Determine and clearly communicate approved AI tools

Why this one is first

A short approved list is not a restriction. It is the thing that makes every later decision possible: you cannot train staff on tools you have not named, and you cannot vet a tool you do not know is in use.

Questions to answer

• Which AI tools are approved for teachers and staff, for students 13 and over, and for students under 13?
• Should staff use their work email to create accounts on free, unapproved tools? Decide this explicitly — silence is a decision, and it is usually the wrong one.
• How will you handle AI features appearing inside tools you already approved? Canva, Canvas, Padlet, and Google have all added generative features to products that passed review before those features existed.
• What process lets a teacher request that a tool be added? If there isn't one, the list will be routed around rather than followed.
• How does this information actually reach staff, students, and families?

What "done" looks like

1. An approved tool list

   Named tools, split by who may use them. Dated, and with an owner who is responsible for updating it. Expect it to change — that is not a failure of the list.

2. Guidance for account creation

   Which email address, who provisions accounts, what happens with age verification, and what staff do when a tool asks for a login they should not give it.

3. Communication that reached people

   Staff, students, and families. A list that lives in a shared drive nobody opens has not been communicated.