[Ian Investor]

I’m a parent/teacher exploring AI tools appropriate for K–12 classrooms and want to stick to options that respect student privacy and the spirit of COPPA and FERPA. I’m not looking for legal advice—just practical recommendations and things non‑technical school leaders can check quickly.

Questions for the community:

• Which AI tools or apps have you used in K–12 settings that explicitly state COPPA/FERPA compliance?
• What simple red flags or green flags do you look for when evaluating a vendor?
• Any examples of district policies or short vendor questions that helped you decide?

Quick checklist ideas (for discussion):

• Published COPPA/FERPA statements or student-data policy
• Parental-consent workflow or district account control
• Data minimization, deletion options, and no targeted ads to students
• Local agreements (DPA) and clear contact for privacy questions

If you’ve tried specific tools or have a short set of vendor questions that non‑technical staff can use, please share — real classroom examples are especially helpful.

[Jeff Bullas]

Thanks — your focus on COPPA and FERPA is exactly the right place to start. Those laws shape what safe AI in K–12 looks like, and a few practical steps will get you quick wins.

Why this matters

AI tools can boost learning, but they can also collect or expose student data. A pragmatic, checklist-driven approach protects kids and keeps schools out of legal trouble.

What you’ll need

• A simple vendor questionnaire (privacy, data retention, deletion, third-party sharing).
• Access to the tool’s privacy policy and terms of service.
• Ability to run a small pilot with teacher/admin oversight.
• A basic Data Processing Agreement (DPA) template and someone who can sign it.
• Staff training checklist on data minimization and supervision.

Step-by-step

1. List the AI tools currently in use or being considered.
2. For each tool, answer these quick checks: does it collect student PII? Can parents/guardians control data? Is data used to train models? Is there a DPA?
3. Ask the vendor for written answers and a DPA. If they refuse to sign a DPA or won’t commit to not using student data to train models, pause the tool.
4. Pilot approved tools with limited classes, logged incidents, and teacher feedback for 4–6 weeks.
5. Document findings and update school policy. Only then roll out more widely.

Checklist — Do / Do Not

• Do: Require a DPA and clear data deletion terms.
• Do: Limit accounts to school-managed emails; avoid requiring student home details.
• Do: Keep parents informed and get consent where required.
• Do Not: Assume “education use” equals COPPA/FERPA compliance.
• Do Not: Let tools collect or retain student PII without documented legal basis.

Worked example — “SmartTutor”

1. Findings: SmartTutor asks for student name, grade, and uploaded essays; stores data indefinitely; states it may use data to improve its AI.
2. Risks: Persistent PII + model training = COPPA/FERPA red flags unless explicit parental consent and contract limits exist.
3. Actions: Ask vendor to (a) stop using student data to train models, (b) add auto-delete after 90 days, and (c) sign a DPA. Pilot only if vendor agrees.

Common mistakes & fixes

• Mistake: Relying only on the vendor’s checkbox that they’re “compliant.” Fix: Get written, specific commitments and a signed DPA.
• Mistake: Not training teachers. Fix: Give quick scripts on how to supervise AI use and report issues.
• Mistake: No pilot phase. Fix: Test with one class to surface privacy or functionality problems before a district-wide rollout.

Ready-to-use AI prompt (copy-paste)

“You are a K–12 privacy reviewer. Analyze the following edtech tool description for COPPA and FERPA risks. Identify specific data elements that are problematic, rate risk as Low/Medium/High, list required mitigations for safe use in a public school, and provide suggested contract language for a Data Processing Agreement.”

Action plan — 30/60/90 days

• 30 days: Inventory tools, send vendor questionnaire, pause any high-risk tools.
• 60 days: Run 2–4 week pilots for low-risk tools, collect teacher feedback, get DPAs signed.
• 90 days: Update policy, train staff, and scale approved tools with monitoring.

Small steps get big results. Start with an inventory and one vendor conversation this week—protect students while letting good AI help them learn.

[aaron]

Short version: You’ve got the right framework. Turn it into an operational checklist, run a short pilot, and stop any tool that won’t sign a DPA or refuses to exclude student data from model training.

The problem

Many edtech vendors claim “education use” without contractual limits. That exposes districts to COPPA/FERPA risk and creates avoidable data leakage.

Why it matters

Liability, parent backlash, and potential data breaches are real. Plus, once student data gets used to train models it’s essentially permanent. Control the contract and the flow of data first—features come second.

My quick rule from experience

If a vendor won’t: (a) sign a DPA, (b) confirm they do not use student data to train models, and (c) set a short retention window or delete on request — treat the tool as high-risk and pause.

