Inaugural Term Programme Calendar 2026-27
The programme proposed for the twelve months from 29 August 2026: 23 activities in four quarters, and 10 standing commitments that run through all of them. None of it has happened yet.
- Quarters
- 4
- Activities
- 23
- Held to date
- None
- Published to date
- None
At the date of this calendar the Council has no members, no Reviewer of Concerns in office, no completed activity and no research finding. The instruments issued alongside it are founding drafts under Charter Article 17, issued before the Council was constituted; they are not the acts of a constituted Council and do not become so until the voting members reaffirm them. No school, board, association, provider or individual has been approached, and none is named here. Every activity below is planned; none has occurred. Where a study is described, a protocol and an intention are all that exist: no data has been collected, no findings exist, and any figure in a future report will come from a small, self-selected sample that cannot represent Indian schools. The only matters of record are the Founding Chair's acceptance on 29 August 2026 and the twelve-month term that runs from it, expiring on 29 August 2027. Once seven voting members are in office they review this calendar with authority to change it, and may add, defer or cancel any item here, including the roundtables and the study. If an item is dropped, the delivery record will say that it was dropped; this calendar will not be quietly reissued without it. 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.
Scope and sequence
This is the proposed programme for the inaugural term of the PrepGraph Council for Responsible AI & School Innovation, September 2026 to August 2027, in four quarters. The Charter governs. This calendar is subordinate to it and is void to the extent of any inconsistency with it. Four constraints set the sequence. First, the Council publishes the rules it can be held to before it publishes any advice, so the Founding Charter and the Responsible AI Principles come first and everything after is answerable to them. Second, the Council has no members, and Charter Article 4 permits nothing to be published in the Council's name until at least seven voting members are in office. The instruments issued with this calendar, this calendar included, are therefore issued under Charter Article 17 as founding drafts: 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. Each carries that stamp on its face. Everything else in this calendar that would be published in the Council's name, the roundtable notes included, waits on that gate; where it is not met the item is held and the delivery record says so. Third, the Indian school calendar decides when a principal is reachable: mid-February to mid-April is board examination and results season, May and June are the summer vacation for most of the schools this calendar addresses, and the new session opens between April and June for most boards, so convening sits in the autumn, winter and monsoon windows, every consultation deadline closes by 31 January, and instruments are released before a session begins rather than during it. Fourth, nothing in this calendar requires a purchase, a membership, an email address or the Council's permission to use. Three consequences are unusual enough to state plainly. The Council operates no registration gate and keeps no attendee, respondent or downloader contact details, and no such details pass to the Convener at any point; the quarterly funding statement answers that question yes or no every quarter. The site runs on hosting the Convener controls, and that hosting produces web server logs. A promise about those logs that no outsider can check is an assurance rather than a safeguard, so the annual public record names who holds them and for how long they are retained, states that they are joined to no commercial record, and carries the Reviewer of Concerns' annual test of both. And every dated commitment listed here is entered in a public delivery record, where a missed date is posted on the day it is missed, with the reason, and stays posted. Where this calendar names the Secretariat it names three officers, provided and paid for by PrepGraph, and no one else: Umesh Sharma, Founder & Executive Convener, who is also Founder and Chief Executive of PrepGraph; Rekha Sharma, Executive Director & Secretary-General, who is also its Chief Operating Officer; and Anisha Sarkar, Director, Education Partnerships & National Outreach. None of the three holds a vote on any question in this calendar, not on publication, not on standards, not on membership and not on a vendor question, and none counts towards quorum: nothing here is approved, published, deferred or withheld on their vote, because they have none. The Council determines the recommendations and principles. The PrepGraph-supported Secretariat enables research, coordination, publication and implementation. The Secretariat holds no vote. The Executive Convener may contribute research, evidence and proposals. Council recommendations are determined collectively and are not subject to commercial approval by PrepGraph. Naming them makes the balance of this calendar plainer rather than better, and the plain description is this: at its date the only people named in it are the Founding Chair, whose appointment has been offered and not yet accepted, and three officers of the funder, while the twelve independent seats and the office of Reviewer of Concerns are vacant. PrepGraph's activity has three parts: a commercial platform sold to schools, an internal research and development function, and this Council. The first two are commercial. This one is not, and the rules in the Charter and the independence policy are what hold the boundary. The Council schedules no certification, rating or recognition scheme in this term; the reasoning is set out in Q4. 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.
Constitution, and the founding drafts as issued
Issue the instruments that constrain the Council, put in place the two offices that make its restraints checkable, and open every draft to comment. By 30 November 2026 a reader should be able to establish from documents alone who pays for the Council and how much, who may vote and who may not, what the Council refuses to do, and what it holds about AI in schools. None of this requires members, evidence or a record, which is convenient, because the Council has none of the three. What it does require is honesty about status: everything issued in this quarter is a founding draft under Charter Article 17, not the act of a constituted Council, and it says so on its own cover.
