School AI Readiness Framework
The School AI Readiness Framework is a self-assessment. It is not an audit, not an application, and not a submission to anybody. A principal and a small leadership team complete it in one sitting of ninety minutes, or two shorter ones, without a consultant, without a supplier in the room and without spending money. Eight domains of ordinary school practice, each with one question a principal would actually ask, four to six indicators, and four levels.
- Domains
- 8
- Indicators
- 40
- Levels
- 4
- Cost
- Free · ungated
The Council is being constituted. Its founding cohort is forming and no Council publication, roundtable or research output has yet been produced. Everything described as planned is a commitment of intent, not a record of work done.
The instrument
What it is, and who paid for it
Founding draft. Issued by the Founding Chair on the secretariat's drafting, before the Council was constituted. Open for comment. To be reaffirmed, amended or withdrawn by the voting members once seven are in office, and in any case by 31 August 2027.
This is version 1.0, issued on 29 August 2026. The Charter requires every Council output to carry, on its first page, its funder, the amount attributable to that work, its authors and its reviewers. Applied here, honestly: this document was drafted by the PrepGraph secretariat and issued by the Founding Chair; no separate sum is attributable to it, because it was produced inside the secretariat that PrepGraph already pays for; and it carries no independent reviewer, because none has been appointed. It therefore does not yet meet the standard the Charter sets for the Council's own outputs. That is stated here rather than left for a reader to find, and it is one of the things the voting members are being asked to correct.
Every level 4 description here is reachable by a school that purchases nothing further. That is a testable claim, so test it. It strains in one known place, which is named rather than hidden: where the school's existing software licenses accounts per seat, moving a whole staff off shared logins is a quotation from the incumbent supplier and not a decision the school can simply take. What to do in that case is set out under Data Protection and Child Safety. If any other level appears to require a purchase, write to [email protected] quoting the indicator. Each edition carries a dated list of the wordings changed because a school said so.
Disclosure
Who pays for this. The Council is convened, funded, staffed and administered by PrepGraph, which sells software to schools and acts as the Council's secretariat. A document that touches procurement must say who paid for it, so it is said here rather than in a footnote. Four controls hold that conflict in place, and each can be verified without trusting anyone's intentions. No product is named anywhere in this framework, PrepGraph's included. The framework may be copied, printed, translated and used by any school, association or organisation without permission or fee, so it cannot be turned into a gated asset. Completed matrices are never sent to the Council or to PrepGraph, so nothing here can generate a list of prospects. And the procurement domain applies to PrepGraph on the same terms as to any other supplier, which is the use the Council would prefer a school make of it.
How the conflict is containedOne benefit to the convener is not controlled by any of those four, and is named here for that reason. A company whose staff help write the criteria by which its market is judged gains from the existence of the criteria, whatever the criteria say: an established supplier that can already answer these questions is advantaged over a smaller one that cannot. The Council does not claim to have removed that. What it can do is leave a trace. The criteria are published in full and may be reused by anyone, a competitor included. While this remains a founding draft, any supplier may comment on it in writing to [email protected], and the Council will publish those comments as received alongside the edition they concern, including comments it disagrees with.
The Council does not endorse individual procurement decisions or technology vendors. Its role is to advance responsible AI readiness, educator capability and evidence-based innovation in schools.
This is the first edition, prepared for the inaugural term 2026-27. The Council has assessed no school, holds no survey data and has published no findings. Nothing in this document reports what Indian schools currently do. It states only what a school can check about itself, and the Council intends to revise it as schools report where it fails them.
A school that has already worked through the Council's Responsible AI Principles will find that several artefacts asked for here are the same artefacts under a different name: the list of tools holding student data, the access list, the incident log, the parent notice and the one named accountable adult. Keep one register and point at it twice. This framework does not ask for a second copy of anything a school already maintains, and a school that has to choose should keep the version its own staff actually use.
Correspondence: [email protected]. Every edition is published free, without registration or request, at council.prepgraph.com.
The sitting
How to run it
One session, in the school, with nobody selling anything. The instrument is designed around this ninety minutes; everything else on this page is the paper it works from.
