Two questions, in fact. Whether the school is protected — and whether AI is doing anything for teaching and learning while it is here. Most schools cannot answer either with evidence, not because they are careless but because nobody has ever measured it. AIP is the assessment, the policy, and the operating cadence that fix that.
Readiness asks whether your people can use AI well. Governance asks whether the institution can be responsible for it. They are measured separately and never averaged — the finding is where the two meet.
| 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 |
Three steps. The first is free and takes five minutes; the last is us doing it with you.
Also here: the Blueprint — 16 deliverable templates showing what an AI programme should contain · the Methodology · the evidence base.
Guardrails · Parental Consent · Baseline Review · AI Literacy · Critical Thinking · Potential and Protection · K-12 Focus · Under Your Own Law · Evidence, Not Assumption.
Two fixed-fee engagements: the ~5-week Review, or the 12-week Implementation. Statement of Work, deck, one-pager — and a real conversation.
AIP isn't a faceless framework — it's a service with a named expert who signs every deliverable. Meet Hector.
18 case cards across the USA, Spain, Colombia & LatAm. 36-source bibliography. The data behind every recommendation.
Questions, pilots, custom programs: info@togno.co. We reply within a few business days.
Social media arrived in schools with no governance, no measurement and no agreed position. Everyone remembers the harm. What gets forgotten is that there was a real educational idea in there too — about connection, about collaboration, about a student having something to say and somewhere beyond the classroom wall to say it — and most schools ended up blocking the whole thing, because by the time they acted, blocking was the only instrument they had left.
It cost twice. Ungoverned adoption does not only produce harm; it burns the benefit along with it, and the students who most needed that benefit are rarely the ones who were harmed.
So the goal was never to keep AI out of schools. Governing AI well is not what slows a school down — it is what lets it move without having to stop later. Measure both things: whether you are protected, and whether any of this is actually serving learning. Then decide deliberately, in your own words, what you want the technology to do for your children.
See where your school stands — 20 questions, free →