Inaugural Term Programme 2026-27
The work the Council sets itself for the twelve months from 29 August 2026: 22 activities in four parts, and 8 standing commitments that run through all of them.
- Parts
- 4
- Activities
- 22
- Standing commitments
- 8
- Cost to a school
- None
This programme sets out the work the Council plans for its inaugural term, which runs for twelve months from the Founding Chair's acceptance of office on 29 August 2026. The voting members review it with authority to change it, and may add, defer or cancel any item in 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 programme of work for the inaugural term of the PrepGraph Council for Responsible AI & School Innovation, in four parts. The Charter governs, and this programme is subordinate to it. Four commitments set its 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, nothing is published in the Council's name without the approval of the Founding Chair and a majority of the voting members. 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 programme addresses, and the new session opens between April and June for most boards, so convening sits in the autumn, winter and monsoon windows, consultations close before the examination season, and instruments are released before a session begins rather than during it. Fourth, nothing in this programme requires a purchase, a membership, an email address or the Council's permission to use.
The Council operates no registration gate and keeps no list of attendees or downloaders, and no participant's details may pass to PrepGraph's commercial work. The Secretariat, provided and paid for by PrepGraph, is three named officers: 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 programme, and none counts towards quorum. 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.
PrepGraph's activity has three parts: learning software sold to students, families and schools, from school to first job; 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 the fourth part. 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.
The rules the Council can be held to
Publish the instruments that constrain the Council and open every one of them to comment, so that a reader can establish from documents alone who funds the Council, who may vote and who may not, what the Council refuses to do, and what it holds about AI in schools. The founding membership, the working groups and the public sessions follow from those rules.
- 01
The founding instruments
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. Each states on its face who issued it and that it is open for comment. 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. 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. Nothing is published in the Council's name without the approval of the Chair and a majority of the voting members. 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 PrepGraph. PrepGraph'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.
- Output
- Eight founding instruments, published in full as free web pages on this site and printable from the browser.
- Led by
- Founding Chair
- Open to
- Public. No registration, no email capture.
- 02
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. It brings together ten to twenty school leaders across CBSE, state board and ICSE schools, including schools with no AI deployment at all. The note reports the composition that actually attended, 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 PrepGraph on their own declaration of interests, and reports non-response as non-response.
- Output
- Roundtable Note 01, four to six pages, published within four weeks of the sitting, 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.
- 03
Founding membership
The Founding Chair appoints the first cohort of Founding Members. The seats are architected rather than uniform, so that the Council hears from school leadership, teacher development and pedagogy, responsible AI and technology, child development and age-appropriate use, equity and inclusion, school innovation, and education policy and systems, with an independent seat at large. 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 on joining, including any commercial relationship between their school and PrepGraph. At its first meeting the Council tests the conflict protocol against a live agenda item rather than in the abstract, and reviews this programme with authority to change it.
- Output
- Each appointment published against the seat it fills, with the member's declared interests, and a public decision summary of every meeting.
- Led by
- Founding Chair
- Open to
- Individual members are named only on their written consent.
- 04
The six working groups
The Charter provides for six working groups, one for each pillar of the work: Responsible AI & Governance, which drafts 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. Each group is led by an Expert Fellow appointed by the Founding Members, works to a written remit, and is bound by 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.
- Output
- A published note for each group: its remit, the Expert Fellow leading it, its members and their declared interests, and the items in this programme assigned to it.
- Led by
- The Founding Members, appointing the Expert Fellows who lead the groups, with the Founding Chair in the chair. The Secretariat convenes and records the groups' work and holds no vote in any of them.
- Open to
- Public: each group's remit, Fellow and membership.
- 05
Public sessions
A regular public session, held after the school working day rather than inside it. 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 opening sessions cover what the Charter commits the Council to; 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, PrepGraph included. The prohibition is written into the series brief.
- Output
- 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, on the programme and on participation, with the Founding Chair opening the series. No officer may present or describe a PrepGraph product in a session.
- Open to
- Public. Free, no registration, no attendee list.
- 06
Open comment on the founding instruments
Every founding instrument is open for comment. Anyone may comment: a school leader, a teacher, a parent, a researcher, a competitor of PrepGraph. Every substantive comment is published verbatim with the Council's response, including the comments the Council rejects. A comment is not shared with PrepGraph, except where it concerns a statement about PrepGraph's own systems. The comment record is the document the voting members read when they review each instrument.
- Output
- A published comment record listing every substantive comment verbatim with the Council's response, the change made where an instrument changed, and the reason where a comment was rejected.
- Led by
- The Founding Chair, with the Secretariat compiling the comment record. The Secretariat holds no vote on what is done with any comment in it.
- Open to
- Anyone, at council@prepgraph.com. No registration: 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 a school can run on its own, and hear from school leaders while they can give their time: the convening and the consultation in this part close before the examination season absorbs school leadership.
- 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
- The Founding Chair and the voting members
- 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 PrepGraph's own products. It sets out what a school should make of a refusal to answer. 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
- The Founding Chair and the voting members. The set applies to PrepGraph's own products in identical terms.
- Open to
- Public. Free. No registration, and no return of results in any form.
- 03
Chair's Roundtable II
The second roundtable, on 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, PrepGraph's first. As at every sitting, the note states how many participants declared a commercial relationship with PrepGraph 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 new to the roundtables. The note is public.