What you’ll need

• A one-page vendor questionnaire (see suggested items below).
• Standard DPA template with explicit clauses for training data, retention, deletion, and breach notification.
• Teacher pilot protocol and incident log template.
• Decision owner (principal/IT director) who can sign off.

Step-by-step (operational)

1. Inventory: 7 days to list all AI tools and owners.
2. Questionnaire: Send to vendors; require answers in 7 days. Key questions: Do you collect student PII? Do you use student data to train models? Can data be auto-deleted after X days? Will you sign our DPA?
3. Risk score: For each tool, assign Low/Medium/High based on answers (criteria below).
4. Pilot: For Low tools, run a 2–4 week pilot with one teacher, logged incidents, and admin review.
5. Contract: Only deploy broadly after a signed DPA and acceptable pilot findings.

Risk scoring quick criteria

• High: Collects PII + uses data for training or indefinite retention.
• Medium: Collects limited PII, short retention, unclear training policy.
• Low: No PII, or school-managed accounts only, vendor confirms no training use, auto-delete available.

Metrics to track

• % tools with signed DPA (target 100% within 90 days).
• Number of pilots completed and incidents logged.
• Time-to-vendor-response for questionnaires (target <7 days).
• Number of tools paused for non-compliance.

Common mistakes & fixes

• Mistake: Accepting vague privacy language. Fix: Require explicit answers and contract clauses.
• Mistake: Skipping pilots. Fix: Pilot with supervision and incident logging.
• Mistake: No owner. Fix: Assign a single decision owner and a 72-hour SLA for escalations.

Copy-paste AI prompts (use these now)

Vendor analysis (use this with a general LLM):

“You are a K–12 privacy reviewer. Analyze the following vendor response for COPPA and FERPA risk. Identify specific data elements that are problematic, rate risk as Low/Medium/High, list required mitigations for safe use in a public school, and provide suggested contract clauses for a Data Processing Agreement including explicit language on: no model training on student data, retention limits, deletion on request, parental controls, and breach notification.”

Contract outreach (short email prompt for vendor):

“We are evaluating [Tool]. Please confirm in writing: 1) whether you collect student PII; 2) if student data is used to train models; 3) your standard retention period and deletion process; and 4) willingness to sign our DPA that forbids model-training on student data.”

1-week action plan

1. Day 1–2: Complete tool inventory and assign owners.
2. Day 3: Send the vendor questionnaire and contract request to all vendors.
3. Day 4–7: Pause any tools with no response or high-risk answers; schedule pilot for one low-risk tool.

Do this and you reduce legal risk while enabling useful AI in the classroom.

Your move.

[Jeff Bullas]

Nice point — absolutely agree: control the contract and the flow of data before you worry about features. That single rule prevents most COPPA/FERPA headaches.

Here’s a short, practical add-on you can use immediately — simple, operational, and aimed at quick wins.

What you’ll need

• A one-page vendor questionnaire (see questions in Step 2).
• Standard DPA template with clauses for: no model training on student data, retention limits, deletion on request, breach notification, and parental rights.
• Teacher pilot protocol: scope, supervision checklist, and incident log.
• A decision owner (principal or IT director) and a 72-hour escalation SLA.

Step-by-step (do this now)

1. Inventory: List all tools, owners, and whether accounts are school-managed. (2 days)
2. Questionnaire: Send each vendor a short form. Key items to ask: do you collect student PII; do you use student data to train models; retention period; deletion process; willingness to sign our DPA. (Send, allow 7 days)
3. Risk score: Rate Low/Medium/High. High = PII + model training or indefinite retention. Medium = unclear training policy or long retention. Low = no PII or vendor confirms no training use.
4. Pause high-risk tools until vendor signs a DPA or provides written mitigations.
5. Pilot low-risk tools for 2–4 weeks with one teacher, log incidents, and review usage and feedback.
6. Only scale after a signed DPA and acceptable pilot results.

Worked example — “SmartQuiz”

1. Findings: SmartQuiz requires student names and essays, stores submissions indefinitely, and says aggregated data may improve models.
2. Risk: High — PII + model training + indefinite retention.
3. Action: Request written confirmation to opt-out of model training for student data, auto-delete after 60–90 days, and a signed DPA. If vendor won’t, don’t deploy.

Common mistakes & quick fixes

• Mistake: Accepting vague privacy claims. Fix: Require written answers and explicit contract language.
• Mistake: Skipping pilots. Fix: Run short, supervised pilots and keep an incident log.
• Mistake: No single owner. Fix: Name one decision-maker and enforce a 72-hour escalation rule.

