A quick, fair way to approve the AI tools teachers want to use

A quick, fair approval process has four parts. One person receives every request. Every tool gets the same short set of questions about the job it does, student data, age limits and access. Every answer comes with a reason, including a “not now”. Every decision goes on one list that staff can find and that the school reviews each year. Start with the tools teachers already use.

Why teachers often get there first

Teachers find useful tools quickly, often during a single evening of planning. Schools take longer, and for good reasons: budgets, contracts and checks on student data all take time. The founder, a teacher, sums up the problem: “School procurement is often slow money. Lot of hurdles.”

When the official path is slow, some teachers try tools on their own first. That tells the school which jobs need a tool. The school needs a faster path, with the same care for students.

At one school’s AI planning meeting, the first question was which AI tools to introduce, and how. A clear approval process answers both parts of that question.

One front door, with a turnaround you can keep

Name one role, such as the AI lead or the ICT leader, to receive every request. Keep the request short: the tool, the plan (free and paid plans often have different terms), the classroom job it does, and who will use it. Include new AI features that appear inside software the school already uses, since a new feature can change how the software handles data.

Publish how long a decision usually takes, and keep to it. A teacher who knows an answer will arrive by a set date is far more likely to wait for it.

Ask the same questions of every tool

Fair means every tool faces the same checks, whoever asks for it and whoever makes it. These seven questions work as a starting point.

1. What job does it do, and for whom? Staff only, or which year levels?
2. Does the department already provide a technology that does the same job? In Victorian government schools, the department’s Generative Artificial Intelligence policy (read 25 September 2026) says schools must not bring in a digital tool when a department-provided technology does the same job.
3. Has it been assessed? In Victorian government schools, the Software and Administration Systems policy (read 25 September 2026) says that before adopting new software that handles personal or sensitive information, schools must check the Arc Software catalogue for a Safer Technologies 4 Schools (ST4S) report and act on the full report. Schools must not use products assessed as non-compliant, non-participating or high risk. If there is no report, the school must ask the department’s IT Security team for an assessment, and can use the product while that assessment is under way, but may need to move to a lower-risk product when the result arrives.
4. What do the vendor’s terms say about age? In Victorian government schools, the policy (read 25 September 2026) says schools must comply with the provider’s terms, which may include an age limit.
5. Where does student data go? Ask what the tool needs at sign-up and in use, where it keeps that information, and whether it uses what people type to train its AI. In Victorian government schools, the policy (read 25 September 2026) says a tool that needs personal information beyond a school email address and a password needs opt-in consent from parents and carers first. Our article on where student data goes lists the questions to ask.
6. Can people upload or create images, audio or video of real people with it, and can the school turn that off?
7. Can every student and staff member who needs it use it? In Victorian government schools, the policy (read 25 September 2026) says that before bringing in any generative AI tool, schools must make sure it can be used in an accessible and inclusive way, including reasonable adjustments for staff and students with disability.

Catholic and independent schools, and schools in other states, check your sector’s or state’s rules for questions 2 to 5 and 7. A check result on this site can help you answer question 5, but it does not replace ST4S or your sector’s own check.

Give a reason for every answer

Three answers cover most requests. The first is yes. The second is yes with conditions, such as staff use only with no student information, or approval once a named privacy setting is turned on. The third is not now, with the reason and, where you can, an approved tool that does a similar job.

A written reason helps the teacher who asked, and the next teacher who wonders about the same tool. For example: staff may use this tool for planning with no student details, and students may not use it until we have an ST4S result. Reasons also show staff that every request is treated the same way.

Start with the tools already in use

The tools already in your classrooms deserve the first look. In Victorian government schools, the Software and Administration Systems policy (read 25 September 2026) also says schools must record an inventory of the software they already use that the department does not provide, and review any ST4S reports for it, by the end of 2028. That policy covers software that handles personally identifiable, sensitive, health or important operational data.

A short staff survey is the quickest way to build that list. Ask without blame, and thank people for telling you. Our article on what to do when teachers already use AI explains why that matters.

Keep one list, and review it

Record each decision in one place that every staff member can find. Useful columns are the tool, the plan, who may use it, the minimum age in the vendor’s terms, the ST4S or sector result, whether consent is needed, whether access has been checked, the date checked, the next review date, and the role that approved it.

Review the list each year. In Victorian government schools, the department’s policy (read 25 September 2026) says that while a tool is in use, schools should monitor its benefits and risks, and consider stopping it if the benefits are not realised or the risks are not being managed well. A yearly review is a natural time to ask those questions.

Before a request reaches you, staff can check a tool in our directory. As we publish checks, each tool page shows the result, the vendor’s own sources and the date we read them.