- 04
The baseline study protocol
The protocol for a baseline study is written and registered on a public registry that issues a citable identifier, such as the Open Science Framework Registries, before any data is collected. The study does not use the readiness framework's self-assessment sheet: a completed sheet stays in the school, and the Council 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 states its sample and what that sample can 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: the Charter forbids the Council to publish an evaluation of a PrepGraph product funded by PrepGraph. The study agreement 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.
- 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, designed so a principal can respond in twenty minutes from a phone. It runs inside the comment window and closes before the examination season 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. The Framework is revised on the consultation only where the responses are enough to support a revision.
- 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, 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 instrument to the voting members for review. Nothing is asked of a school between mid-February and the end of June, when examinations and the summer vacation take school leaders' time.
- 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, PrepGraph'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 PrepGraph and to every other provider equally. Release is 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. Any school may host a session using the pack.
- 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, with host schools. No PrepGraph product, price, pilot or contract is discussed with a host school in this work.
- Open to
- Any school may host. Materials free and public.
- 04
Review of the founding instruments
The voting members review each founding instrument and reaffirm, amend or withdraw it, as Charter Article 17 provides. The review 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 readable, marked withdrawn 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.
- Output
- A published record naming each founding instrument, the decision taken on it, the vote, any dissenting position, and, where an instrument 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.
- 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. 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 is: 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.
- Led by
- The voting members, on a revision draft prepared by the Secretariat, which holds no vote on whether v1.1 is issued
- Open to
- Public. Free and ungated.
Evidence, account and renewal
Report the first study, account for the term, and decide under Charter Article 16 whether the Council continues. Renewal is not automatic: it carries only on a resolution of two thirds of the voting members. The account of the term is published after the term ends, so that it covers the whole term.
- 01
Baseline study: first research output
The registered protocol reported in full: a 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 report states its sample, and what that sample can and cannot support, 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 PrepGraph's own material.
- Output
- A published study report with the registration identifier, the dataset and analysis code released where consent permits, the factual-accuracy correspondence with PrepGraph 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
The Charter's annual public record, published within ninety days of the end of the term and not inside the term it accounts for. It records what the Council did, what it issued, how many schools took part, what the term cost and who paid. Participation is reported as participants declared it: how many declared a commercial relationship with PrepGraph on their own declaration of interests, with non-response reported as non-response. Limitations are printed on the cover, not appended. It contains no rankings, no school scores and no vendor mentions.
- Output
- The annual public record for the inaugural term 2026-27, free and open access, with the funding statement.
- 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
The third roundtable, held 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. Both answers are published and put directly to the governance review. The note states how many participants declared a commercial relationship with PrepGraph on their own declaration of interests, with non-response reported as non-response.
- Output
- Roundtable Note 03, published within four weeks of the sitting.
- 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
The review Charter Article 16 requires, conducted by the voting members with the Founding Chair recused from the recommendation on her own term. PrepGraph takes no part: it holds no seat, no vote and no quorum standing under the Charter. The review answers in plain terms whether the conflict protocol was followed each time it was invoked; whether any attendee, respondent or downloader information reached PrepGraph; whether PrepGraph 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 PrepGraph's product development, roadmap, pricing or competitive analysis; how many schools wrote in of their own motion to say they had used the Framework; whether any Council publication overstated its evidence; and what the Council produced that PrepGraph would not have produced alone. 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, 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
- Open to
- Public. Published in full.
- 05
Decision on whether a recognition scheme can responsibly be designed
The Council operates no certification, rating or recognition scheme in its inaugural term. This decision settles only whether one may be designed for a second term, and the default answer is no. Three tests must all be met. The instrument must have demonstrated reliability beyond one revision and a single 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 PrepGraph, must have been completed. And a funding structure must exist under which PrepGraph cannot benefit, commercially or reputationally, from recognition outcomes. 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 showed, and the questions that remain open. 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 the opinion in a room, it says so. 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 parts
Standing rhythm
8 commitments that belong to no single part. Each is a repeating obligation the Council can be checked against.
| Item | Frequency | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Chair's Roundtable | Three in the inaugural term, outside the examination season and the summer vacation | 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. 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 PrepGraph on their own declaration of interests, with non-response reported as non-response. |
| Public session | Regular, after the school working day | 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, PrepGraph included. Sessions falling inside the quiet period are issued as recordings rather than live convenings. |
| Register of interests | On joining, and on any material change | Kept by the Reviewer of Concerns rather than the Secretariat, so that a record of which members' schools hold a licence, a pilot, a discount or an open negotiation with PrepGraph never sits in the funder's hands. The Secretariat holds no competitor-relationship data at all and holds no vote on any question the register touches. |
| PrepGraph 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. |
| Publication log | Continuous | Every Council document is listed with its date, version, named authors and their employer, funding, method and limitations, and with its status. Where a document was drafted by PrepGraph's staff, the entry says so and names them. 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. 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 | Monthly, wherever a school volunteers 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. |
| 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 programme addresses are away, and a consultation that closes in either window would not reach them. Publications and recordings may still be issued. This binds the Council as a standing constraint on the programme. |
The table scrolls sideways within its frame on a narrow screen.
The account at the end
At the end of the inaugural term the Council publishes its account of every item on this page, with what each one produced.
Taking part
Everything this programme produces is free for any school to use.
No item requires a purchase, a membership, an email address or the Council’s permission. School leaders, teachers and researchers can take part through founding membership, the roundtables, the public sessions and open comment on every instrument.