- 01
The founding instruments, issued as founding drafts
Eight instruments are issued together: the Founding Charter, the Independence Policy, the Membership Terms, the Office of the Founding Chair, the Responsible AI Principles, the School AI Readiness Framework, the Research Agenda and Ethics Framework 2026-28, and this Programme Calendar. Each carries the Article 17 stamp on its face: 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. Each also carries the Article 9 block on its first page: the funder, the amount attributable to that work where it can be stated, the names of its authors and reviewers, and their declared interests. The Charter sets out purpose, the six pillars, the composition of the Council and the offices within it, the term of the Founding Chair, decision rules, the register of interests, the neutrality clause and the non-statutory disclosure. The provisions that carry the independence load are stated here as the Charter states them, not paraphrased. PrepGraph holds no seat as of right and no observer seat as of right; a person who is an employee, director, shareholder or paid adviser of any supplier of AI products to schools, or who otherwise derives material income from one, may not hold office as a Founding Member or Expert Fellow and may not vote. The quorum is the greater of five voting members and one half of the voting members in office, rounded up, and a meeting that is not quorate may discuss but may not decide. Nothing is published in the Council's name without the approval of the Chair and a majority of the voting members, and nothing at all while fewer than seven voting members are in office. PrepGraph has no editorial review. It receives one written factual-accuracy pass, limited to statements about its own systems, of ten working days. Silence publishes. Every comment it makes and every change that follows is logged and published with the output. It cannot delay, amend or withhold anything. No attendee, respondent or downloader information may pass from the Council to the Convener, and the quarterly funding statement answers that question yes or no. The Convener's use of the Council's name in commercial material is limited to the factual statement that it convenes and funds the Council; no output, framework or participation may be cited as recommendation or approval. Continuation is not automatic: the Charter expires at the end of the term unless two thirds of the voting members resolve, before expiry, to renew it. Page one of each instrument states that PrepGraph funds, staffs and administers the Council, that the Council carries its convener's name as disclosure rather than distance, and that the domain and hosting are the Convener's.
- Output
- Eight founding drafts, published in full as free PDFs and web pages at council.prepgraph.com, version number and date on every page, licensed for reproduction with attribution. There is no internal version and no withheld annex.
- Led by
- Founding Chair; drafted by the Secretariat, which is three named officers employed and paid by PrepGraph — Umesh Sharma, Founder & Executive Convener; Rekha Sharma, Executive Director & Secretary-General; and Anisha Sarkar, Director, Education Partnerships & National Outreach — none of whom holds a vote on any of the eight or counts towards the quorum that would approve them, a fact printed in the author line of every one of the eight
- Open to
- Public. No registration, no email capture.
- 02
Appointment of the Reviewer of Concerns
The Independence Policy requires a Reviewer of Concerns in office before the Council holds any public activity or publishes any output, and records that if an activity happens first the policy has already been broken. No Reviewer is in office at the date of this calendar, so this is the first appointment made and the one every convening below depends on. The Reviewer is a person with no commercial relationship with the Convener and none with any supplier of AI products to schools, appointed on published terms, paid from the committed term funding, and not removable by the Convener. The Reviewer receives, holds and publishes the declarations of interest instead of the Secretariat, so that a register recording which members' schools hold a licence, a pilot, a discount or an open negotiation with the Convener never sits in the funder's hands, and the Secretariat holds no competitor-relationship data at all. That matters more once the Secretariat is named: its three officers are Umesh Sharma, Rekha Sharma and Anisha Sarkar, all employed by the Convener, none of them holding a vote or counting towards quorum, and the register is the one document that would turn their coordinating role into commercial knowledge, which is why it is not theirs to hold. The Reviewer also tests annually that the nomination and invitation list was not derived from PrepGraph's commercial records. Every roundtable, public session and consultation in this calendar is conditional on this appointment, and the delivery record carries either the date it was made or the standing fact that it was not.
- Output
- A published appointment note naming the Reviewer, the terms and duration of appointment, the remuneration, the declared interests and the date from which the office is held, with a contact route a school leader can use without going through the secretariat.
- Led by
- Founding Chair, on the terms the Independence Policy sets
- Open to
- Public. The appointment note and the contact route are published; until they are, the delivery record shows the office empty.
- 03
Chair's Roundtable I
The first of three roundtables, on one named question published in advance: what should a school refuse to do with AI, and who inside the school has the authority to refuse it. Held in early October 2026, once the first term has settled and before the pre-board and practical planning that takes over November in schools with classes 10 and 12. If the Reviewer of Concerns is not in office by then the sitting is deferred to the next window outside the quiet period, and the delivery record says so. The intention is ten to twenty school leaders across CBSE, state board and ICSE schools, including schools with no AI deployment at all. No participant has been approached at the date of this calendar. The note reports the composition that actually attended rather than the composition intended, and records disagreement and the weight of opinion on each side instead of a consensus that was not reached. It states how many participants declared a commercial relationship with the Convener on their own declaration of interests, and reports non-response as non-response: the firewall forbids the Council checking a participant against the Convener's customer records, so a count taken any other way would be a count the Council is not permitted to take. Roundtable Note 01 is an output in the Council's name and is not published while fewer than seven voting members are in office; if it is held back, the delivery record says so on the date it was due.
- Output
- Roundtable Note 01, four to six pages, published within four weeks of the sitting or within four weeks of the seventh appointment, whichever is later, naming the question, the composition of the room and the range of positions without individual attribution.
- Led by
- Founding Chair
- Open to
- By invitation, ten to twenty school leaders. No fee is paid or charged. The note is public.
