The 7 Things Schools Should Evaluate Before Approving an AI Tool

Teachers are experimenting with AI for lesson planning and feedback. Students are using chatbots for research, writing, studying, and problem-solving. Existing education platforms are adding AI features — sometimes without schools making a separate decision to adopt a new AI product.

For school leaders, that creates a difficult question: how do you determine whether an AI tool should actually be approved for use in your school?

A useful tool is not automatically a safe tool. A strong privacy policy does not necessarily make a product appropriate for an elementary student. And a platform that works well today may introduce new features, policies, or risks six months from now.

Schools therefore need to move beyond a simple approved/not approved decision.

SafeGrade AI recommends evaluating seven areas before approving an AI tool for student use.

The first question shouldn't be: “Is this a good AI tool?” It should be: “Is this a good AI tool for these students?”

An AI platform that may be appropriate for a 17-year-old could be completely inappropriate for a 7-year-old.

Schools should examine the provider's minimum-age requirements and terms of service, but those requirements should be treated as a starting point — not the school's entire evaluation.

Consider how the tool communicates with children, the independence it gives them, the topics they may encounter, the complexity of its outputs, and the level of adult supervision required.

Schools should ask:

AI introduces privacy questions that can extend beyond those associated with traditional educational software.

Students may enter names, assignments, personal experiences, images, voices, questions, behavioral information, or other sensitive material into AI systems. Schools need to understand what happens to that information.

Before approval, investigate:

Schools should also determine which privacy, contractual, and student-data requirements apply to their particular circumstances.

A long privacy policy alone should not be treated as evidence that a product is safe for students.

Generative AI is fundamentally different from a static textbook or traditional educational website.

Students can ask an enormous range of questions — and AI systems can generate unpredictable responses. That makes content safeguards a central part of evaluation.

Schools should consider how the product responds to:

Another important consideration is how the system behaves when it doesn't know something.

AI can produce answers that sound confident even when they are inaccurate. For children who have not yet developed strong information-literacy skills, a convincing incorrect answer can be particularly problematic.

Why are we introducing this AI tool in the first place?

“Because it uses AI” is not an educational objective. Before approving a product, schools should identify the specific problem it is supposed to solve. For example:

Then ask: what evidence supports those benefits?

Marketing claims and educational evidence are not the same thing. Schools should look for credible information about whether the product improves the outcome it claims to improve, and whether that evidence applies to students similar to their own.

Responsible AI adoption sometimes means deciding that AI is useful. It can also mean deciding that a particular activity doesn't need AI at all.

Schools frequently approach AI through the lens of cheating. That's important — but incomplete.

There is a real difference between using AI to generate brainstorming questions, explain an unfamiliar concept, or provide feedback on an existing draft, and using AI to generate the argument, write the essay, or rewrite the student's work until very little of the student's thinking remains.

The boundary will vary by grade, assignment, subject, and learning objective. Schools therefore need something more sophisticated than a universal rule saying either “AI is allowed” or “AI is prohibited.”

Before approving an AI platform, consider:

An AI tool used in a school should not become an invisible decision-maker. Educators need to understand what the system does and retain meaningful control over how students use it.

Before approval, investigate whether administrators, teachers, and parents can appropriately:

Transparency matters too. Schools should understand when students are interacting with AI, what role the AI plays, and the limitations of its outputs.

This may be the most overlooked part of AI approval. Approval should not be the end of the evaluation process.

AI products change rapidly. A vendor can introduce a new model. A chatbot can gain voice capabilities. Privacy terms can change. New integrations can appear. Safety controls can improve — or new risks can emerge. Regulations and school policies can change as well.

A tool evaluated today may therefore deserve a different assessment next year.

Adoption asks: “Can we use this?” Governance continually asks: “Should we still be using this, for these students, in this way?”

Schools are under pressure from both directions. One side argues that students need access to AI to prepare for the future. The other worries that AI threatens privacy, academic integrity, student development, and meaningful learning.

Schools don't need to choose between those extremes. A responsible approach evaluates each tool individually.

Some AI tools may provide meaningful educational benefits. Others may be appropriate only for older students. Some may require additional supervision or restrictions. And some may not belong in a particular school environment at all.

If your team cannot confidently answer those questions, the tool may not be ready for approval.

And if answering them requires hours of research every time another AI platform appears, the school has a second problem: AI evaluation itself has become an ongoing operational responsibility.

AI vendors know their products better than anyone. But schools have a different responsibility.

A vendor's job is to explain what its technology can do. A school's job is to determine whether that technology is appropriate for its students. Independent evaluation provides another layer between those two interests.

SafeGrade AI evaluates AI tools through the lens of student safety, age appropriateness, privacy, educational value, responsible use, and the practical needs of families and schools.