Ninety minutes, once, with the right people in the room and no consultant. Ninety minutes covers eight domains only if the room places each domain at the level its weakest indicator supports rather than debating every indicator separately; a room that wants to work indicator by indicator should book two sittings of four domains instead, and the instrument is designed to survive being split that way.
In the room
- the principal or head
- the academic head or vice-principal
- two timetabled teachers, one senior and one in their first three years
- the person who keeps student records or handles admissions
- the person who looks after computers and connectivity, or, where there is no such person, whoever holds the passwords for the office computers
- the examination or academic coordinator
Six to eight people is the working size. Many schools have no technology staff at all and a contractor who visits when something breaks: do not wait for him, and do not invite him, because the questions here are about who decided and what is written down, not about equipment. A correspondent or trustee may sit in and listen. Do not invite a supplier and do not let a supplier facilitate. A sheet completed with a vendor in the room records the vendor's view of the school. The Council does not pass its own test on that point today, and says so rather than hoping it goes unnoticed: this instrument was drafted, and the Council's meetings are serviced, by a secretariat that a supplier pays for.
Shape of the session
- 1 ten minutes to read the four levels aloud and agree the spine that runs through every indicator, which is unwritten, written, practised, reviewed.
- 2 Sixty minutes for the eight domains, about seven minutes each, with one person keeping time and moving the room on whether or not it has finished arguing.
- 3 Fifteen minutes to choose what happens next.
- 4 Five minutes to assign it.
One rule governs the whole session. No level may be claimed unless someone present can name the document, register, minute or form that shows it, and say where it is kept. If nobody can point at it, the school is one level lower. That rule is the only difference between this exercise and a pleasant conversation, and it is why an evidence list sits under every domain.
Handling disagreement
when the room splits between two levels, record the lower one and write one line saying why the room disagreed. Do not vote and do not average. A split usually means the practice is real in one section, wing or shift and absent in another. Name that part in the line you write.
What comes out of the room
- a sheet carrying a level and a one-line note against every indicator
- three domains chosen for the coming term, not eight
- the first step for each of the three, with one named person and a date
- one page circulated to all staff saying what was decided and why
Before anyone leaves, fix the date to repeat the exercise six months out and put it in the school calendar. Keep the sheet in the school. The Council does not want a copy and will not accept one.
What it costs
this instrument asks a school to create and maintain roughly forty registers, lists, dated pages and logs, and it is only fair to say what that is in hours. Reaching level 2 across all eight domains takes a school of about 1,400 students with no technology staff around forty hours of work in the first year, most of it falling on the vice-principal or academic head, with about eight of those hours on the office staff who hold the records. Keeping it there costs about twelve hours a term, spread across the vice-principal, the department heads and whoever signs purchase orders. The sitting itself is three hours a year if it is held twice. Each domain carries its own figures at the end of its explanation, so a school can price one domain at a time instead of the whole instrument. These are the Council's estimates and nothing more. If your school finds the real figure is double, write and say so, because a costing nobody has tested is exactly the kind of claim this framework tells schools not to accept from a supplier.
If you have ten hours a year
do these six things and stop, in this order. Name one person accountable for AI decisions and minute it, which costs fifteen minutes at a meeting you are already holding. Sit with the office staff and write the list of every piece of software that holds student data, about two hours. Write and circulate the one rule that matters most, which is that identifiable student data does not go into general-purpose AI tools, and brief it once at a staff meeting, about one hour. Send parents one page naming the tools, the data involved and whom to ask, about one hour, plus an hour to have it translated. Put one page of AI rules students can read into the diary, about one hour. List every subscription with its renewal date and a named owner, about one hour. That is nine hours and it takes a school to level 2 on the four indicators that carry the most risk. Everything else in this framework can wait a year without a child being harmed by the delay.
The scale
One spine runs through every indicator: unwritten, written, practised, reviewed
The same four levels carry all 40 indicators, so a room that agrees what the levels mean once can hold that agreement for the whole sitting.
- 1
Informal
Practice depends on individual judgement and goodwill. Nothing is written, so it cannot be taught to a new colleague, checked by anyone, or handed over when a person leaves. Level 1 describes where the work begins. It is not a verdict on the teaching.