- 04
First appointments to the founding seats
Founding membership is twelve Founding Members and the Founding Chair, and the seats are architected rather than uniform: three school leadership, two teacher development and pedagogy, two responsible AI and technology, one child development and age-appropriate use, one equity and inclusion, one school innovation, one education policy and systems, and one independent seat. The Chair appoints the first cohort. The nomination and invitation list is built from public professional record and open nomination, and may not be derived from PrepGraph's commercial records. Membership of the Council does not constitute endorsement of PrepGraph or any technology vendor. Members participate in their individual professional capacity to advance responsible, ethical and evidence-informed use of AI and innovation in school education. Members declare their commercial interests to the Reviewer of Concerns on joining, including any commercial relationship between their school and the Convener. This is the first point at which the Council has any member, and the seventh appointment is the operative one: until seven voting members are in office nothing is published in the Council's name, and every dated publication in this calendar waits on it. The first meeting tests the conflict protocol against a live agenda item rather than in the abstract, and reviews this calendar with authority to change it.
- Output
- A published count of seats filled, seats vacant and the constituency each filled seat represents, updated as appointments are made; the register of interests, held and published by the Reviewer of Concerns; minutes drafted within ten working days and circulated to those who attended; and a decision summary public within fifteen working days.
- Led by
- Founding Chair
- Open to
- Individual members named only on their written consent. Seat counts, constituencies and the register are public from the first appointment.
- 05
Constitution of the six working groups
The Charter provides for six working groups, one for each pillar of the work: Responsible AI & Governance, which is to draft the model policy a school can adopt, the conditions on any AI touching a child and the vendor question set; Teacher AI Enablement, on what a teacher should be able to do, described in observable levels, and what a school owes them to get there; Student Safety & Wellbeing, on age-appropriateness, disclosure to students, academic honesty taught rather than policed, and the harms to watch for; School AI Readiness, which holds the readiness framework, its revision from field use and what it costs a school with no technology staff; Academic Innovation, on learning gaps, formative assessment and differentiated teaching, with honest measurement of whether any of it helped; and Policy & Standards, on how Council work meets the obligations schools already carry and where a floor of practice is worth proposing. None is constituted at the date of this calendar and none can be, because a working group is led by an Expert Fellow, Expert Fellows are appointed by the Founding Members, and there are no Founding Members until the appointments above are made. The sequence is therefore fixed rather than chosen: the Chair appoints the cohort, the cohort appoints the Fellows, the Fellows lead the groups. Each group is constituted with a written remit, a named Fellow leading it, its membership published, and the same bar on office that binds the Council: a person who is an employee, director, shareholder or paid adviser of any supplier of AI products to schools, or who otherwise derives material income from one, may not lead or sit on a working group. A group drafts and proposes; it does not publish. Every output it produces is approved by the Chair and a majority of the voting members like any other, and nothing is published in the Council's name while fewer than seven voting members are in office. Until the groups exist, an item in this calendar that names a working group as its lead names a function rather than a body in being; on constitution the Founding Members assign each such item to one of the six, and the delivery record states which group took it and on what date.
- Output
- A published constitution note for each group that is formed: its remit, the Expert Fellow leading it, its members and their declared interests as held by the Reviewer of Concerns, and the items from this calendar assigned to it; and, for each group not formed by the end of the term, a standing entry in the delivery record saying so and why.
- Led by
- The Founding Members, appointing the Expert Fellows who lead the groups, with the Founding Chair in the chair; convened and minuted by the Secretariat, meaning Rekha Sharma as Executive Director & Secretary-General, Umesh Sharma as Founder & Executive Convener and Anisha Sarkar as Director, Education Partnerships & National Outreach, none of whom leads a group, holds a vote in one, or counts towards the quorum that constitutes it. The Executive Convener may put a research question to a group and may not decide what the group does with it.
- Open to
- Public. Remits, Fellows and memberships are published as each group is constituted; the groups that are not constituted are listed as not constituted.
- 06
Public session series opens
A monthly public session begins, once the Reviewer of Concerns is in office. It runs at 17:30 IST, after the school working day rather than inside it, and every session is recorded and posted, so that missing one costs nothing. The joining link is public and no registration, name or email is collected. The first three sessions cover what the Charter commits the Council to and the specific dates it can be judged against; the obligations a school already carries under the DPDP Act 2023 when any AI system touches student data, with the questions to put to a supplier; and how to read an AI vendor's claims, using published claims only and naming no vendor. No product is demonstrated by anyone, the Convener included. The prohibition is written into the series brief, and any breach is recorded in the annual public record.
- Output
- Three recorded sessions with slides and a written question-and-answer summary published within seven days and hosted permanently without a registration gate.
- Led by
- The Secretariat: Rekha Sharma, Executive Director & Secretary-General, on the programme, with Anisha Sarkar, Director, Education Partnerships & National Outreach, on participation. Neither holds a vote on anything the sessions discuss, and neither may present or describe a PrepGraph product in one. The Founding Chair opens the first session
- Open to
- Public. Free, no registration, no attendee list.