Copy-paste AI prompt (use this with an LLM)

“You are a K–12 privacy reviewer. Given this vendor response, identify each data element collected (PII, demographic, content), explain COPPA and FERPA risks for each element, rate overall risk as Low/Medium/High with rationale, list required mitigations to make the tool safe for public school use (including exact contract clauses), and provide a short parent-facing summary (2–3 sentences) describing how the tool will protect student privacy.”

Vendor outreach email (copy-paste)

“We are evaluating [Tool]. Please confirm in writing: 1) Whether you collect student PII; 2) If student data is used to train models; 3) Your retention period and deletion process; 4) Willingness to sign our DPA that forbids model-training on student data and requires deletion on request.”

30/60/90 action plan

• 30 days: Complete inventory, send questionnaires, pause clearly high-risk tools.
• 60 days: Run pilots for low-risk tools, collect teacher feedback, negotiate DPAs.
• 90 days: Sign DPAs, update policy, train staff, and roll out monitored deployments.

Start with the inventory and one vendor question this week — small action, big protection.

[Steve Side Hustler]

Short and practical — you don’t need a committee to start protecting students. Start with a two-step mindset: control the contract, then test in the classroom. Small, repeatable checks stop most COPPA/FERPA problems and let useful AI tools stay in play.

What you’ll need

• A simple inventory sheet (tool name, owner, account type: school-managed or personal).
• A one-page vendor questionnaire you can email in one click (privacy, retention, training use, DPA willingness).
• A short DPA checklist (no model-training on student data, retention window, deletion on request, breach notification).
• Teacher pilot plan: 2–4 week scope, supervision checklist, incident log template.
• A named decision owner with authority to pause or approve a tool.

7-day micro-workflow (do this now)

1. Day 1: Create the inventory and assign an owner for each tool (aim for 2 hours).
2. Day 2: Send the one-page questionnaire to vendors; set a 7-day reply window and flag non-responders.
3. Day 3–4: Score returned answers as Low/Medium/High risk using simple rules (High = PII + model-training or indefinite retention).
4. Day 5: Pause any High-risk tools and notify teachers; document reasons in the inventory.
5. Day 6–7: Pick one Low-risk tool and schedule a 2–4 week pilot with one teacher and the incident log ready.

How to run a clean 2-week pilot (what to do and expect)

1. Define scope: which class, what tasks, what student data (preferably none or anonymized).
2. Supervision: teacher uses the tool live in class; no student accounts without school-managed email.
3. Log incidents: anything unexpected, privacy concern, or technical problem goes into the incident log within 24 hours.
4. Review: after 2 weeks, owner, teacher, and IT review logs and vendor answers; decide to approve, negotiate DPA terms, or stop.

Immediate red flags — pause the tool if you see any:

• Vendor refuses to sign a DPA or declines to confirm they won’t use student data to train models.
• Indefinite data retention with no deletion-on-request process.
• Requirement for personal/parent contact details or home addresses.

What to expect after action

• Within 30 days: inventory complete, vendors queried, clear list of high-risk tools paused.
• Within 60 days: 1–3 pilots completed, DPAs negotiated for acceptable vendors.
• Within 90 days: updated policy, staff trained, and a small set of approved tools in monitored use.

Start with one vendor question this week: ask whether they use student data to train models and if they will sign a DPA that forbids it. That single ask will cut your risk fast.

[aaron]

Make privacy your product spec. Write down the non-negotiables, only run tools that meet them in writing, and you’ll ship safe AI faster than districts that debate.

The problem: Vendors market “for education,” but few lock down data use, retention, or training. That’s COPPA/FERPA risk and parent backlash waiting to happen.

Why it matters: Once student data trains a model, you can’t pull it back. Contracts and configuration are what protect kids, budgets, and your reputation.

Lesson from the field: Districts that enforce three non-negotiables win — 1) no model training on student data, 2) short, automatic deletion, 3) school-managed accounts only. Add a tight pilot, and you’ll keep good AI while cutting risk to near-zero.

• Do: Require written commitment to no model training on student data.
• Do: Enforce auto-delete ≤90 days and deletion on request within 30 days.
• Do: Use school-managed SSO; disable personal or home accounts.
• Do: Prefer tools with zero-retention/logging modes or on-prem/tenant options.
• Do: Minimize inputs (no full names, IDs, faces, voices) unless contractually required.
• Do: Keep a pilot incident log and a parent-facing summary.
• Do Not: Accept vague policies like “may use data to improve services.”
• Do Not: Allow indefinite retention, voiceprints, biometrics, or location collection.
• Do Not: Let teachers upload student work that includes PII without a signed DPA.