- 2
Written
A position has been decided and recorded with a date on it: a policy, a list, a register, a rule, a named person. It exists on paper before it exists in habit, and practice across the school is still uneven. This level is cheap to reach and it is the largest single step in the framework, because everything above it needs something to be consistent with.
- 3
Practised
What is written is what happens, most of the time, across most of the school. Staff state it without being reminded, and a visitor walking the corridors would observe it rather than be shown a file. The gap between the document and the classroom has closed.
- 4
Reviewed
The school checks whether the practice is working, changes it when its own record says otherwise, and can produce the dated evidence of that change. This is the highest level here and it is reachable by a school that buys nothing further. It asks for a review cycle and honesty, not budget.
Level 1 is not a failing grade and the framework does not treat it as one. It records that a practice has not been written down yet, which is where the work starts — and a first sitting that finds level 1 in most domains has been conducted honestly. The guidance on reading a completed matrix warns about the opposite result.
Domain 01 of 8
Governance and Policy
Pillar 5 School Leadership & Governance
If a parent asked today who decides what AI is used in this school, could we name that person?
Indicators and levels— Governance and Policy
| Indicator | 1 Informal | 2 Written | 3 Practised | 4 Reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| One named owner | No one owns AI decisions; teachers and departments adopt tools independently. | A named person or committee owns AI decisions; the remit is minuted and dated. | Staff route new tools to that person before children use them, without being chased. | The remit is reviewed yearly against the tools that arrived without passing through it. |
| A written position on AI | Nothing is written; nobody can say what applies to whom. | A dated AI policy exists, approved by the management or trust. | Every staff member holds a copy and decisions cite it by clause. | It is revised on a fixed cycle from incidents and staff feedback, each change dated. |
| Permitted, restricted and prohibited uses | Staff judge case by case what AI use is acceptable in school. | One page lists permitted, restricted and prohibited uses for staff, students and office. | Staff find the page without asking, and it is applied the same way across sections. | Every addition or removal carries a date and a recorded reason. |
| Human answerability for decisions about a child | No rule requires a person to check AI output before it affects a child. | A written rule requires teacher review of AI output used in marks, reports or referrals. | Reviews are signed, and a missing signature is noticed by someone whose job it is. | Signed work is sampled each term and errors are traced back and corrected at source. |
| A route for concerns | There is no stated way to raise a concern about an AI tool. | A named route exists for staff, students and parents, and has been published to all three. | Concerns are logged, answered within a stated time and closed with a date. | Leadership reviews the log on a fixed cycle and records what it changed, including a finding that nothing needed changing. |
| Features switched on inside software already licensed | Nobody knows which existing licences have had AI features added by an update. | The school has asked each existing supplier in writing which AI features are on by default. | A feature switched on by an update is treated as a new tool and approved before use. | Each licence is checked on a fixed cycle and the check is dated, whether or not anything had changed. |
The matrix scrolls sideways; the indicator column stays put.
Evidence you can point at
- The AI policy, signed and dated by the management or trust
- The minute naming the accountable person, with the date of the meeting
- The one-page list of permitted, restricted and prohibited uses, as circulated to staff
- The concerns register, with dated entries and dated closures
- The written enquiry sent to each existing supplier about AI features enabled by default, and the replies received
If you are at level 1, do this first
At the next management meeting, name one person accountable for AI decisions and have it minuted with a date. It costs one line. Nothing else in this domain can be evidenced until that line exists.
Domain 02 of 8
Data Protection and Child Safety
Pillar 1 Responsible AI in Schools
What data about our children leaves this school, who holds it, and how would we get it stopped?