- 07
Open comment on the founding drafts
Every instrument issued in this quarter is open for comment from the day it is issued until 31 January 2027, which leaves a school term to respond in and closes before the examination season absorbs school leadership. Anyone may comment: a school leader, a teacher, a parent, a researcher, a competitor of the Convener. Every substantive comment is published verbatim with the Council's response, including the comments the Council rejects and the ones that argue it should not exist. A comment is not shared with the Convener, except where it concerns a statement about the Convener's own systems, and that exception is logged and published with the comment record. The comment record is the document the voting members read when they come to reaffirm, amend or withdraw each draft, and a draft reaffirmed without a comment record is reaffirmed on nothing.
- Output
- A published comment record listing every substantive comment verbatim with the Council's response, the change made where a draft changed, and the reason where a comment was rejected.
- Led by
- The Secretariat under the Founding Chair — Rekha Sharma, Executive Director & Secretary-General, who compiles the comment record and holds no vote on what is done with any comment in it — with the comment record countersigned by the Reviewer of Concerns
- Open to
- Anyone. No registration and no email capture: a respondent may give a name for attribution or ask to be published anonymously, and no contact detail is retained once the response is published.
Instruments a school can run without buying anything
Publish the short, usable documents the founding drafts promise but do not themselves contain, and close the comment window before school leadership becomes unreachable from mid-February. The quarter is weighted to publication for that reason: all convening falls in December and January, and every deadline in this quarter closes on 31 January. Everything published here is published in the Council's name, so none of it appears while fewer than seven voting members are in office; where the gate is not met the item is held, dated and recorded as held.
- 01
Model responsible-AI-use policy for a school
A model policy a school can adopt, adapt or reject, written to be short enough for a governing body that has never discussed AI to read in one sitting. It covers what staff may and may not put into a general-purpose model, what a teacher discloses to a class, what a student discloses in submitted work, who authorises a new deployment, what the school records when a system touches student data under the DPDP Act 2023, and what happens when the policy is breached. It is cross-referenced clause by clause to the Responsible AI Principles, so a school that adopts it can show which principle each clause answers. It carries the same honest costing the school-facing instruments carry: setup hours, hours per term, the role that does the work, and the minimum subset for a school that can afford ten hours a year. Adopting it confers no status. It is not certification, it is not reported to the Council, and the Council keeps no list of schools that have adopted it.
- Output
- The model responsible-AI-use policy, free and ungated, published as an editable file a school can put its own name on, with the clause-by-clause map to the Principles and the hours costing printed in it rather than promised elsewhere.
- Led by
- Founding Chair with the voting members; drafted by the Secretariat, whose three named officers — Umesh Sharma, Rekha Sharma and Anisha Sarkar, all employed by the Convener — draft the text and hold no vote on adopting it
- Open to
- Public. Free, ungated, reproducible and adaptable under an attribution licence.
- 02
Vendor question set
The questions a school puts to a supplier before it buys, and what an adequate answer looks like, drawn from the test questions in the Principles and from what school leaders say at the roundtables. It names no product and no vendor, ranks nothing, recommends nothing, and applies in identical terms to the Convener's own products. It sets out what a school should make of a refusal to answer, which is the only part of the document a supplier will dislike. The Council does not receive completed question sets, keeps no record of which schools used it, and will not accept a copy, for the same reason it will not accept a completed self-assessment sheet: an instrument whose answers come back to the issuer is answered for the issuer.
- Output
- The vendor question set, free and ungated, as a printable sheet and an editable file, with a short note on how to read an answer and on what a non-answer means.
- Led by
- Founding Chair with the voting members; drafted by the Secretariat, which holds no vote on the set and whose three named officers are employed by a company the set is written to be used against in identical terms
- Open to
- Public. Free. No registration, and no return of results in any form.
- 03
Chair's Roundtable II
Held in January 2027, after the winter break and before examination pressure. The named question: what would a school need to see before it believed an AI system had improved learning rather than improved engagement. The question binds the Council's own research design at least as tightly as it binds any vendor's claim, and the note is written so a principal can apply the tests to any product, the Convener's first. As at every sitting, the note states how many participants declared a commercial relationship with the Convener on their own declaration of interests, with non-response reported as non-response.
- Output
- Roundtable Note 02, published within four weeks, setting out the evidence tests the participating leaders said they would actually apply and those they said they could not.
- Led by
- Founding Chair
- Open to
- By invitation, ten to twenty school leaders, with at least half not present at Roundtable I. The note is public.
- 04
First study protocol registered
The protocol for a baseline study is written and registered on a public registry, the Open Science Framework Registries or an equivalent that issues a citable identifier, before any data is collected. The study does not use the readiness framework's self-assessment sheet. A completed sheet stays in the school: the Council does not want a copy and will not accept one. The baseline is taken instead on a separate, consented instrument, published in full with the protocol, which a participating school answers knowing that it is answering a research instrument and having consented to that. The protocol specifies a small-n design across a modest number of schools, states the sample size and what that sample cannot support, pre-commits the analysis, and names every source of funding and participation. Registration precedes recruitment so the study cannot be reshaped around a convenient result. The intervention studied is not a PrepGraph product: where the intervention studied is the convener's product, the study is an evaluation of that product whatever it is titled, and the Charter forbids the Council to publish an evaluation of a PrepGraph product funded by PrepGraph. The Council enters into no contracts of its own; PrepGraph contracts as bare trustee for the Council on the Charter's terms, and the study agreement says so on its face and names the Data Fiduciary for the study. The ethics review panel holds a veto over publication rather than a share in approving it, and approval to publish is by the Chair and a majority of the voting members. Schools are neither paid to participate nor charged. If registration has not been completed by 28 February 2027, no data is collected in this term and the delivery record says so.