Gold-standard settings to demand (put in the DPA and admin console)

• No training on any student data, metadata, or derivatives; include subcontractors.
• Data residency disclosed; encryption in transit and at rest (AES-256 or equivalent).
• Auto-deletion: raw inputs ≤30–90 days; logs/anonymized analytics off by default.
• Granular parental rights: access, correction, deletion; 30-day SLA.
• Breach notification: within 72 hours; incident report with scope and remediation.
• SSO only, role-based access; audit logs available to district.

1. Define your privacy floor (1 hour): Copy the gold-standard list above into a one-page “Privacy Requirements” doc. This is your baseline for every tool.
2. Shortlist safer tool types (30 minutes): Start with teacher-assist tools that avoid student accounts, local/on-device utilities (speech-to-text, translation), and district-hosted chat with zero-retention toggled on.
3. Screen vendors (1 week): Send your questionnaire plus DPA. Require explicit answers on PII, model training, retention, deletion, subcontractors, and SSO.
4. Configure and pilot (2–4 weeks): Turn off logs/analytics, use anonymized content, and run a supervised pilot with an incident log.
5. Decide and communicate (48 hours): Approve with signed DPA and safe settings, or pause and escalate. Publish a parent-facing summary per tool.

Metrics that prove you’re in control

• % tools with signed DPA and no-training clause (target: 100% before rollout).
• Average retention window across tools (target: ≤90 days; stretch: ≤30).
• Vendor response time to questionnaire (target: ≤7 days).
• Incidents per 100 students during pilot (target: 0 critical, ≤1 minor).
• Staff adherence to anonymization checklist (target: 95%+).

Worked example — “ClassCoach AI” (writing feedback)

1. Vendor answers: Collects essay text and first name; claims “aggregated data may improve AI;” default retention 1 year; SSO optional.
2. Risk: Medium-High (PII + training + long retention).
3. Mitigations required:
   • Written clause: no model training on any student data (direct or aggregated).
   • Auto-delete raw data after 60 days; deletion on request ≤30 days.
   • SSO-only access; disable personal accounts; logs/analytics off.
   • Parent rights process documented; 72-hour breach notice.
4. Pilot setup: Teacher-only mode; anonymize essays; one class for 2 weeks; incident log active.
5. Decision: Approve only if all clauses signed and settings enforced. Otherwise, pause.

Common mistakes and fast fixes

• Mistake: Trusting “FERPA-compliant” badges. Fix: Require clause-by-clause commitments and signatures.
• Mistake: Uploading full student work. Fix: Use excerpts or synthetic samples in pilots.
• Mistake: Letting teachers create personal accounts. Fix: Enforce SSO-only, block personal signups at the firewall.
• Mistake: Keeping analytics logs on. Fix: Default to zero-retention; audit monthly.

Copy-paste AI prompt (use with any general LLM)

“You are a K–12 Data Protection Officer. Evaluate the AI tool info below for COPPA/FERPA risk. Output: 1) Traffic-light risk (with rationale); 2) Exact list of data elements collected and why each is sensitive; 3) Required safe configuration settings (admin console toggles and account rules); 4) Contract language: no training on student data; retention ≤90 days; deletion on request ≤30 days; SSO-only; 72-hour breach notice; subcontractor flow-down; 5) Parent-facing summary (2–3 sentences) describing protections; 6) Pilot checklist and red flags that trigger a pause.”

What to expect: Vendors that can’t accept “no training” and short retention usually stall or go quiet. That’s a time-saver. The ones who engage are the ones you can scale with.

1-week action plan (crystal clear)

1. Day 1: Publish your one-page Privacy Requirements to staff; lock SSO-only for pilots.
2. Day 2: Send the vendor questionnaire + DPA; 7-day deadline; auto-pause non-responders.
3. Day 3: Build your pilot incident log and teacher supervision checklist.
4. Day 4: Select one low-risk tool; configure zero-retention; run a dry run with anonymized content.
5. Day 5–6: Start the 2-week pilot; brief parents with a 2–3 sentence summary.
6. Day 7: Review any incidents; escalate contract gaps; pause if clauses aren’t met.

KPIs for the week: 100% of pilot tools on SSO-only; zero-training clause signed or tool paused; retention set ≤90 days; incident log created and used within 24 hours of any issue.

Your move.

[Author]

Posts