Indicators and levels— Data Protection and Child Safety
| Indicator | 1 Informal | 2 Written | 3 Practised | 4 Reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A list of what holds student data | Nobody holds a list of the software that processes student data. | A written list names each tool and the student data it holds. | The list is checked each term; new tools are added before first use, not after. | Tools no longer used are removed and deletion is confirmed in writing by the supplier. |
| Parental notice and consent | Parents are not told which tools hold their child's data. | Parents receive dated written notice of the tools used and the data involved. | Consent, where taken, is dated and retrievable for a named child within a day. | Notices are reissued when tools change; withdrawal is honoured and the action recorded. |
| Accounts and access | Staff share logins or use personal accounts for school software. | Each user has a named account and an access list exists for each tool. | Access follows role and is withdrawn on the day a staff member leaves. | Access lists are audited each term against the staff register, and the audit is dated. |
| Identifiable data in general-purpose tools | Staff paste student names, marks or notes into public chatbots. | A written rule prohibits identifiable student data in general-purpose AI tools. | Staff have been briefed and can demonstrate how they remove identifiers first. | The rule is reviewed each year against any breaches logged, without blame, and the review records what changed or that nothing did. |
| Age bands and harmful output | No rule states which students may use which tools. | Written age bands state which tools are permitted for which classes. | First use is supervised and staff know the route for reporting harmful output. | The bands and any reports are reviewed on a fixed cycle, and the review is dated whether or not it changed a tool or a rule. |
The matrix scrolls sideways; the indicator column stays put.
Evidence you can point at
- The register of every tool that holds student data, and what each holds
- One dated parental notice or consent form as issued to a family
- The access list for each tool, showing additions and removals with dates
- The incident log for data and child-safety concerns, with dated closures
If you are at level 1, do this first
Spend one hour with the office staff writing down every piece of software that already holds student data, beginning with what runs on the office computers. That list, not the AI on it, is where this domain starts.
Domain 03 of 8
Teacher Capability
Pillar 2 Teacher AI Enablement
If I joined any staffroom conversation about AI tomorrow, would our teachers know what to do and what not to do?
Indicators and levels— Teacher Capability
| Indicator | 1 Informal | 2 Written | 3 Practised | 4 Reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Understanding of AI and where it fails | Teacher knowledge comes from personal curiosity and varies widely across departments. | All teachers have attended one common session on what AI is and where it fails. | Most teachers can name, in their own subject, where AI helps and where it misleads. | The school records which departments remain weak and teaches to that, not to a syllabus. |
| Use in lesson preparation | A few teachers use AI privately for preparation; nobody discusses it openly. | Accepted uses for preparation and question setting have been shown to staff in writing. | Departments use AI for preparation and check output before it reaches a class. | Departments compare what worked and drop uses that saved no real time. |
| The habit of verification | AI output is sometimes used with a class without being checked first. | Staff are told in writing to verify AI output before any classroom use. | Checking before use is visible in lesson plans, worksheets and question papers. | AI-assisted material is sampled for errors each term and findings go back to staff. |
| Time and support to learn | Teachers learn about AI in their own time, if at all. | Time is set aside in the school calendar for AI-related staff learning. | A named colleague answers staff questions and sessions run at least termly. | Session content is drawn from what went wrong in classrooms, and is changed each time. |
| The boundary of teacher judgement | No stated boundary separates teacher judgement from AI suggestion. | A written statement says AI supports, and never replaces, teacher judgement. | Staff can name the decisions that stay human: marks, referrals, reports, discipline. | The boundary is tested against real cases and restated in writing wherever it blurred. |
The matrix scrolls sideways; the indicator column stays put.
Evidence you can point at
- The staff development calendar showing dated AI sessions, and the attendance register
- A lesson plan or worksheet showing AI-assisted material that was checked before use
- The written statement that AI supports and does not replace teacher judgement
- The termly sampling note listing errors found in AI-assisted material
If you are at level 1, do this first
Give twenty minutes of the next staff meeting to one question: what are you already using AI for? Write the answers down without comment or consequence. That list is your staff development plan and it costs nothing.
Domain 04 of 8
Classroom and Academic Use
Pillar 4 Academic Innovation
Where exactly in our teaching day is AI used, and can we say the teaching got better?