- Output
- A publicly registered protocol with its registration identifier, published in full alongside the separate consented baseline instrument, the ethics approval, the safeguarding undertakings and the consent and assent materials.
- Led by
- Research working group, under the Founding Chair, with the ethics review panel holding a veto over publication
- Open to
- Public registry entry. School participation by open invitation, unpaid.
- 05
Principals' consultation on the readiness framework
A structured, largely asynchronous consultation on the School AI Readiness Framework as issued, designed so a principal can respond in twenty minutes from a phone. It runs inside the open comment window, opening on 1 December 2026 and closing on 31 January 2027, before the examination window absorbs school leadership. It asks three things: which of the eight domains were unanswerable, which were answerable but useless, and what the instrument failed to ask. It does not ask for a completed self-assessment sheet, and a sheet sent in is returned unread. If fewer than thirty schools respond, the report states that the evidence is too thin to revise on and version 1.1 is deferred rather than presented as consultation-led.
- Output
- A consultation report stating the number of responding schools, their board and location spread, and every change accepted and rejected with reasons, published in full including the criticism the Council chose not to act on.
- Led by
- The Secretariat — Rekha Sharma, Executive Director & Secretary-General — reporting to the Founding Chair and the voting members, with no vote on which criticism the consultation report accepts and which it declines
- Open to
- Any school leader in India. No membership, no fee, and no contact detail retained once the response is published.
Capability, at the pace the school year allows
Publish the teacher, student and parent materials in time for new-session planning, design them so that any other organisation can run them without the Council's involvement, permission or fee, and put every founding draft to the voting members for reaffirmation, amendment or withdrawal. March to mid-April is examinations and results, and May and June are the summer vacation for most of the schools this calendar addresses: nothing is asked of a school between mid-February and the end of June, and the design work in this quarter proceeds without school participation because it has to.
- 01
Teacher AI capability framework and open programme design
A teacher AI capability framework and an open design for the programme that carries it, covering AI literacy, productive classroom use, the limits of the tools, academic integrity and the augmentation-not-replacement position of the second pillar, with an assessment of understanding included. The Council designs and publishes it; it does not sell, deliver or licence it, and takes no fee or share from anyone who does. Exercises name no product and use no vendor platform, the Convener's included. The Council issues no certificate for the programme, and no organisation running it may describe it as Council-accredited or Council-approved; the Charter's rules on use of the Council's name apply to the Convener and to every other provider equally. Design work is done in March and early April while schools are occupied, with release timed to new-session planning.
- Output
- The teacher AI capability framework, with the programme design, facilitator guide and participant workbook, published free and adaptable, with an explicit statement that any school or provider may run it without the Council's permission or payment.
- Led by
- Teacher enablement working group, under the Founding Chair
- Open to
- Any school or teacher-development provider. Free to run.
- 02
Student AI readiness outline, pledge and literacy module
An outline of what a school should expect a student to understand at each stage, with a short pledge a student can genuinely understand and mean, and a four-session classroom module on critical and responsible use: verifying what a model says, disclosing AI assistance in submitted work, what should never be typed into a chatbot, and why fluent output is not the same as correct output. It is written against the third pillar's position that student readiness is not prompting skill. The pledge is drafted to be refusable: a student who disagrees with it may say so, and the facilitator guide tells the teacher how to handle that conversation rather than how to secure compliance. Released before the new session so a school can place it in induction.
- Output
- The student AI readiness outline, the Student Responsible-AI Pledge, the four-session teacher-led module with slides and worksheets, and a one-page version for a school diary or notice board, free and reproducible.
- Led by
- Student readiness working group
- Open to
- Any school. Free, source line only.
- 03
Parent communication note and awareness pack
A one-page parent communication note a school can send home in its own name, and a pack that lets a school run its own parent session: a ninety-minute session plan, slides, an FAQ covering what parents actually raise about screen time, data, cheating and dependence, and the take-home note itself, prepared for translation into the school's language of instruction. The Council does not deliver these sessions, does not attend, and collects no parent contact details. Monthly hosting by volunteer schools is planned from the month after this pack is published and not before it, since a session cannot be run from a pack that does not exist; no school has been approached at the date of this calendar. Where no school hosts in a month, the publication log records that no session took place.
- Output
- The parent communication note, one page and reproducible, and the Parent AI Awareness pack; and, where sessions are hosted, published summaries of the questions raised, with no school, parent or individual identified without written consent.
- Led by
- The Secretariat — Anisha Sarkar, Director, Education Partnerships & National Outreach, who arranges the hosting, holds no vote, and may not raise, invite, accept or continue a commercial conversation about a PrepGraph product, price, pilot or contract with a host school — with host schools
- Open to
- Any school may host. Materials free and public.
- 04
Reaffirmation, amendment or withdrawal of the founding drafts
Charter Article 17 requires each founding draft 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 the sitting at which that is done. It is taken instrument by instrument, on the comment record and the consultation report, rather than as a block, because a block vote on eight documents is not a reading of any of them. Each decision is recorded separately: reaffirmed as issued, amended with the amendments published alongside the text they replace, or withdrawn with the reason. A withdrawn instrument stays downloadable, marked withdrawn on its cover with the date and the reason, because removing it would remove the evidence of the decision. Approval of an amended text is by the Chair and a majority of the voting members, and nothing is decided at a meeting that is not quorate. If seven voting members are not in office by 31 August 2027, no draft is reaffirmed, each remains exactly what it was issued as, a draft of the Founding Chair on the secretariat's drafting, and the delivery record and the annual public record both say so in those terms.
