The problem: a school usually discovers what a tool does with student data after it has signed for it. The questions that decide that — who the sub-processors are, how long data is retained, whether it trains a model, what happens at termination — are answerable before signing, and rarely asked in time. This matrix asks them in a fixed order so two tools can be compared on the same evidence, and records what each vendor answered.
5 Tool Categories
✍️

Writing Assistance

Grades K–12 · Use cases
  • Brainstorming & outline support
  • Grammar & style feedback
  • Essay feedback (not generation)
  • Citation & research tools
  • ELL writing support
🔢

Math Assistance

Grades K–12 · Use cases
  • Adaptive practice platforms
  • Step-by-step problem solving
  • Fact fluency (K–5)
  • Calculus/Statistics (9–12)
  • Tutoring + feedback loops
🔬

Research Assistance

Grades 6–12 · Use cases
  • Source verification tools
  • Literature review support
  • Citation generation
  • Fact-checking integrations
  • AP/IB research tools

SPED / Accessibility AI

All grades · Use cases
  • Dyslexia reading support
  • Dysgraphia writing tools
  • AAC + AI communication
  • IEP-aligned platforms
  • IDEA / Section 504 compliant
👩‍💼

Administrative / Teacher AI

Staff-facing · Use cases
  • Lesson planning assistants
  • Grading support tools
  • Parent communication drafting
  • IEP documentation tools
  • PD & coaching platforms
8 Evaluation Criteria
CriterionWhat We EvaluateWeight
Privacy ScoreCompliance with the law that applies (Ley 1581, FERPA/COPPA, GDPR); data selling; retention limitsHigh
Pedagogical EvidencePeer-reviewed research, efficacy studies, independent validationHigh
Pricing TransparencyPer-student/year cost, hidden fees, multi-year contract riskHigh
Red Flag WarningsTerms of service violations, incident history, predatory clausesHigh
AccessibilityADA compliance, WCAG 2.1, SPED/ELL features, assistive tech compatibilityMedium
Vendor SupportSLA uptime guarantees, response time, training providedMedium
IntegrationLMS compatibility (Canvas, Schoology, Google Classroom), SSOMedium
Incident HistoryPublic incidents, school reports, regulatory actionsHigh
Privacy Scorecard (A–F)
A — Exemplary B — Good C — Adequate D — Concerning F — Do Not Use

A tools: signed data agreement under the law that applies (FERPA, Ley 1581, GDPR), no data selling, short retention, the school owns its data, fast breach notification. F tools: sell or reuse student data, no enforceable agreement, no opt-out. There is no “FERPA certification” — ask for the signed agreement, not a badge.

Red Flag Warnings
Contract Clause Library
Data Ownership

"The School retains all rights to student data. Vendor has no ownership interest."

Data Deletion

"Upon contract termination, vendor will delete all student data within 30 days."

No Data Selling

"Vendor shall not sell, share, or commercially exploit student data under any circumstance."

No AI Training

"Student data shall not be used to train, fine-tune, or improve AI models without explicit written consent."

Breach Notification

"Vendor shall notify the School within 24 hours of any confirmed or suspected data breach."

Audit Rights

"The School retains the right to audit vendor security practices annually with 30-day notice."

Indemnification

"Vendor shall indemnify the School for losses arising from vendor's breach of this agreement."

Pilot-First

"This agreement covers a pilot period only. Multi-year commitment requires separate board approval."