Indicators and levels— Classroom and Academic Use
| Indicator | 1 Informal | 2 Written | 3 Practised | 4 Reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A stated purpose for each classroom use | AI is used where individual teachers choose; the purpose is unstated. | Each approved classroom use has a written purpose and an expected benefit. | Teachers can state the purpose of each use and when not to use it. | Uses that did not serve the stated purpose are discontinued and the reason recorded. |
| Learning gaps identified in time to act | Gaps are identified from marks alone, after the unit has ended. | Some class data is used to identify gaps before the unit ends. | Gap information reaches the teacher in time to change the next lesson. | The school checks whether acting on gap data changed later performance, and records both answers. |
| Assessment design under AI | Assessment practice is unchanged and unexamined since capable chatbots became free. | The school has reviewed, in writing, which assessments AI can complete unaided. | Vulnerable assessments have been redesigned or moved under supervision. | Assessment design is revisited yearly as student capability changes, with changes dated. |
| Fit with the scheme of work | AI use sits outside the scheme of work and depends on spare time. | Approved uses are noted in the scheme of work against named units. | Teachers plan AI use as part of the unit, with a stated non-AI fallback. | Units are amended where AI use displaced practice students still need. |
| Equity within the class | Some students use AI at home; classroom task-setting ignores the difference. | The school has recorded which students lack AI access outside school. | No assessed work requires access the school does not itself provide. | Access differences are checked against attainment and addressed in planning. |
The matrix scrolls sideways; the indicator column stays put.
Evidence you can point at
- The scheme of work, with approved AI use noted against named units
- One assessment redesigned after review, with the reason and date recorded
- A departmental minute discontinuing a use that did not work
- The record of which students lack AI access outside school
If you are at level 1, do this first
Ask each department to bring one assessment task and say honestly whether a chatbot could complete it unaided. Redesign the weakest one before the next assessment cycle, and keep the old paper beside the new one.
Domain 05 of 8
Student AI Literacy and Academic Integrity
Pillar 3 Student AI Readiness
Do our students understand what AI is doing to their learning, and can they state our rules without looking them up?
Indicators and levels— Student AI Literacy and Academic Integrity
| Indicator | 1 Informal | 2 Written | 3 Practised | 4 Reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Students taught what AI is and how it fails | Students learn about AI from each other and from what they use at home. | Every year group has had at least one taught session on AI and its limits. | Students can explain fabricated answers, bias, and why verification matters. | Understanding is checked in ordinary classwork, not only in a special session. |
| Rules students can state | Students are unsure when AI use is allowed in their work. | A written rule states when AI use is permitted, and it has been issued to students. | Students can state the rule unprompted and know where declaration is required. | The rule is revised with student input as new situations arise, and reissued. |
| Declaring assistance | Students do not declare AI assistance in submitted work. | Submitted work carries a place to declare AI assistance. | Declarations are made routinely and answered without automatic punishment. | Declarations are read each term when tasks are set, and the reading is recorded even where it changed nothing. |
| How suspected misuse is handled | Suspected AI misuse is handled differently by different teachers. | A written procedure sets out how suspected AI misuse is handled. | Cases follow the procedure, the student is heard, and no finding rests on a detector alone. | Cases are reviewed for faults in task design, not only for fault in the student. |
| Use beyond the school gate | The school says nothing about how students use AI outside school hours. | Guidance to students covers home use, personal data and personal safety. | Students know what not to tell a chatbot and which adult to tell instead. | Guidance is updated from what students actually report encountering. |
The matrix scrolls sideways; the indicator column stays put.
Evidence you can point at
- The student AI rule page as printed in the diary or handbook
- The scheme-of-work or timetable entry for the taught session on AI
- Sample submitted work carrying an AI declaration
- The academic integrity procedure and the notes of cases handled under it
If you are at level 1, do this first
Write one page of AI rules in language a Class 6 child can read, and paste it into the school diary before the next assessment cycle. A rule students cannot recite is not yet a rule.
Domain 06 of 8
Infrastructure and Equitable Access
Pillar 5 School Leadership & Governance
Can the school actually run what it has approved, reliably, for every child and not only for those who can afford it?
Indicators and levels— Infrastructure and Equitable Access
| Indicator | 1 Informal | 2 Written | 3 Practised | 4 Reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability where the use is approved | Approved AI use depends on connectivity that fails during teaching time. | The school knows which rooms and periods have reliable access, and has written it down. | Approved use is timetabled where the infrastructure is known to hold. | Failures are logged and the log informs the next connectivity decision. |
| Access outside school | The school does not know which students lack devices or data at home. | A confidential record exists of students without reliable home access. | No compulsory task depends on home AI access; alternatives are provided by default. | Provision for those students is reviewed each term with their class teachers. |
| Supervision and network decisions | Student devices reach general AI services with no school control. | The school has decided and minuted which services are reachable on its network. | Supervision arrangements are stated for each place students use devices. | Arrangements are verified by walking the rooms during lessons, not by assumption. |
| Dependence and fallback | If a tool stopped tomorrow, nobody knows what teaching would break. | The school has listed the tools that teaching now depends on. | Each dependency has a stated fallback that teachers know how to use. | The fallbacks are rehearsed or reviewed once a year and the result is recorded, including that a fallback was found to need no change. |
The matrix scrolls sideways; the indicator column stays put.