- Output
- A published reaffirmation record naming each of the eight founding drafts, the decision taken on it, the vote, any dissenting position, and, where a draft was amended, the amended text set against the text it replaces.
- Led by
- The voting members, with the Founding Chair in the chair
- Open to
- Public. The record is published in full, including the drafts withdrawn and the reasons for withdrawing them.
- 05
School AI Readiness Framework, version 1.1
The Framework revised against the principals' consultation and early field use, released before the new academic year, or deferred if the consultation threshold in Q2 was not met. The revision log names which changes came from consultation evidence and which came from the voting members' own judgement, and prints in full anything the consultation asked for that the Council declined to do, with the reason. Superseded versions stay downloadable so a school can see what changed under it. Version 1.1 remains what version 1.0 was: eight domains of school practice, each mapped to one of the six pillars, ninety minutes in one sitting with the right people in the room, a profile rather than a score, and a completed sheet that stays in the school. It is a working instrument, not a standard.
- Output
- Framework v1.1 with a published revision log and a migration note for schools that completed the first version, or a published notice of deferral stating why.
- Led by
- The voting members, on the Secretariat's revision draft; Rekha Sharma, Executive Director & Secretary-General, prepares the draft and the revision log, and holds no vote on whether v1.1 is issued or deferred
- Open to
- Public. Free and ungated.
Evidence, accounting and the case against continuing
Report the first study, account for the money, and decide under Charter Article 16 whether the Council continues. Continuation is not the default: the Charter expires at the end of the term unless two thirds of the voting members resolve, before expiry, to renew it, and the review is written to make that outcome available rather than unthinkable. The account of the term is prepared in this quarter and published after the term ends, because an account of a term written before the term has ended is not an account.
- 01
Baseline study: first research output
The registered protocol reported in full: a small-n baseline of readiness across participating schools, taken on the separate consented instrument published with the protocol and on no school's completed self-assessment sheet, against the pre-committed analysis. The sample is small and self-selected, and the report says so in its opening paragraph rather than in a limitations section at the end. Findings that did not hold and every deviation from the registered protocol are reported. PrepGraph's participation, if any, in data provision or platform access is disclosed on the face of the report. PrepGraph has no editorial review. It receives one written factual-accuracy pass, limited to statements about its own systems, of ten working days. Silence publishes. Every comment it makes and every change that follows is logged and published with the output. It cannot delay, amend or withhold anything. No PrepGraph product evidence appears as a Council finding, and no evaluation of a PrepGraph product funded by PrepGraph is published at all. The report states what the study cannot be used to claim, and under the Charter's rules on use of the Council's name that statement binds the Convener's own material. If too little data was collected to report, the Council publishes that fact on the same date instead.
- Output
- A published study report with the registration identifier, the dataset and analysis code released where consent permits, the factual-accuracy correspondence with the Convener printed in full, and a plain-language summary for school leaders.
- Led by
- Research working group, under the Founding Chair, with the ethics review panel holding a veto over publication and the Chair and a majority of the voting members approving it
- Open to
- Public, open access, free to reproduce and to criticise.
- 02
The annual public record for the inaugural term, prepared
The Charter's annual public record, drafted in this quarter and published within ninety days of the end of the term. The term ends on 29 August 2027, so the record is published by 27 November 2027, and it is not published inside the term it accounts for. It is not titled a state of AI readiness in Indian schools, because a small self-selected sample does not support a claim about the country. It records what the Council did, what it issued, how many schools took part, what the term cost, who paid, and the delivery record with the proportion of dated commitments met and every date missed. Participation is reported as participants declared it: how many declared a commercial relationship with the Convener on their own declaration of interests, with non-response reported as non-response, because the firewall forbids the Council checking a participant against the Convener's customer records and a count taken any other way would be a breach dressed as transparency. It reports no download counts and no per-reader analytics; where a count of readers appears at all it comes from a counter that stores nothing about the reader, and the record names the counter and what it retains, along with who holds the web server logs and for how long. Limitations are printed on the cover, not appended: sample size, self-selection, no longitudinal data, and the Council's convener holding a commercial interest in the subject matter. It contains no rankings, no school scores and no vendor mentions.
- Output
- The annual public record for the inaugural term 2026-27, prepared in this quarter and published by 27 November 2027, free and open access, with the funding statement certified by a chartered accountant not otherwise engaged by the Convener or, failing that, labelled unaudited on its face.
- Led by
- Founding Chair, with the voting members approving the limitations statement before drafting begins
- Open to
- Public. Free download, no registration.
- 03
Chair's Roundtable III
Held in July 2027, after the summer vacation and in the settled part of the new session. The named question: after a year of instruments and guidance, what changed in your school and what did not. Participants are asked specifically to report where the Council's work made no difference and where it wasted their time. Those answers are published without softening and are put directly to the governance review. The note states how many participants declared a commercial relationship with the Convener on their own declaration of interests, with non-response reported as non-response.
