 | |
| Community & Communication | 0.02 |
Each stakeholder group receives a tailored survey instrument (10–12 items per domain, 3 domains per group per cycle). Questions use a 5-point Likert scale for perception items and multiple-choice for knowledge items.
When the standard deviation of stakeholder group scores within a domain exceeds 0.8, this signals that different groups have very different lived experiences of that domain. A 10-point reduction is applied and the misalignment is flagged in the report with targeted recommendations.
Policy & Governance domain:
Each domain score maps to one of four maturity levels. Levels are consistent across all 11 domains to enable cross-domain comparison.
| Level | Score Range | Label | Description | Typical Characteristics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | 0 – 39 | Emerging | Little or no evidence of deliberate practice. Ad-hoc responses to AI-related situations. | No written policy; individual staff act independently; no training record; incidents addressed reactively. |
| Level 2 | 40 – 64 | Developing | Initial structures in place but inconsistently applied. Awareness exists but not embedded in practice. | Draft policy exists; some staff trained; isolated good practice in pockets; no systematic monitoring. |
| Level 3 | 65 – 84 | Established | Consistent practice across most of the school. Systems documented and followed by the majority of staff and students. | Approved policy; most staff trained; monitoring in place; student voice included; annual review cycle. |
| Level 4 | 85 – 100 | Leading | Exemplary, evidence-rich practice. The school models good practice and contributes to sector-wide learning. | Policy reviewed termly; all staff CPD-certified; students co-create AI literacy content; external partnerships; published case studies. |
A school may score Level 4 (Leading) in Digital Citizenship while remaining at Level 1 (Emerging) in Safeguarding. The SARDC deliberately shows this granularity — a high composite SARI score can still mask critical gaps. Reviewers are instructed to flag any priority domain at Level 1 regardless of overall score.
The following conditions automatically cap a domain score at 40 (Emerging) regardless of survey perception scores. Red flags represent minimum standards where no amount of positive sentiment can substitute for their absence.
Each SARDC cycle produces a structured report delivered within 5 working days of data collection closing. The report is available in both an executive summary format (4 pages) and a full evidence annex.
The SARDC is administered by a trained Togno consultant in five phases over approximately 10 working days.
SARDC is designed for administration at three points during the Togno AIP programme:
Schools may optionally commission annual SARDC cycles independently after programme completion.
The diagnostic is included as standard in the Togno AIP Governance Programme. Schools can also commission a standalone SARDC as part of a readiness assessment before committing to the full programme.