Evidence you can point at
- The room-by-room note of where connectivity is reliable during teaching periods
- The confidential list of students without a device or data at home
- The minute recording which services are reachable on the school network
- The dependency and fallback list, showing which fallbacks have been used
If you are at level 1, do this first
Ask every class teacher for one number: how many children in this class have no reliable device or data at home. Total it, write it at the top of the academic plan, and never again set compulsory work that ignores that number.
Domain 07 of 8
Parent and Community Trust
Pillar 1 Responsible AI in Schools
If a parent asked why an AI tool is speaking to their child, could we answer in one page, today?
Indicators and levels— Parent and Community Trust
| Indicator | 1 Informal | 2 Written | 3 Practised | 4 Reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disclosure of what is used | Parents learn about AI use from their children, not from the school. | Parents have been told in writing which AI tools are used and why. | The disclosure is repeated at admission and whenever the tools change. | The school checks what parents understood and rewrites what confused them. |
| A route to ask and to object | Parents have no stated way to question the school's AI use. | A named contact and route for AI questions is published to parents. | Questions are answered within a stated time and the answers are recorded. | The questions received are reviewed each year for what practice should change, and the review is recorded even where nothing changed. |
| Clarity about what AI does not decide | Parents cannot tell whether AI influences marks, sections or referrals. | The school states in writing which decisions are made only by people. | Class teachers give the same answer as the written statement when asked. | The statement is tested against practice and corrected where it has drifted. |
| Language and reach | Communication about AI reaches only parents comfortable in English. | Key notices are issued in the languages parents actually use. | Notices are explained at meetings, not only circulated in writing. | Reach is checked across all sections, not only among the parents who attend. |
| Truthfulness of the school's own claims | School publicity describes AI use in terms staff cannot substantiate. | Claims about AI are checked against practice before they are issued. | Only claims a class teacher could demonstrate on request are published. | Claims are re-checked yearly and withdrawn when practice changes. |
The matrix scrolls sideways; the indicator column stays put.
Evidence you can point at
- The parent notice on AI use, with its issue date
- The parent query log and the answers given, with dates
- The written statement of which decisions are made only by people
- Translated copies of the key notices, as issued
If you are at level 1, do this first
Send parents one page: which AI tools the school uses, what data is involved, who decides, and whom to ask. Send it before you are asked, not after, and keep the dated copy.
Domain 08 of 8
Evidence, Research and Procurement
Pillar 6 Research & Evidence
Before we buy or renew anything, do we ask for evidence, and could we tell ourselves whether it helped?
Indicators and levels— Evidence, Research and Procurement
| Indicator | 1 Informal | 2 Written | 3 Practised | 4 Reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence asked of suppliers | Purchase decisions rest on demonstrations and the seller's persuasiveness. | A written question set goes to every supplier, asking what evidence exists and who paid for it. | Answers are recorded and compared side by side before any decision is taken. | Claims are re-tested at renewal against what the school itself observed. |
| A stated problem and a baseline | Tools are adopted without stating what problem they should solve. | Each adoption states the problem, the group affected and the expected change. | A baseline measure is written down before the tool is introduced. | The expected change is compared with what happened, and recorded either way. |
| A measure the school keeps itself | The school relies on supplier dashboards to judge whether a tool works. | The school records at least one measure of its own beside the supplier's data. | That measure is something other than usage: attainment, time saved or workload. | Results showing no improvement are recorded and acted on as readily as good ones. |
| Ethics where children take part | No rule covers pilots or studies run with students in the school. | A written rule requires approval before any study or pilot involving students. | Parents are informed, participation is voluntary, and withdrawal costs the child nothing. | Findings are shared with staff and parents, including where nothing improved. |
| Renewal, exit and data return | Subscriptions renew automatically and nobody owns the decision. | Renewal dates and named owners are listed in one place. | Each renewal is reviewed against the stated problem before payment is released. | Tools that did not deliver are stopped, and data deletion is confirmed in writing. |
The matrix scrolls sideways; the indicator column stays put.