- Output
- Roundtable Note 03, published within four weeks, including a section reserved for the accounts of where the Council's work had no effect.
- Led by
- Founding Chair
- Open to
- By invitation, ten to twenty school leaders, prioritising those who used the Framework in practice. The note is public.
- 04
Governance and transparency review, with the sunset article applied
The review Charter Article 16 requires, conducted by the voting members with the Founding Chair recused from the recommendation on her own term, and countersigned by the Reviewer of Concerns. PrepGraph takes no part: it holds no seat, no vote and no quorum standing under the Charter, so there is no convener representation to withdraw and no convener-adjusted quorum to calculate. It answers seven questions in yes, no or a number: how many times the conflict protocol was invoked and whether the withdrawal was minuted each time; whether any attendee, respondent or downloader information reached the Convener, and what the web server logs held and for how long; whether the Convener used the Council's name beyond the factual statement the Charter permits, and whether anything learned in the Council's rooms or from its participants was used in the Convener's product development, roadmap, pricing or competitive analysis; what proportion of dated commitments in this calendar were met on time; how many schools wrote in of their own motion to say they had used the Framework, published as a number, and where the number is zero it is published as zero; whether any Council publication overstated its evidence; and what the Council produced that its convener would not have produced alone. If the answer to the last is nothing, the review must say so. The Founding Chair's term ends with this review and does not roll forward.
- Output
- The inaugural term governance and transparency review, published in full with the funding statement, the register of interests as the Reviewer of Concerns held it through the year, the case for discontinuation set out alongside the case for continuation, any dissenting positions, and the recorded vote on renewal, which carries only on two thirds of the voting members.
- Led by
- The voting members, with the Founding Chair recused and the Reviewer of Concerns countersigning
- Open to
- Public. Published in full.
- 05
Decision on whether a recognition scheme can responsibly be designed
The Council operated no certification, rating or recognition scheme in year one. This decision settles only whether one may be designed for year two, and the default answer is no. Three tests must all be met. The instrument must have demonstrated reliability beyond one revision and a single small-n study, because a methodology that cannot survive scrutiny should not be attached to a school's reputation or to a parent's admission decision. An independent methodology review, commissioned and paid for by parties other than the Convener, must have been completed. And a funding structure must exist under which the Convener cannot benefit, commercially or reputationally, from recognition outcomes. A recognition mark issued by a body carrying a vendor's name, in its first year, without independent validation, would be worth what a sceptical trustee would assume it is worth. A scheme also creates an incentive to be seen as recognised, which would convert the Framework from an instrument for internal honesty into a performance for an external audience.
- Output
- A published decision document stating the answer, the three tests, the evidence against each and the conditions that would have to be met before the question may be asked again.
- Led by
- The voting members; PrepGraph holds no seat and takes no part
- Open to
- Public. Published whether the answer is yes or no.
- 06
Annual perspective note
A short note setting out what the Council takes to be the state of the question at the end of its first term: what appears to have changed in how Indian schools use AI, what the roundtables and the consultation taught it, what it got wrong, and what it still does not know. It is a perspective and is labelled as one on its cover. It names no vendor, ranks nothing, and carries no recommendation to buy or not to buy anything. Where it rests on the Council's own baseline study it repeats that study's limitations rather than citing the finding without them, and where a claim rests on nothing more than the opinion in a room, it says that it rests on the opinion in a room. It is the one document in the programme most likely to be quoted out of context, which is why every claim in it is indexed to its evidence.
- Output
- The annual perspective note, free and ungated, with a closing page listing every claim it makes and the evidence behind each, including the claims that rest on opinion alone.
- Led by
- Founding Chair, approved by a majority of the voting members
- Open to
- Public. Free download, no registration.
Through all four quarters
Standing rhythm
10 commitments that belong to no single quarter. Each is a repeating obligation the Council can be checked against. None of them has begun.