Evidence you can point at
- The standard question set sent to suppliers, with their completed answers
- A one-page adoption note stating the problem, the baseline and the expected change
- The renewal register with dates, named owners and the review note for each renewal
- The written approval for any pilot involving students, and the note sent to parents
If you are at level 1, do this first
Before the next renewal, write on one page what problem the tool was bought to solve and what you would accept as proof that it did. Then ask the supplier for exactly that, in writing, and file the reply.
Reading the result
What a completed matrix is, and what it must never become
This is not a score, and the first discipline of using it well is refusing to make it one.Do not add the levels. Do not average them, do not convert them to a percentage, and do not produce a single readiness number. The eight domains are not equivalent and were never designed to be traded against one another. A level 1 in Data Protection and Child Safety is more urgent than a level 4 in Infrastructure and Equitable Access, and any total would hide exactly that.Do not compare schools with it. Do not publish a completed matrix in a prospectus, an admissions presentation, a tender response, a parent newsletter or on social media. Do not describe a result as a rating, a grade, a band, a certification or an award, and do not describe any school as Council-assessed, Council-approved or Council-certified. No such status exists and none is planned.The Council is a voluntary, non-statutory initiative. It is not a government, regulatory or accrediting body, and it does not certify, rate or approve schools, curricula or products.The Council cannot enforce any of the above and does not pretend otherwise. What it can do is structural. It operates no register of results, receives no completed matrices, and cannot confirm a school's levels to a parent, a supplier, a board or a journalist, because it does not hold them. The same bar binds the secretariat: PrepGraph staff may not ask a school for its completed matrix or cite one in any dealing with a school, and a school asked for its matrix by anyone, PrepGraph included, should decline and write to [email protected]. If a supplier offers to score your school against this framework, or presents its own product as the way to reach level 4 in any domain, it is misusing a document it did not write. Reuse of the text is free to anyone, a supplier included; using the Council's name, or a school's levels, to sell something is a misuse of the Council's name and not a permitted reuse of the framework.The Council's own research does not collect this sheet, and the refusal is absolute. Where the Council studies school readiness, including the baseline study in its research agenda, it uses a separate instrument administered under written consent, which is not the self-assessment sheet and is not derived from a completed sheet. A completed sheet is never requested, never accepted and never held by the Council or by PrepGraph, whether or not a school offers it. A school that agrees to take part in a Council study is agreeing to that separate instrument and to nothing else, and may complete this sheet and tell nobody without affecting anything it has agreed to. The same sentence appears in the research agenda and in the programme calendar, so that no reader has to work out which of the three documents to believe.The only honest reading is internal and over time: here is where we are, here is the next step, here is what changed since the last sitting. A school that moves two domains in a year has done more real work than one claiming eight fours. A first sitting that returns fours across the board was not conducted properly. Go back to the rule that governs the session. If nobody in the room can point at the document, the register or the minute, and say where it is kept, the level is not yours yet.
Copying and printing
Free, ungated, and already in front of you
There is no form here, no email address to surrender and no account to create. The framework is on this page in full — every domain, every indicator and every level — and it stays there whether or not a school ever writes to the Council.
A school may copy it, print it, translate it into the language its staff work in and quote it in its own documents, without asking the Council for permission and without paying anyone. Any association or other organisation may do the same.
The Council keeps no register of results. A completed matrix stays in the school: it is not sent here, and the Council cannot confirm a school's levels to a parent, a board or a supplier, because it does not hold them.
Related instruments
The domain on procurement applies to the company that paid for this framework.
The eighth domain asks a school to demand evidence before it buys and to keep one measure of its own beside the supplier's dashboard; the Council's convener sells software to schools and asks for no exemption from it. The ten Principles set out what responsible practice requires, and the independence policy states what PrepGraph's funding does not buy and how a breach can be raised against it.