| Item | Frequency | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Chair's Roundtable | Three planned in the inaugural term, in October 2026, January 2027 and July 2027; none between mid-February and the end of June | Ten to twenty school leaders, one named question published in advance, held under a modified Chatham House convention: the question and the range of positions are published, individuals are never attributed, and institutions are named only on written consent. The note is published within four weeks of the sitting, or within four weeks of the seventh appointment where that is later, since nothing is published in the Council's name while fewer than seven voting members are in office. Where the room did not agree, the note records the disagreement and the weight of opinion on each side rather than a synthesis. No participant is paid and none pays. Each note states who convened it, who met the venue cost, and how many participants declared a commercial relationship with the Convener on their own declaration of interests, with non-response reported as non-response. Three are planned rather than four because the quiet period covers the examination window and the summer vacation, which removes one of the four sittings a quarterly cadence would otherwise imply. |
| Public session | Monthly, third Wednesday, 17:30 IST; twelve planned across the twelve months of the term | Ninety minutes, after the school working day rather than inside it. No registration, no email capture and no attendee list: the joining link is public, and the recording, slides and a written question summary are posted within seven days, so that missing a session costs nothing. No product is demonstrated by anyone, the Convener included; the prohibition is in the series brief and any breach is recorded in the annual public record. Sessions falling inside the quiet period are issued as recordings rather than live convenings, which is why twelve are planned across twelve months and no month is skipped. If a month has nothing a principal can use, the session is cancelled and the cancellation is logged; it is not filled with a panel. |
| Council meeting | Not fewer than four in the term, on fourteen days' notice with the agenda and the papers | The quorum is the Charter's: the greater of five voting members and one half of the voting members in office, rounded up, with vacant offices excluded, and a meeting that is not quorate may discuss but may not decide. PrepGraph holds no seat as of right and no observer seat as of right, and its employees, directors, shareholders and paid advisers may not hold office or vote, so there is no convener seat to cap and no convener-adjusted quorum to calculate. A paper that missed the fourteen-day circulation may be noted but not decided. Minutes are drafted by the Secretariat — Umesh Sharma, Rekha Sharma and Anisha Sarkar, none of whom holds a vote at the meeting or counts towards its quorum — within ten working days and circulated to those who attended; a decision summary is public within fifteen working days. On any item in which a member or the Convener has a commercial interest, the interest is declared, the member takes no part, and the minute records the item, the withdrawal and the vote. |
| Register of interests and funding statement | Each entry published within thirty days of receipt, restated in full quarterly and in the annual public record | Held and published by the Reviewer of Concerns rather than the Secretariat, so that a register recording which members' schools hold a licence, a pilot, a discount or an open negotiation with the Convener never sits in the funder's hands; the Secretariat, which is Umesh Sharma, Rekha Sharma and Anisha Sarkar, holds no competitor-relationship data at all and holds no vote on any question this register touches. The statement gives the rupee value of the Convener's cash and in-kind support, the time of the three named Secretariat officers and of any other secretariat staff, by role, any other funding received, and whether the Founding Chair or any member receives remuneration or other benefit from the Convener. No technology vendor may fund any Council activity. Three questions are answered yes or no every quarter: whether any attendee, respondent or downloader information reached the Convener; whether the Convener used the Council's name in commercial material beyond the factual statement that it convenes and funds the Council; and whether anything learned in the Council's rooms or from its participants was used in the Convener's product development, roadmap, pricing or competitive analysis. Where any answer is yes, the detail is published with it. Members declare their interests on joining and on any material change. |
| Convener factual-accuracy pass | On every output that states anything about PrepGraph's own systems; ten working days | PrepGraph has no editorial review. It receives one written factual-accuracy pass, limited to statements about its own systems, of ten working days. Silence publishes. Every comment it makes and every change that follows is logged and published with the output. It cannot delay, amend or withhold anything. The log states the date the draft was sent, who at PrepGraph received it, the date of any reply, each comment in full, and what the Council did about it, including the comments it refused. An output that says nothing about the Convener's systems is not sent at all, and the log records that it was not. |
| Delivery record | Continuous, reported quarterly and in the annual public record | Every dated commitment in this calendar is listed with its due date and the date it was met. A missed date is posted on the day it is missed, with the reason, and is not removed or backdated when the item eventually appears. An item held because fewer than seven voting members are in office is listed as held, with the gate named as the reason. Cancelled and deferred items remain listed as cancelled or deferred. The annual public record states the proportion of commitments met on time. |
| Publication log | Continuous, reviewed quarterly | Every Council document is listed with its date, version, named authors and their employer, funding, method and limitations, and with its status: founding draft, reaffirmed, amended or withdrawn. Where a document was drafted by the Convener's staff, the entry says so and names them. Where an AI system was used in drafting a document, in analysis, or in handling participant data, the entry names the system and what it was used for, which is the disclosure the Council asks of schools and therefore owes on its own work. Withdrawn or corrected documents remain listed with the correction and the date it was made. Nothing is removed. |
| Framework revision cycle | Annual, with a thirty-day interim correction path | The School AI Readiness Framework is revised once a year against consultation evidence and field use, and a revision is deferred rather than issued where the evidence is too thin to support it. A material error is corrected within thirty days of confirmation, with a public change log. Version number and date appear on every page, and superseded versions remain downloadable. |
| Parent session hosting | Planned monthly from the month after the parent pack is published in Q3, contingent on a school volunteering to host | The session is run by the host school in its language of instruction using the Council's pack. The Council supplies materials and a facilitator brief, charges nothing, does not deliver or attend the session, and collects no parent contact details. No school has been approached at the date of this calendar. Where no school hosts in a month, the log records that no session took place rather than presenting an unbroken series. |
| Term-boundary quiet period | Mid-February to mid-April, all of May and June, and the last two weeks of any board examination window | No convening that asks a principal to travel, no consultation deadline, no launch event. Mid-February to mid-April is board examinations and results; May and June are the summer vacation, when the senior staff this calendar addresses are simply absent, and a consultation that closes in either window is a consultation designed to fail. Publications and recordings may still be issued. This binds the Council as a standing constraint on the calendar; an exception requires a minuted decision recording who asked for it and why. |
The table scrolls sideways within its frame on a narrow screen.
The account at the end
On or before 31 August 2027 the Council will publish the status of every item on this page — published, in draft, or abandoned, with the reason.
What this calendar is for
Every date on this page can be missed in public.
A missed date is posted on the day it is missed, with the reason, and is not removed or backdated when the item eventually appears; cancelled and deferred items stay listed as cancelled or deferred. The founding cohort, once convened, reviews this calendar with the authority to change, defer or cancel any item in it.